Deputy PM's son lands election night knockout blow
Deputy PM Richard Marles found his attention divided on Saturday night. That's because there was a co-main event taking place in Logan City, Greater Brisbane: his 29-year-old son, Sam Marles, was the star of the Eternal 95 Mixed Martial Arts fight.
We were going to make analogies about the brutalities of political bloodsport on election night but thought that a little too obvious, even for us.
The clash of events required some deft multimedia handling by Marles on perhaps the most politically important night of his career, but you can't be member for Corio, deputy prime minister and minister of defence as well as being dad to four kids without mastering the juggle.
Marles expected the fight in the welterweight division about 10.30pm, so he joked with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese during the week that Labor had to claim victory well before then. But the fight was shifted earlier and took place as media outlets were calling victory for Labor.
Marles scrambled to get the fight up on his iPad, and Labor supporters in the room took his subsequent whooping as evidence that Labor had just won an avalanche of seats when, in fact, Marles was cheering on his son.
And what a fight it turned out to be, said Eternal MMA chief executive Cam O'Neill, who praised young Marles as 'the kind of athlete every promoter wants on their card – tough, skilled and composed under pressure'.
'It was a knockout night for the Marles family – Sam in the cage, and Richard at the polls,' he said.
Marles told CBD: 'There were a couple of events taking place on Saturday night: the election, the Cats' triumphant win over Collingwood and Sam's massive win in Logan.
'He knocked him out in the third round – it was the biggest fight of his career and I know how hard he had worked for it, and so as a dad I couldn't have been happier for him about what he achieved on Saturday night.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Age
2 hours ago
- The Age
No backing out now for Labor. Chalmers has set the tone, and the goal, for term two
At base, this is about making the budget add up – people can ask for tax cuts, but only if taxes are raised elsewhere or spending is cut. Mostly, though, Chalmers has, quite properly, reminded us that tax reform is unavoidably a political project. 'Trade-offs' are, traditionally, the very essence of politics: something is gained and something is lost. Crucially, this is a very different type of politics for the Albanese government. Labor's first term was not much about trade-offs. With a couple of exceptions, it was mostly about shepherding change through quietly: making sure that nobody was losing enough that they would complain. Now, it seems, the government will contemplate policies with much more dramatic impacts – impacts everyone will notice. Significant losses will be matched by equally significant gains. The political complexity lies in who bears the losses and who gets the gains. It was a strikingly bold – and potentially historic – moment for Labor. Loading Two weeks ago, the Coalition's finance spokesman, James Paterson, insisted the Coalition was up for talking to the government about tax reform, including reducing taxes and then collecting 'that revenue in less distortionary ways'. That sounded a lot like higher taxes in some areas. But, he also said, the opposition would not help Labor 'increase taxes'. 'But isn't that tax reform?' asked the ABC's David Speers. 'You're gonna have to put something up to cut somewhere else.' Paterson insisted, 'We are not interested in increasing taxes'. You can perhaps, if you squint, make sense of this – it will be up to new opposition leader Sussan Ley, in her own turn at the Press Club this week, to try. The likelihood is that Chalmers will face a version of what Keating faced: support for some bits, but not for the others that make them politically plausible. Chalmers talked a lot about consensus in his speech. Reaching agreement would be 'everyone's responsibility'. It's an important point. It is also a useful point to make at this stage of the process: after all, it is Chalmers' job to push everyone towards agreement by making clear the government shouldn't be expected to do all of this by itself. Loading But what if, in the end, there is not consensus? Or what if consensus forms only around a very limited set of changes? Chalmers declared, 'if we fail it won't be because of a shortage of ideas, options or choices. It won't be a shortage of courage – but a shortage of consensus.' Ultimately, though, if there is not consensus, courage will be required. If you read Chalmers' words as a persuasive tactic, they are fair enough. If, on the other hand, the government thinks it has given itself an alibi, it is kidding itself. The goal has been set. Political embarrassment would not be the only consequence of a retreat on tax reform. Keating's mentions of Medicare and superannuation are reminders that economic reform does not have to be only about tax. Instead, tax changes can take their place within a grander Labor project, alongside other concrete policies, the benefits of which voters more readily grasp. But it is hard to see how that larger Labor project works if tax reform fails.
Sky News AU
2 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Don't sit on the fence with this one Albanese: Australia must recommit to US alliance as Middle East tensions mount
Anthony Albanese wasn't the only disappointed global leader left in line for an audience with the President when Donald Trump made an early exit from the G7 summit in Calgary. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt explained that 'many important matters' demanded the President's attention in Washington. Important compared to what? At a moment of global conflict there can be few things more vital than reaffirming the bonds with trusted allies. The contrast with the response to the 9/11 attacks is stark. Within hours of the attacks, John Howard wrote to President George W Bush, affirming Australia's 'resolute solidarity' with the American people. The following day he pledged unconditional support for the US 'in any action that might be taken'. However we choose to judge the course of events that followed, Howard's reaction reflected a clarity of moral purpose that appears to be faltering. Australia knew where it stood: shoulder to shoulder with the United States in defence of the liberal democratic order. The Western alliance has grown uncertain. Under Donald Trump, US commitments have become more transactional. Meanwhile, under Albanese, Australia is hedging like other middle powers, caught between strategic dependence on the U.S. and economic entanglement with China. Pragmatism in diplomacy is unavoidable, but pragmatism should never give way to ambivalence. There is little discussion today in Washington or Canberra about the values, the once underpinned our alliances: liberal democracy, personal liberty and the rule of law. The concept of the civilised West has become so disreputable in some circles leaders hesitate to declare themselves part of it. Deciding which side we are on when the chips are down is nowhere near as simple as it once was. Labor's discomfort with these foundations is not new. While historically loyal to Britain, the party was wary of imperial wars and later divided over the U.S. alliance. Gough Whitlam was openly critical of U.S. foreign policy while drawing closer to Communist China. At a banquet host by Premier Zhou Enlai in Beijing in 1973, Whitlam declared that Australia's future lay with nations 'with whom we share a common environment and common interests … With no nation is our new aspiration symbolised more than it is with China'. The trade relationship with China has deepened, growing from almost nothing in 1973 to more than $300 billion in annual two-way trade today. Yet there has been no equivalent meeting of minds on the profound human values that define civilisation. Sky News Australia viewers will be familiar with the case of Australian journalist Cheng Lei who spent almost three years as an innocent detainee in China, an experience she compares to being buried alive. We know that more than a million Uyