'Meat in the sandwich': back-and-forth about Sonia Hornery derails Wallsend violence debate
COUNCILLORS want solutions to combat an "uptick" in anti-social behaviour and violent attacks at Wallsend Library that have made staff and residents feel unsafe.
Newcastle Liberal deputy lord mayor Callum Pull tabled a motion this week urging the state government to increase police patrols and help stop troublemakers in their tracks.
Cr Pull said ratepayers are covering the cost of a security guard at the library, and now, the council is in the "extraordinary" position of considering paying police.
He said library patrons, shoppers and bus users are being "terrorised".
"Policing is the responsibility of the NSW government, and our region pours billions of dollars every year into the state government's coffers," Cr Pull said.
"So I think it's a reasonable expectation of Wallsend residents that they'd be able to feel safe in their own suburb, and that we be given the resources, and police be given the resources, that they need to effectively do their job.
"For the sake of our town and the good name of our town, I think we can expect that."
In May, youths carrying hammers attacked the windows of the library. Two weeks earlier, a group of people blocked the entry and refused to allow people to enter or leave.
That same month, Wallsend Swimming Pool was broken into and trashed for the third time this season.
The council has restricted access to the library, requiring visitors to scan their cards to enter after 3pm on weekdays.
Labor councillor Deahnna Richardson said the majority of bad behaviour in the area is perpetrated by children aged 11 to 17.
She requested targeted diversionary programs for youth and a memo detailing the agencies that have been engaged and those needed beyond police to address the issue.
"I'm incredibly sad staff do not feel safe in their workplace," Cr Richardson said.
"I'm also deeply saddened that we have a group of children ... who are so disengaged ... that they've taken to intimidating other patrons of the library, assaulting Newcastle bus drivers and vandalising our precious community spaces in quite a violent way."
Cr Richardson said there is an opportunity to intervene and put supports in place.
That tack had the support of Greens councillor Joel Pringle, who said policing alone would not address the issue.
He suggested looking at something similar to the Cairns Community Safety Plan, introduced in 2022 to measure behaviour, introduce interventions and evaluates how effective they are.
Council chief executive Jeremy Bath said the council had considered the Cairns strategy, but he had reservations about a mass CCTV rollout.
"The total number of offences in Cairns two years was 6932, it's increased to 7836 in January of this year, so it's having a limited effect," he said.
"I think it's got a lot of PR and a lot of sensationalism to it, but I don't know that it's necessarily the holistic solution that we want to be looking at."
Newcastle police have met with the council to discuss a joint response.
"A user-pays policing response is not being considered by police, as reducing anti-social behaviour and crime at the location sits within the remit of the Newcastle City Police District," a NSW Police spokesman said.
"Police have increased high-visibility patrols of the area in response to those reports and have issued move-on directions to youths at the location on two occasions in recent days."
In the last month, police have received three reports of anti-social behaviour near the library.
The council debate was momentarily derailed over whether or not Mr Bath or independent lord mayor Ross Kerridge had responded to correspondence from Wallsend MP Sonia Hornery on the issue.
Mr Bath claimed there had been no correspondence since Cr Kerridge took office and said Ms Hornery "made a decision in October last year" that she "wanted to communicate exclusively" with the lord mayor on operational issues.
"The only emails that I've received from the state member for Wallsend since the election have been to say that she will not meet with me, she will not meet with council staff, she wants to meet exclusively with you," Mr Bath said.
"I can't allow the council to think that I'm not responding to the state member for Wallsend, because I am bending over backwards to try and communicate with her."
Cr Kerridge described himself as the "meat in the sandwich".
"We need to work on it," he said.
Ms Hornery took to Facebook on Wednesday to blast Mr Bath for claims he made at the council meeting.
"Mr Bath stated that there is no correspondence from me to him relating to the Wallsend Library that has not been responded to," she said.
"I can establish that I did indeed write to Mr Bath on 8 November 2024, and the CEO did not respond."
Ms Hornery said the letter to Mr Bath was a "sincere representation" on behalf of a Wallsend constituent.
Community members are urged to report suspicious activity to local police or Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000 or call Triple Zero in an emergency.
COUNCILLORS want solutions to combat an "uptick" in anti-social behaviour and violent attacks at Wallsend Library that have made staff and residents feel unsafe.
Newcastle Liberal deputy lord mayor Callum Pull tabled a motion this week urging the state government to increase police patrols and help stop troublemakers in their tracks.
Cr Pull said ratepayers are covering the cost of a security guard at the library, and now, the council is in the "extraordinary" position of considering paying police.
He said library patrons, shoppers and bus users are being "terrorised".
"Policing is the responsibility of the NSW government, and our region pours billions of dollars every year into the state government's coffers," Cr Pull said.
"So I think it's a reasonable expectation of Wallsend residents that they'd be able to feel safe in their own suburb, and that we be given the resources, and police be given the resources, that they need to effectively do their job.
"For the sake of our town and the good name of our town, I think we can expect that."
In May, youths carrying hammers attacked the windows of the library. Two weeks earlier, a group of people blocked the entry and refused to allow people to enter or leave.
That same month, Wallsend Swimming Pool was broken into and trashed for the third time this season.
The council has restricted access to the library, requiring visitors to scan their cards to enter after 3pm on weekdays.
Labor councillor Deahnna Richardson said the majority of bad behaviour in the area is perpetrated by children aged 11 to 17.
She requested targeted diversionary programs for youth and a memo detailing the agencies that have been engaged and those needed beyond police to address the issue.
"I'm incredibly sad staff do not feel safe in their workplace," Cr Richardson said.
"I'm also deeply saddened that we have a group of children ... who are so disengaged ... that they've taken to intimidating other patrons of the library, assaulting Newcastle bus drivers and vandalising our precious community spaces in quite a violent way."
Cr Richardson said there is an opportunity to intervene and put supports in place.
That tack had the support of Greens councillor Joel Pringle, who said policing alone would not address the issue.
He suggested looking at something similar to the Cairns Community Safety Plan, introduced in 2022 to measure behaviour, introduce interventions and evaluates how effective they are.
Council chief executive Jeremy Bath said the council had considered the Cairns strategy, but he had reservations about a mass CCTV rollout.
"The total number of offences in Cairns two years was 6932, it's increased to 7836 in January of this year, so it's having a limited effect," he said.
"I think it's got a lot of PR and a lot of sensationalism to it, but I don't know that it's necessarily the holistic solution that we want to be looking at."
Newcastle police have met with the council to discuss a joint response.
"A user-pays policing response is not being considered by police, as reducing anti-social behaviour and crime at the location sits within the remit of the Newcastle City Police District," a NSW Police spokesman said.
"Police have increased high-visibility patrols of the area in response to those reports and have issued move-on directions to youths at the location on two occasions in recent days."
In the last month, police have received three reports of anti-social behaviour near the library.
The council debate was momentarily derailed over whether or not Mr Bath or independent lord mayor Ross Kerridge had responded to correspondence from Wallsend MP Sonia Hornery on the issue.
Mr Bath claimed there had been no correspondence since Cr Kerridge took office and said Ms Hornery "made a decision in October last year" that she "wanted to communicate exclusively" with the lord mayor on operational issues.
"The only emails that I've received from the state member for Wallsend since the election have been to say that she will not meet with me, she will not meet with council staff, she wants to meet exclusively with you," Mr Bath said.
"I can't allow the council to think that I'm not responding to the state member for Wallsend, because I am bending over backwards to try and communicate with her."
Cr Kerridge described himself as the "meat in the sandwich".
"We need to work on it," he said.
Ms Hornery took to Facebook on Wednesday to blast Mr Bath for claims he made at the council meeting.
"Mr Bath stated that there is no correspondence from me to him relating to the Wallsend Library that has not been responded to," she said.
"I can establish that I did indeed write to Mr Bath on 8 November 2024, and the CEO did not respond."
Ms Hornery said the letter to Mr Bath was a "sincere representation" on behalf of a Wallsend constituent.
Community members are urged to report suspicious activity to local police or Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000 or call Triple Zero in an emergency.
COUNCILLORS want solutions to combat an "uptick" in anti-social behaviour and violent attacks at Wallsend Library that have made staff and residents feel unsafe.
Newcastle Liberal deputy lord mayor Callum Pull tabled a motion this week urging the state government to increase police patrols and help stop troublemakers in their tracks.
Cr Pull said ratepayers are covering the cost of a security guard at the library, and now, the council is in the "extraordinary" position of considering paying police.
He said library patrons, shoppers and bus users are being "terrorised".
"Policing is the responsibility of the NSW government, and our region pours billions of dollars every year into the state government's coffers," Cr Pull said.
"So I think it's a reasonable expectation of Wallsend residents that they'd be able to feel safe in their own suburb, and that we be given the resources, and police be given the resources, that they need to effectively do their job.
"For the sake of our town and the good name of our town, I think we can expect that."
In May, youths carrying hammers attacked the windows of the library. Two weeks earlier, a group of people blocked the entry and refused to allow people to enter or leave.
That same month, Wallsend Swimming Pool was broken into and trashed for the third time this season.
The council has restricted access to the library, requiring visitors to scan their cards to enter after 3pm on weekdays.
Labor councillor Deahnna Richardson said the majority of bad behaviour in the area is perpetrated by children aged 11 to 17.
She requested targeted diversionary programs for youth and a memo detailing the agencies that have been engaged and those needed beyond police to address the issue.
"I'm incredibly sad staff do not feel safe in their workplace," Cr Richardson said.
"I'm also deeply saddened that we have a group of children ... who are so disengaged ... that they've taken to intimidating other patrons of the library, assaulting Newcastle bus drivers and vandalising our precious community spaces in quite a violent way."
Cr Richardson said there is an opportunity to intervene and put supports in place.
That tack had the support of Greens councillor Joel Pringle, who said policing alone would not address the issue.
He suggested looking at something similar to the Cairns Community Safety Plan, introduced in 2022 to measure behaviour, introduce interventions and evaluates how effective they are.
Council chief executive Jeremy Bath said the council had considered the Cairns strategy, but he had reservations about a mass CCTV rollout.
"The total number of offences in Cairns two years was 6932, it's increased to 7836 in January of this year, so it's having a limited effect," he said.
"I think it's got a lot of PR and a lot of sensationalism to it, but I don't know that it's necessarily the holistic solution that we want to be looking at."
Newcastle police have met with the council to discuss a joint response.
"A user-pays policing response is not being considered by police, as reducing anti-social behaviour and crime at the location sits within the remit of the Newcastle City Police District," a NSW Police spokesman said.
"Police have increased high-visibility patrols of the area in response to those reports and have issued move-on directions to youths at the location on two occasions in recent days."
In the last month, police have received three reports of anti-social behaviour near the library.
The council debate was momentarily derailed over whether or not Mr Bath or independent lord mayor Ross Kerridge had responded to correspondence from Wallsend MP Sonia Hornery on the issue.
Mr Bath claimed there had been no correspondence since Cr Kerridge took office and said Ms Hornery "made a decision in October last year" that she "wanted to communicate exclusively" with the lord mayor on operational issues.
"The only emails that I've received from the state member for Wallsend since the election have been to say that she will not meet with me, she will not meet with council staff, she wants to meet exclusively with you," Mr Bath said.
"I can't allow the council to think that I'm not responding to the state member for Wallsend, because I am bending over backwards to try and communicate with her."
Cr Kerridge described himself as the "meat in the sandwich".
"We need to work on it," he said.
Ms Hornery took to Facebook on Wednesday to blast Mr Bath for claims he made at the council meeting.
"Mr Bath stated that there is no correspondence from me to him relating to the Wallsend Library that has not been responded to," she said.
"I can establish that I did indeed write to Mr Bath on 8 November 2024, and the CEO did not respond."
Ms Hornery said the letter to Mr Bath was a "sincere representation" on behalf of a Wallsend constituent.
Community members are urged to report suspicious activity to local police or Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000 or call Triple Zero in an emergency.
COUNCILLORS want solutions to combat an "uptick" in anti-social behaviour and violent attacks at Wallsend Library that have made staff and residents feel unsafe.
Newcastle Liberal deputy lord mayor Callum Pull tabled a motion this week urging the state government to increase police patrols and help stop troublemakers in their tracks.
Cr Pull said ratepayers are covering the cost of a security guard at the library, and now, the council is in the "extraordinary" position of considering paying police.
He said library patrons, shoppers and bus users are being "terrorised".
"Policing is the responsibility of the NSW government, and our region pours billions of dollars every year into the state government's coffers," Cr Pull said.
"So I think it's a reasonable expectation of Wallsend residents that they'd be able to feel safe in their own suburb, and that we be given the resources, and police be given the resources, that they need to effectively do their job.
"For the sake of our town and the good name of our town, I think we can expect that."
In May, youths carrying hammers attacked the windows of the library. Two weeks earlier, a group of people blocked the entry and refused to allow people to enter or leave.
That same month, Wallsend Swimming Pool was broken into and trashed for the third time this season.
The council has restricted access to the library, requiring visitors to scan their cards to enter after 3pm on weekdays.
Labor councillor Deahnna Richardson said the majority of bad behaviour in the area is perpetrated by children aged 11 to 17.
She requested targeted diversionary programs for youth and a memo detailing the agencies that have been engaged and those needed beyond police to address the issue.
"I'm incredibly sad staff do not feel safe in their workplace," Cr Richardson said.
"I'm also deeply saddened that we have a group of children ... who are so disengaged ... that they've taken to intimidating other patrons of the library, assaulting Newcastle bus drivers and vandalising our precious community spaces in quite a violent way."
Cr Richardson said there is an opportunity to intervene and put supports in place.
That tack had the support of Greens councillor Joel Pringle, who said policing alone would not address the issue.
He suggested looking at something similar to the Cairns Community Safety Plan, introduced in 2022 to measure behaviour, introduce interventions and evaluates how effective they are.
Council chief executive Jeremy Bath said the council had considered the Cairns strategy, but he had reservations about a mass CCTV rollout.
"The total number of offences in Cairns two years was 6932, it's increased to 7836 in January of this year, so it's having a limited effect," he said.
"I think it's got a lot of PR and a lot of sensationalism to it, but I don't know that it's necessarily the holistic solution that we want to be looking at."
Newcastle police have met with the council to discuss a joint response.
"A user-pays policing response is not being considered by police, as reducing anti-social behaviour and crime at the location sits within the remit of the Newcastle City Police District," a NSW Police spokesman said.
"Police have increased high-visibility patrols of the area in response to those reports and have issued move-on directions to youths at the location on two occasions in recent days."
In the last month, police have received three reports of anti-social behaviour near the library.
The council debate was momentarily derailed over whether or not Mr Bath or independent lord mayor Ross Kerridge had responded to correspondence from Wallsend MP Sonia Hornery on the issue.
Mr Bath claimed there had been no correspondence since Cr Kerridge took office and said Ms Hornery "made a decision in October last year" that she "wanted to communicate exclusively" with the lord mayor on operational issues.
"The only emails that I've received from the state member for Wallsend since the election have been to say that she will not meet with me, she will not meet with council staff, she wants to meet exclusively with you," Mr Bath said.
"I can't allow the council to think that I'm not responding to the state member for Wallsend, because I am bending over backwards to try and communicate with her."
Cr Kerridge described himself as the "meat in the sandwich".
"We need to work on it," he said.
Ms Hornery took to Facebook on Wednesday to blast Mr Bath for claims he made at the council meeting.
"Mr Bath stated that there is no correspondence from me to him relating to the Wallsend Library that has not been responded to," she said.
"I can establish that I did indeed write to Mr Bath on 8 November 2024, and the CEO did not respond."
Ms Hornery said the letter to Mr Bath was a "sincere representation" on behalf of a Wallsend constituent.
Community members are urged to report suspicious activity to local police or Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000 or call Triple Zero in an emergency.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
One wouldn't want to deprive Albanese of any credit he deserved, but...
Anthony Albanese is falling back into the sort of bad habits that could bring him down as Labor leader. Despite talking of national conversations about productivity, about tax, and about Australia's sense of itself, he seems to think discussions can take place behind closed doors, with selected participants working off his agenda, and with the general public unable to see, hear, or get even a smell or a taste of what it was all about until it has come to its predetermined conclusion. That's not a way to build a national consensus or a common understanding of how the nation will face the future. While backroom deals and fixes may see him through some of the economic problems, a failure to have a wide consultation could do him great damage when it comes to Australia's reorienting itself to current circumstances in our neighbourhood, and in whatever remains of the Western alliance. It may be that the AUKUS deal can survive, in one form or another, the big shifts brought on by Donald Trump. Australian ministers, from Albanese down, are pretending, or hoping, it can, even as NATO and other Western alliance defence arrangements seem headed for collapse. Some seem to think that the US can maintain a system of alliances around the western Pacific - involving Japan, Korea and Australia - even as European relationships implode. Perhaps, but, whether in the Pacific or the wider world, there cannot be any reversion to the situation before Trump arrived, or the situation after Trump imposed unilateral tariffs on all of his allies. No post-Trump president will be able to pretend that nothing happened during the Trump Reich, and that normal service can quickly be resumed. Trump has fractured the Bretton Woods system of international trade - what Richard Marles insists on calling "a rules-based international order" long after the game has changed. He has repudiated much of the web of relationships around Europe and the Middle East, particularly over the future of Ukraine. The value of American guarantees, promises and understandings (including ANZUS and AUKUS) is much diminished, as is the idea of one-in, all-in if someone breaches the peace. And who knows how Israel's adventures into Iran have changed the strategic map of the Middle East. If America is to have its druthers, future trade arrangements between nations will be based on bilateral arrangements, not multinational ones. Alternatively - and more likely - new regional and political alliances will form around multilateral agreements which do not include the United States. The trans-Pacific partnership - quite possibly including China, Canada and Europe - might well be a model. America may make an individualised deal with each nation, but even if it draws back from initial tariffs settings, most nations will see the wisdom of seeking markets anywhere but in the US. For many countries, a primary market will be China, preferred as a buyer or a seller ahead of the unreliable US. Australians can hardly help but be aware that the whole system of our international relationships is changing, and that Australia itself may have little influence on the final wash-up. We are not a big enough player to be invited into all the big-boys' clubs. When the US thinks of its alliances, Australia is not the first country that comes to its mind: we are probably 12th in the queue. To the extent that America-First recognises old obligations, the deals in squaring off the 11 higher in priority will severely pinch what is available to us. It will be worse if the US picks off its "allies" one by one in the manner of the supplicants (Australia included) seeking to negotiate individual deals for themselves. I am always reminded of what a senior American official once said to Margaret Thatcher when, in Washington, she spoke of the bonds of kinship and special relationship. The official said, "Madam, you may be right about this common history and so on, but I assure you that when the US is thinking of its national interest, it thinks of Britain about as often as when Britain, considering its own interest, thinks of the Isle of Wight". Polls show that Australian trust of the US has plummeted. Our distrust of Trump's America is higher than almost any other country, even Canada, and we haven't been threatened with an imperial takeover. A majority rate China as more trustworthy, even in spite of the freeze in relationships and trade sanctions after China was consciously baited by the Morrison government. Other polls show that Australians well understand the difference between a national leader and his policies, and the temper of the general population. But after the Trump election, there is also unease about his constituencies, the authoritarian, even fascist push, the influence in policy of racism, bigotry and anti-immigration feeling and the increasing influence of the Christian fundamentalist right. Much goodwill has evaporated. In contrast, the defence and intelligence establishment has not wavered in preferring the US even to Australia itself. But politicians on both sides of the fence are increasingly conscious that there is no automatic Australian mood to support the US if there were an attack on Taiwan. Nor is there any Australian instinct to see the world through American eyes. National unease is hardly helped by war in the Middle East, the reduction of Gaza and the massacre of its population, by events in Ukraine and by the apparent incapacity of Europe to unite militarily if the US is not an active partner. There is no shortage of information in public forums, much of which is highly critical of the US. Anyone can have a well-informed opinion. But that opinion is hardly being guided by Albanese or the Australian government. Very little is emerging officially canvassing possibilities about what could or should happen. Ministers seem to be denying that anything much is happening. Albanese seems to think that public comment or discussion by official figures should be avoided, lest it cause offence to Trump and inspire or incite some violent reaction. In Canada, Britain, Germany and France, ministers are openly discussing the brave new world. But not here. It is unlikely that Trump or the official US will judge that the comparative silence from Australia means that there is no discussion occurring here. But they may well deduce that the silence from the politicians, and from military and intelligence figures, suggests that the docile ally will not make much fuss. Or that it is unlikely to shift towards our own view of the world, rather than America's. An obvious example might be the American trade war with China, or in making it clear that Australia is not planning on getting involved in any measures to defend Taiwan. But there are also other issues - for example, over the nuclear submarine purchases, or vital US intelligence gathering and command equipment at Pine Gap and elsewhere. Albanese is mouthing polite nothings, other than insisting that he is not about to double our defence spending just because an American media figure-cum Secretary of Defence says we should. Marles, the weakest link in the Australian chain, is a dead letter in any argument, even or particularly when he seems to be parroting a position that has originated in the US. It cannot be expected that significant change to the relationship will occur only incrementally. Or that it will evolve naturally from events in the control of others. Nor can we assume that Albanese, or Marles, or for that matter Penny Wong, have the wit and the speed to shift American opinion. There has not even been any sort of softening-up process. The turning point, perhaps, will be when Albanese finally gets his meeting with Trump. Even there, more likely than not, it will be statements from Trump rather than Albanese to which even Australians will pay most attention. We are not leaving "home". It's the US throwing us out. Albanese, presumably, has rehearsed his reaction to many of the propositions that Trump can be expected to put. He has, after all, put very similar ones to other countries, and he has, additionally, made it quite clear that we are nothing special in his eyes. But Albanese has not confided his strategy or tactics to Parliament, in the media, or in open forums. He has not addressed conferences at which the government's opinions are communicated. What is on the public record, whether in relation to the strategic thinking around AUKUS or Australia's strategic situation generally, is full of waffly words and slogans that could mean anything. Is discussion to be an invitation-only jamboree, or can every parrot in every pet shop have a go? MORE JACK WATERFORD: Could it be that Albanese expects that a matter so vital is to be resolved merely in Cabinet, without any wide public discussion? Or some committee of old Labor warhorses such as Kim Beazley and Stephen Smith? Is there a soldier in the land (or for that matter a spook) to whom the political, social and military problems should be consigned without the popular will being engaged? Is there a place at the table for Paul Keating, Malcolm Turnbull, Gareth Evans or Bob Carr, or any of the third of the electorate who vote, not for Labor nor the Liberals but for parties such as the Greens, the teals, or independents such as David Pocock? Is productivity, for which a conference of insiders is planned, more important than the place of Australia among the nations of the world? One has to hope that Albanese's silence about a time and a place for public discussion and debate is not for want of a plan to engage the population. But so far, on form, one has to expect that he lacks a plan. He has no model for public discussion, and no apparent appetite for it. This could involve reverting to the style of government that he delivered in his first term. Secretive. Unwilling and seemingly unable to communicate with the general public, including those who want Labor to succeed. (Labor is always more awkward, and guilty looking, in consulting its own traditional supporters rather than hostile captains of industry.) Will there be ready but unaccountable access for some special interests, such as the arms industry and the defence establishment? There's an already established pattern of insiders given undue and improper influence, in the same manner as the gambling and liquor crowd and the old media lobbies on other issues. One thing is for sure. No one can say that Albanese has a popular mandate, arising from the landslide election, to do what he wants on such a fundamental change in our circumstances. Defence and foreign affairs scarcely figured in the election, and the two major parties had no disagreements of any substance. No citizen acquired any extra information from any defence debate. It may be true that a debate, if it occurs, will be rancorous. The big vested interests are keen on throwing about claims of being soft on national security and having ambiguous and uncertain loyalties. It could become as unpleasant as the Voice referendum. But that is not a reason for having a secret debate, or no debate at all. This matters too much. Our own sense of identity, culture, history and future are involved. Australia needs to develop an understanding of Australian nationality which has moved on, a bit at least, from when white men flew a flag containing a Union Jack at Gallipoli 110 years ago. It's a debate that embraces Australians whose ancestors were not here at the time of Gallipoli but are in every sense citizens nonetheless. A debate that involves Aboriginal Australians, whose interests were usually ignored while compiling patriotic encomia and pap. A debate involving young Australians who will have to live in a harsher, hotter and more hostile world because of pragmatic decisions made by current politicians on both sides of the fence. It's not for Albo to run Australians inside or out of the arena. Some within a smug party, having won the election more comfortably than anyone expected, have come to think that the election was won by Albanese's calm, patience and political genius. That the very landslide is a refutation of suggestions that first-term Labor was a "disappointment", with an inarticulate leader too timid to go far or fast, or to take ordinary voters into his confidence. Any prime minister who wins a second, or third, term will see it as a vindication of his or her personality, governing style and methods. They will expect that internal and external critics treat them with more respect in future. Particularly for their political skills. One wouldn't want to deprive Albanese of any credit he deserved. But it is just possible that a sizeable proportion of the increased vote for Labor came more from fear of what sort of leadership or policies a MAGA-Down-Under Peter Dutton might have delivered than from enthusiastic re-endorsement of Albanese and his team. Or embrace of Albo's vision - whatever it was - of old alliances, new alliances, and how we trade with, talk with and share with our neighbours. Anthony Albanese is falling back into the sort of bad habits that could bring him down as Labor leader. Despite talking of national conversations about productivity, about tax, and about Australia's sense of itself, he seems to think discussions can take place behind closed doors, with selected participants working off his agenda, and with the general public unable to see, hear, or get even a smell or a taste of what it was all about until it has come to its predetermined conclusion. That's not a way to build a national consensus or a common understanding of how the nation will face the future. While backroom deals and fixes may see him through some of the economic problems, a failure to have a wide consultation could do him great damage when it comes to Australia's reorienting itself to current circumstances in our neighbourhood, and in whatever remains of the Western alliance. It may be that the AUKUS deal can survive, in one form or another, the big shifts brought on by Donald Trump. Australian ministers, from Albanese down, are pretending, or hoping, it can, even as NATO and other Western alliance defence arrangements seem headed for collapse. Some seem to think that the US can maintain a system of alliances around the western Pacific - involving Japan, Korea and Australia - even as European relationships implode. Perhaps, but, whether in the Pacific or the wider world, there cannot be any reversion to the situation before Trump arrived, or the situation after Trump imposed unilateral tariffs on all of his allies. No post-Trump president will be able to pretend that nothing happened during the Trump Reich, and that normal service can quickly be resumed. Trump has fractured the Bretton Woods system of international trade - what Richard Marles insists on calling "a rules-based international order" long after the game has changed. He has repudiated much of the web of relationships around Europe and the Middle East, particularly over the future of Ukraine. The value of American guarantees, promises and understandings (including ANZUS and AUKUS) is much diminished, as is the idea of one-in, all-in if someone breaches the peace. And who knows how Israel's adventures into Iran have changed the strategic map of the Middle East. If America is to have its druthers, future trade arrangements between nations will be based on bilateral arrangements, not multinational ones. Alternatively - and more likely - new regional and political alliances will form around multilateral agreements which do not include the United States. The trans-Pacific partnership - quite possibly including China, Canada and Europe - might well be a model. America may make an individualised deal with each nation, but even if it draws back from initial tariffs settings, most nations will see the wisdom of seeking markets anywhere but in the US. For many countries, a primary market will be China, preferred as a buyer or a seller ahead of the unreliable US. Australians can hardly help but be aware that the whole system of our international relationships is changing, and that Australia itself may have little influence on the final wash-up. We are not a big enough player to be invited into all the big-boys' clubs. When the US thinks of its alliances, Australia is not the first country that comes to its mind: we are probably 12th in the queue. To the extent that America-First recognises old obligations, the deals in squaring off the 11 higher in priority will severely pinch what is available to us. It will be worse if the US picks off its "allies" one by one in the manner of the supplicants (Australia included) seeking to negotiate individual deals for themselves. I am always reminded of what a senior American official once said to Margaret Thatcher when, in Washington, she spoke of the bonds of kinship and special relationship. The official said, "Madam, you may be right about this common history and so on, but I assure you that when the US is thinking of its national interest, it thinks of Britain about as often as when Britain, considering its own interest, thinks of the Isle of Wight". Polls show that Australian trust of the US has plummeted. Our distrust of Trump's America is higher than almost any other country, even Canada, and we haven't been threatened with an imperial takeover. A majority rate China as more trustworthy, even in spite of the freeze in relationships and trade sanctions after China was consciously baited by the Morrison government. Other polls show that Australians well understand the difference between a national leader and his policies, and the temper of the general population. But after the Trump election, there is also unease about his constituencies, the authoritarian, even fascist push, the influence in policy of racism, bigotry and anti-immigration feeling and the increasing influence of the Christian fundamentalist right. Much goodwill has evaporated. In contrast, the defence and intelligence establishment has not wavered in preferring the US even to Australia itself. But politicians on both sides of the fence are increasingly conscious that there is no automatic Australian mood to support the US if there were an attack on Taiwan. Nor is there any Australian instinct to see the world through American eyes. National unease is hardly helped by war in the Middle East, the reduction of Gaza and the massacre of its population, by events in Ukraine and by the apparent incapacity of Europe to unite militarily if the US is not an active partner. There is no shortage of information in public forums, much of which is highly critical of the US. Anyone can have a well-informed opinion. But that opinion is hardly being guided by Albanese or the Australian government. Very little is emerging officially canvassing possibilities about what could or should happen. Ministers seem to be denying that anything much is happening. Albanese seems to think that public comment or discussion by official figures should be avoided, lest it cause offence to Trump and inspire or incite some violent reaction. In Canada, Britain, Germany and France, ministers are openly discussing the brave new world. But not here. It is unlikely that Trump or the official US will judge that the comparative silence from Australia means that there is no discussion occurring here. But they may well deduce that the silence from the politicians, and from military and intelligence figures, suggests that the docile ally will not make much fuss. Or that it is unlikely to shift towards our own view of the world, rather than America's. An obvious example might be the American trade war with China, or in making it clear that Australia is not planning on getting involved in any measures to defend Taiwan. But there are also other issues - for example, over the nuclear submarine purchases, or vital US intelligence gathering and command equipment at Pine Gap and elsewhere. Albanese is mouthing polite nothings, other than insisting that he is not about to double our defence spending just because an American media figure-cum Secretary of Defence says we should. Marles, the weakest link in the Australian chain, is a dead letter in any argument, even or particularly when he seems to be parroting a position that has originated in the US. It cannot be expected that significant change to the relationship will occur only incrementally. Or that it will evolve naturally from events in the control of others. Nor can we assume that Albanese, or Marles, or for that matter Penny Wong, have the wit and the speed to shift American opinion. There has not even been any sort of softening-up process. The turning point, perhaps, will be when Albanese finally gets his meeting with Trump. Even there, more likely than not, it will be statements from Trump rather than Albanese to which even Australians will pay most attention. We are not leaving "home". It's the US throwing us out. Albanese, presumably, has rehearsed his reaction to many of the propositions that Trump can be expected to put. He has, after all, put very similar ones to other countries, and he has, additionally, made it quite clear that we are nothing special in his eyes. But Albanese has not confided his strategy or tactics to Parliament, in the media, or in open forums. He has not addressed conferences at which the government's opinions are communicated. What is on the public record, whether in relation to the strategic thinking around AUKUS or Australia's strategic situation generally, is full of waffly words and slogans that could mean anything. Is discussion to be an invitation-only jamboree, or can every parrot in every pet shop have a go? MORE JACK WATERFORD: Could it be that Albanese expects that a matter so vital is to be resolved merely in Cabinet, without any wide public discussion? Or some committee of old Labor warhorses such as Kim Beazley and Stephen Smith? Is there a soldier in the land (or for that matter a spook) to whom the political, social and military problems should be consigned without the popular will being engaged? Is there a place at the table for Paul Keating, Malcolm Turnbull, Gareth Evans or Bob Carr, or any of the third of the electorate who vote, not for Labor nor the Liberals but for parties such as the Greens, the teals, or independents such as David Pocock? Is productivity, for which a conference of insiders is planned, more important than the place of Australia among the nations of the world? One has to hope that Albanese's silence about a time and a place for public discussion and debate is not for want of a plan to engage the population. But so far, on form, one has to expect that he lacks a plan. He has no model for public discussion, and no apparent appetite for it. This could involve reverting to the style of government that he delivered in his first term. Secretive. Unwilling and seemingly unable to communicate with the general public, including those who want Labor to succeed. (Labor is always more awkward, and guilty looking, in consulting its own traditional supporters rather than hostile captains of industry.) Will there be ready but unaccountable access for some special interests, such as the arms industry and the defence establishment? There's an already established pattern of insiders given undue and improper influence, in the same manner as the gambling and liquor crowd and the old media lobbies on other issues. One thing is for sure. No one can say that Albanese has a popular mandate, arising from the landslide election, to do what he wants on such a fundamental change in our circumstances. Defence and foreign affairs scarcely figured in the election, and the two major parties had no disagreements of any substance. No citizen acquired any extra information from any defence debate. It may be true that a debate, if it occurs, will be rancorous. The big vested interests are keen on throwing about claims of being soft on national security and having ambiguous and uncertain loyalties. It could become as unpleasant as the Voice referendum. But that is not a reason for having a secret debate, or no debate at all. This matters too much. Our own sense of identity, culture, history and future are involved. Australia needs to develop an understanding of Australian nationality which has moved on, a bit at least, from when white men flew a flag containing a Union Jack at Gallipoli 110 years ago. It's a debate that embraces Australians whose ancestors were not here at the time of Gallipoli but are in every sense citizens nonetheless. A debate that involves Aboriginal Australians, whose interests were usually ignored while compiling patriotic encomia and pap. A debate involving young Australians who will have to live in a harsher, hotter and more hostile world because of pragmatic decisions made by current politicians on both sides of the fence. It's not for Albo to run Australians inside or out of the arena. Some within a smug party, having won the election more comfortably than anyone expected, have come to think that the election was won by Albanese's calm, patience and political genius. That the very landslide is a refutation of suggestions that first-term Labor was a "disappointment", with an inarticulate leader too timid to go far or fast, or to take ordinary voters into his confidence. Any prime minister who wins a second, or third, term will see it as a vindication of his or her personality, governing style and methods. They will expect that internal and external critics treat them with more respect in future. Particularly for their political skills. One wouldn't want to deprive Albanese of any credit he deserved. But it is just possible that a sizeable proportion of the increased vote for Labor came more from fear of what sort of leadership or policies a MAGA-Down-Under Peter Dutton might have delivered than from enthusiastic re-endorsement of Albanese and his team. Or embrace of Albo's vision - whatever it was - of old alliances, new alliances, and how we trade with, talk with and share with our neighbours. Anthony Albanese is falling back into the sort of bad habits that could bring him down as Labor leader. Despite talking of national conversations about productivity, about tax, and about Australia's sense of itself, he seems to think discussions can take place behind closed doors, with selected participants working off his agenda, and with the general public unable to see, hear, or get even a smell or a taste of what it was all about until it has come to its predetermined conclusion. That's not a way to build a national consensus or a common understanding of how the nation will face the future. While backroom deals and fixes may see him through some of the economic problems, a failure to have a wide consultation could do him great damage when it comes to Australia's reorienting itself to current circumstances in our neighbourhood, and in whatever remains of the Western alliance. It may be that the AUKUS deal can survive, in one form or another, the big shifts brought on by Donald Trump. Australian ministers, from Albanese down, are pretending, or hoping, it can, even as NATO and other Western alliance defence arrangements seem headed for collapse. Some seem to think that the US can maintain a system of alliances around the western Pacific - involving Japan, Korea and Australia - even as European relationships implode. Perhaps, but, whether in the Pacific or the wider world, there cannot be any reversion to the situation before Trump arrived, or the situation after Trump imposed unilateral tariffs on all of his allies. No post-Trump president will be able to pretend that nothing happened during the Trump Reich, and that normal service can quickly be resumed. Trump has fractured the Bretton Woods system of international trade - what Richard Marles insists on calling "a rules-based international order" long after the game has changed. He has repudiated much of the web of relationships around Europe and the Middle East, particularly over the future of Ukraine. The value of American guarantees, promises and understandings (including ANZUS and AUKUS) is much diminished, as is the idea of one-in, all-in if someone breaches the peace. And who knows how Israel's adventures into Iran have changed the strategic map of the Middle East. If America is to have its druthers, future trade arrangements between nations will be based on bilateral arrangements, not multinational ones. Alternatively - and more likely - new regional and political alliances will form around multilateral agreements which do not include the United States. The trans-Pacific partnership - quite possibly including China, Canada and Europe - might well be a model. America may make an individualised deal with each nation, but even if it draws back from initial tariffs settings, most nations will see the wisdom of seeking markets anywhere but in the US. For many countries, a primary market will be China, preferred as a buyer or a seller ahead of the unreliable US. Australians can hardly help but be aware that the whole system of our international relationships is changing, and that Australia itself may have little influence on the final wash-up. We are not a big enough player to be invited into all the big-boys' clubs. When the US thinks of its alliances, Australia is not the first country that comes to its mind: we are probably 12th in the queue. To the extent that America-First recognises old obligations, the deals in squaring off the 11 higher in priority will severely pinch what is available to us. It will be worse if the US picks off its "allies" one by one in the manner of the supplicants (Australia included) seeking to negotiate individual deals for themselves. I am always reminded of what a senior American official once said to Margaret Thatcher when, in Washington, she spoke of the bonds of kinship and special relationship. The official said, "Madam, you may be right about this common history and so on, but I assure you that when the US is thinking of its national interest, it thinks of Britain about as often as when Britain, considering its own interest, thinks of the Isle of Wight". Polls show that Australian trust of the US has plummeted. Our distrust of Trump's America is higher than almost any other country, even Canada, and we haven't been threatened with an imperial takeover. A majority rate China as more trustworthy, even in spite of the freeze in relationships and trade sanctions after China was consciously baited by the Morrison government. Other polls show that Australians well understand the difference between a national leader and his policies, and the temper of the general population. But after the Trump election, there is also unease about his constituencies, the authoritarian, even fascist push, the influence in policy of racism, bigotry and anti-immigration feeling and the increasing influence of the Christian fundamentalist right. Much goodwill has evaporated. In contrast, the defence and intelligence establishment has not wavered in preferring the US even to Australia itself. But politicians on both sides of the fence are increasingly conscious that there is no automatic Australian mood to support the US if there were an attack on Taiwan. Nor is there any Australian instinct to see the world through American eyes. National unease is hardly helped by war in the Middle East, the reduction of Gaza and the massacre of its population, by events in Ukraine and by the apparent incapacity of Europe to unite militarily if the US is not an active partner. There is no shortage of information in public forums, much of which is highly critical of the US. Anyone can have a well-informed opinion. But that opinion is hardly being guided by Albanese or the Australian government. Very little is emerging officially canvassing possibilities about what could or should happen. Ministers seem to be denying that anything much is happening. Albanese seems to think that public comment or discussion by official figures should be avoided, lest it cause offence to Trump and inspire or incite some violent reaction. In Canada, Britain, Germany and France, ministers are openly discussing the brave new world. But not here. It is unlikely that Trump or the official US will judge that the comparative silence from Australia means that there is no discussion occurring here. But they may well deduce that the silence from the politicians, and from military and intelligence figures, suggests that the docile ally will not make much fuss. Or that it is unlikely to shift towards our own view of the world, rather than America's. An obvious example might be the American trade war with China, or in making it clear that Australia is not planning on getting involved in any measures to defend Taiwan. But there are also other issues - for example, over the nuclear submarine purchases, or vital US intelligence gathering and command equipment at Pine Gap and elsewhere. Albanese is mouthing polite nothings, other than insisting that he is not about to double our defence spending just because an American media figure-cum Secretary of Defence says we should. Marles, the weakest link in the Australian chain, is a dead letter in any argument, even or particularly when he seems to be parroting a position that has originated in the US. It cannot be expected that significant change to the relationship will occur only incrementally. Or that it will evolve naturally from events in the control of others. Nor can we assume that Albanese, or Marles, or for that matter Penny Wong, have the wit and the speed to shift American opinion. There has not even been any sort of softening-up process. The turning point, perhaps, will be when Albanese finally gets his meeting with Trump. Even there, more likely than not, it will be statements from Trump rather than Albanese to which even Australians will pay most attention. We are not leaving "home". It's the US throwing us out. Albanese, presumably, has rehearsed his reaction to many of the propositions that Trump can be expected to put. He has, after all, put very similar ones to other countries, and he has, additionally, made it quite clear that we are nothing special in his eyes. But Albanese has not confided his strategy or tactics to Parliament, in the media, or in open forums. He has not addressed conferences at which the government's opinions are communicated. What is on the public record, whether in relation to the strategic thinking around AUKUS or Australia's strategic situation generally, is full of waffly words and slogans that could mean anything. Is discussion to be an invitation-only jamboree, or can every parrot in every pet shop have a go? MORE JACK WATERFORD: Could it be that Albanese expects that a matter so vital is to be resolved merely in Cabinet, without any wide public discussion? Or some committee of old Labor warhorses such as Kim Beazley and Stephen Smith? Is there a soldier in the land (or for that matter a spook) to whom the political, social and military problems should be consigned without the popular will being engaged? Is there a place at the table for Paul Keating, Malcolm Turnbull, Gareth Evans or Bob Carr, or any of the third of the electorate who vote, not for Labor nor the Liberals but for parties such as the Greens, the teals, or independents such as David Pocock? Is productivity, for which a conference of insiders is planned, more important than the place of Australia among the nations of the world? One has to hope that Albanese's silence about a time and a place for public discussion and debate is not for want of a plan to engage the population. But so far, on form, one has to expect that he lacks a plan. He has no model for public discussion, and no apparent appetite for it. This could involve reverting to the style of government that he delivered in his first term. Secretive. Unwilling and seemingly unable to communicate with the general public, including those who want Labor to succeed. (Labor is always more awkward, and guilty looking, in consulting its own traditional supporters rather than hostile captains of industry.) Will there be ready but unaccountable access for some special interests, such as the arms industry and the defence establishment? There's an already established pattern of insiders given undue and improper influence, in the same manner as the gambling and liquor crowd and the old media lobbies on other issues. One thing is for sure. No one can say that Albanese has a popular mandate, arising from the landslide election, to do what he wants on such a fundamental change in our circumstances. Defence and foreign affairs scarcely figured in the election, and the two major parties had no disagreements of any substance. No citizen acquired any extra information from any defence debate. It may be true that a debate, if it occurs, will be rancorous. The big vested interests are keen on throwing about claims of being soft on national security and having ambiguous and uncertain loyalties. It could become as unpleasant as the Voice referendum. But that is not a reason for having a secret debate, or no debate at all. This matters too much. Our own sense of identity, culture, history and future are involved. Australia needs to develop an understanding of Australian nationality which has moved on, a bit at least, from when white men flew a flag containing a Union Jack at Gallipoli 110 years ago. It's a debate that embraces Australians whose ancestors were not here at the time of Gallipoli but are in every sense citizens nonetheless. A debate that involves Aboriginal Australians, whose interests were usually ignored while compiling patriotic encomia and pap. A debate involving young Australians who will have to live in a harsher, hotter and more hostile world because of pragmatic decisions made by current politicians on both sides of the fence. It's not for Albo to run Australians inside or out of the arena. Some within a smug party, having won the election more comfortably than anyone expected, have come to think that the election was won by Albanese's calm, patience and political genius. That the very landslide is a refutation of suggestions that first-term Labor was a "disappointment", with an inarticulate leader too timid to go far or fast, or to take ordinary voters into his confidence. Any prime minister who wins a second, or third, term will see it as a vindication of his or her personality, governing style and methods. They will expect that internal and external critics treat them with more respect in future. Particularly for their political skills. One wouldn't want to deprive Albanese of any credit he deserved. But it is just possible that a sizeable proportion of the increased vote for Labor came more from fear of what sort of leadership or policies a MAGA-Down-Under Peter Dutton might have delivered than from enthusiastic re-endorsement of Albanese and his team. Or embrace of Albo's vision - whatever it was - of old alliances, new alliances, and how we trade with, talk with and share with our neighbours. Anthony Albanese is falling back into the sort of bad habits that could bring him down as Labor leader. Despite talking of national conversations about productivity, about tax, and about Australia's sense of itself, he seems to think discussions can take place behind closed doors, with selected participants working off his agenda, and with the general public unable to see, hear, or get even a smell or a taste of what it was all about until it has come to its predetermined conclusion. That's not a way to build a national consensus or a common understanding of how the nation will face the future. While backroom deals and fixes may see him through some of the economic problems, a failure to have a wide consultation could do him great damage when it comes to Australia's reorienting itself to current circumstances in our neighbourhood, and in whatever remains of the Western alliance. It may be that the AUKUS deal can survive, in one form or another, the big shifts brought on by Donald Trump. Australian ministers, from Albanese down, are pretending, or hoping, it can, even as NATO and other Western alliance defence arrangements seem headed for collapse. Some seem to think that the US can maintain a system of alliances around the western Pacific - involving Japan, Korea and Australia - even as European relationships implode. Perhaps, but, whether in the Pacific or the wider world, there cannot be any reversion to the situation before Trump arrived, or the situation after Trump imposed unilateral tariffs on all of his allies. No post-Trump president will be able to pretend that nothing happened during the Trump Reich, and that normal service can quickly be resumed. Trump has fractured the Bretton Woods system of international trade - what Richard Marles insists on calling "a rules-based international order" long after the game has changed. He has repudiated much of the web of relationships around Europe and the Middle East, particularly over the future of Ukraine. The value of American guarantees, promises and understandings (including ANZUS and AUKUS) is much diminished, as is the idea of one-in, all-in if someone breaches the peace. And who knows how Israel's adventures into Iran have changed the strategic map of the Middle East. If America is to have its druthers, future trade arrangements between nations will be based on bilateral arrangements, not multinational ones. Alternatively - and more likely - new regional and political alliances will form around multilateral agreements which do not include the United States. The trans-Pacific partnership - quite possibly including China, Canada and Europe - might well be a model. America may make an individualised deal with each nation, but even if it draws back from initial tariffs settings, most nations will see the wisdom of seeking markets anywhere but in the US. For many countries, a primary market will be China, preferred as a buyer or a seller ahead of the unreliable US. Australians can hardly help but be aware that the whole system of our international relationships is changing, and that Australia itself may have little influence on the final wash-up. We are not a big enough player to be invited into all the big-boys' clubs. When the US thinks of its alliances, Australia is not the first country that comes to its mind: we are probably 12th in the queue. To the extent that America-First recognises old obligations, the deals in squaring off the 11 higher in priority will severely pinch what is available to us. It will be worse if the US picks off its "allies" one by one in the manner of the supplicants (Australia included) seeking to negotiate individual deals for themselves. I am always reminded of what a senior American official once said to Margaret Thatcher when, in Washington, she spoke of the bonds of kinship and special relationship. The official said, "Madam, you may be right about this common history and so on, but I assure you that when the US is thinking of its national interest, it thinks of Britain about as often as when Britain, considering its own interest, thinks of the Isle of Wight". Polls show that Australian trust of the US has plummeted. Our distrust of Trump's America is higher than almost any other country, even Canada, and we haven't been threatened with an imperial takeover. A majority rate China as more trustworthy, even in spite of the freeze in relationships and trade sanctions after China was consciously baited by the Morrison government. Other polls show that Australians well understand the difference between a national leader and his policies, and the temper of the general population. But after the Trump election, there is also unease about his constituencies, the authoritarian, even fascist push, the influence in policy of racism, bigotry and anti-immigration feeling and the increasing influence of the Christian fundamentalist right. Much goodwill has evaporated. In contrast, the defence and intelligence establishment has not wavered in preferring the US even to Australia itself. But politicians on both sides of the fence are increasingly conscious that there is no automatic Australian mood to support the US if there were an attack on Taiwan. Nor is there any Australian instinct to see the world through American eyes. National unease is hardly helped by war in the Middle East, the reduction of Gaza and the massacre of its population, by events in Ukraine and by the apparent incapacity of Europe to unite militarily if the US is not an active partner. There is no shortage of information in public forums, much of which is highly critical of the US. Anyone can have a well-informed opinion. But that opinion is hardly being guided by Albanese or the Australian government. Very little is emerging officially canvassing possibilities about what could or should happen. Ministers seem to be denying that anything much is happening. Albanese seems to think that public comment or discussion by official figures should be avoided, lest it cause offence to Trump and inspire or incite some violent reaction. In Canada, Britain, Germany and France, ministers are openly discussing the brave new world. But not here. It is unlikely that Trump or the official US will judge that the comparative silence from Australia means that there is no discussion occurring here. But they may well deduce that the silence from the politicians, and from military and intelligence figures, suggests that the docile ally will not make much fuss. Or that it is unlikely to shift towards our own view of the world, rather than America's. An obvious example might be the American trade war with China, or in making it clear that Australia is not planning on getting involved in any measures to defend Taiwan. But there are also other issues - for example, over the nuclear submarine purchases, or vital US intelligence gathering and command equipment at Pine Gap and elsewhere. Albanese is mouthing polite nothings, other than insisting that he is not about to double our defence spending just because an American media figure-cum Secretary of Defence says we should. Marles, the weakest link in the Australian chain, is a dead letter in any argument, even or particularly when he seems to be parroting a position that has originated in the US. It cannot be expected that significant change to the relationship will occur only incrementally. Or that it will evolve naturally from events in the control of others. Nor can we assume that Albanese, or Marles, or for that matter Penny Wong, have the wit and the speed to shift American opinion. There has not even been any sort of softening-up process. The turning point, perhaps, will be when Albanese finally gets his meeting with Trump. Even there, more likely than not, it will be statements from Trump rather than Albanese to which even Australians will pay most attention. We are not leaving "home". It's the US throwing us out. Albanese, presumably, has rehearsed his reaction to many of the propositions that Trump can be expected to put. He has, after all, put very similar ones to other countries, and he has, additionally, made it quite clear that we are nothing special in his eyes. But Albanese has not confided his strategy or tactics to Parliament, in the media, or in open forums. He has not addressed conferences at which the government's opinions are communicated. What is on the public record, whether in relation to the strategic thinking around AUKUS or Australia's strategic situation generally, is full of waffly words and slogans that could mean anything. Is discussion to be an invitation-only jamboree, or can every parrot in every pet shop have a go? MORE JACK WATERFORD: Could it be that Albanese expects that a matter so vital is to be resolved merely in Cabinet, without any wide public discussion? Or some committee of old Labor warhorses such as Kim Beazley and Stephen Smith? Is there a soldier in the land (or for that matter a spook) to whom the political, social and military problems should be consigned without the popular will being engaged? Is there a place at the table for Paul Keating, Malcolm Turnbull, Gareth Evans or Bob Carr, or any of the third of the electorate who vote, not for Labor nor the Liberals but for parties such as the Greens, the teals, or independents such as David Pocock? Is productivity, for which a conference of insiders is planned, more important than the place of Australia among the nations of the world? One has to hope that Albanese's silence about a time and a place for public discussion and debate is not for want of a plan to engage the population. But so far, on form, one has to expect that he lacks a plan. He has no model for public discussion, and no apparent appetite for it. This could involve reverting to the style of government that he delivered in his first term. Secretive. Unwilling and seemingly unable to communicate with the general public, including those who want Labor to succeed. (Labor is always more awkward, and guilty looking, in consulting its own traditional supporters rather than hostile captains of industry.) Will there be ready but unaccountable access for some special interests, such as the arms industry and the defence establishment? There's an already established pattern of insiders given undue and improper influence, in the same manner as the gambling and liquor crowd and the old media lobbies on other issues. One thing is for sure. No one can say that Albanese has a popular mandate, arising from the landslide election, to do what he wants on such a fundamental change in our circumstances. Defence and foreign affairs scarcely figured in the election, and the two major parties had no disagreements of any substance. No citizen acquired any extra information from any defence debate. It may be true that a debate, if it occurs, will be rancorous. The big vested interests are keen on throwing about claims of being soft on national security and having ambiguous and uncertain loyalties. It could become as unpleasant as the Voice referendum. But that is not a reason for having a secret debate, or no debate at all. This matters too much. Our own sense of identity, culture, history and future are involved. Australia needs to develop an understanding of Australian nationality which has moved on, a bit at least, from when white men flew a flag containing a Union Jack at Gallipoli 110 years ago. It's a debate that embraces Australians whose ancestors were not here at the time of Gallipoli but are in every sense citizens nonetheless. A debate that involves Aboriginal Australians, whose interests were usually ignored while compiling patriotic encomia and pap. A debate involving young Australians who will have to live in a harsher, hotter and more hostile world because of pragmatic decisions made by current politicians on both sides of the fence. It's not for Albo to run Australians inside or out of the arena. Some within a smug party, having won the election more comfortably than anyone expected, have come to think that the election was won by Albanese's calm, patience and political genius. That the very landslide is a refutation of suggestions that first-term Labor was a "disappointment", with an inarticulate leader too timid to go far or fast, or to take ordinary voters into his confidence. Any prime minister who wins a second, or third, term will see it as a vindication of his or her personality, governing style and methods. They will expect that internal and external critics treat them with more respect in future. Particularly for their political skills. One wouldn't want to deprive Albanese of any credit he deserved. But it is just possible that a sizeable proportion of the increased vote for Labor came more from fear of what sort of leadership or policies a MAGA-Down-Under Peter Dutton might have delivered than from enthusiastic re-endorsement of Albanese and his team. Or embrace of Albo's vision - whatever it was - of old alliances, new alliances, and how we trade with, talk with and share with our neighbours.
Sky News AU
2 hours ago
- Sky News AU
‘Net negative': Positive Economics Advisory's David Williams-Chen delivers warning as Labor mulls family trust tax changes
Labor imposing a flat tax rate on family trusts could be a 'net negative' for the economy, an expert has warned after a report arose the government is considering trusts in its raft of tax reforms. Sources told the Australian Financial Review Labor is likely to propose higher taxes on family trusts as Treasury ramps up scrutiny of the tax-friendly investment vehicles in its economic reforms. Many Australian families and businesses use the trusts to protect their assets and split income between beneficiaries to reap the benefits from the lower tax rates. The report follows Labor proposing a minimum 30 per cent tax rate on trusts as part of its failed swath of tax reforms it took to the 2019 election. Positive Economics Advisory's managing director David Williams-Chen said if Labor were to apply a flat tax rate, Aussies would find a way to avoid it. 'People will respond to incentives and we see this time and again,' Mr Williams-Chen told 'Whether it's smokers buying black market tobacco to avoid paying high price cigarettes as excise levies have increased. 'Or whether it's the wealthy who have taken advantage of lower tax settings in superannuation before balance transfer caps and contribution limits came into place. 'We know there'd be a response.' He pointed to research from US academics Shahar Rotberg and Joseph Steinberg where it was found increasing wealth taxes incentivised people to hide their assets and resulted in lower tax revenue. Mr Williams-Chen urged the government to keep in mind taxpayers' capacity to avoid other taxes and even warned this could lead to a situation shown in the work of Rotberg and Steinberg. 'The evidence from the US shows that once the behavioural responses to wealth taxes on capital are factored in, there's a likelihood that they're actually negative for the economy,' he said. 'Rotberg and Steinberg in 2024 found wealth taxes would cause an overall decline in economic welfare between 0.3 and 0.4 percent.' The individuals who are the beneficiaries of a trust pay their personal income tax rate on the distributions. This means the tax paid on a trust can vary from zero per cent to 47 per cent. Labor considering changes to family trusts, alongside plans to tax high earning super accounts and wind back electric vehicle rebates, come as Labor faces a decade of deficits and ballooning costs of the NDIS and defence. The Albanese government also faces reduced tax revenue from lower tobacco excise and falling fossil fuel exports as Australia continues on its renewables shift.
Sky News AU
2 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Victorian Treasurer Jaclyn Symes slammed as state set to remain at the lowest credit rating in Australia
The Victorian opposition has delivered a brutal rebuke of Treasurer Jaclyn Symes as the state's credit rating remains the lowest in the country, despite her meeting with credit rating agencies. Ms Symes made the trip to New York during the week to meet with S & P Global and Moody's as she attempted to plead her case for why Victoria's credit rating shouldn't be downgraded again. As it stands, Victoria has the worst credit rating out of all of the Australian states, after being dropped twice, initially from AAA to AA+ and then again to AA. The visit to the United States came after warnings the rating could be downgraded once more, with the state's debt set to reach $194bn by 2028. After the meetings, the Treasurer described Victoria as a city offering "stability and opportunity" in comparison to a "sense of doom for America" from a geopolitical perspective, comments shadow treasurer James Newbury says were contradicted by the credit agencies' assessment of the state's budget management. "The credit rating agencies contradicted everything she said. They said there are fundamental issues which we know with the government's mismanagement... so completely contradicted, everything she's said. "I mean, frankly, the Treasurer can't help but fall over her own feet. She went overseas to beg for our credit rating not to be downgraded. And of course, we don't want it to be downgraded, we want it to be fixed. "I just think that the entire state and probably the whole country knows this government hasn't got a good track record of making sure that happens. I think we all know with a nearly two hundred billion dollar debt, that's 1.2 million dollars an hour in interest, they're not going to fix it." Mr Newbury also recalled the Treasurer's awkward moment last month where she asked a room of property developers and investors what their "favourite tax" was. "I think the fact that they've put us on a credit rating watch tells us why we have the worst credit rating in the this is the same treasurer who only a couple of weeks ago went into a really big event and said, to industry, what's your favourite tax? "I mean, is this treasurer serious? We have the worst taxes in the country, the most taxes in country, and the Treasurer thinks that the room is sitting there gagging to pick the best one. Well, they all know which, they've all got a favourite that they don't like. In fact, they've probably got a list of what they don t like." The shadow treasurer said the budget's blowouts under the Victorian Labor government have been "astonishing". "This government multiple times over multiple years has said before a budget and around budget time, 'we're gonna reduce the size of the public service'. And guess what happens come the next budget? They've spent more money on the public service, not less, more money," he said. "I mean, to give you a view of some context, the amount between what they promise at budget time to spend and the amount they actually spend, is $14 billion in blowouts on average every year they've been in government "Just think about that. I mean, it's nearly 15 per cent more than the entire budget they have every year in blowouts. The blowouts are astonishing. So what they put in writing at the start of the year and what they spend 15 per cent above, $14 billion on average in blowouts. You can't believe anything they say."
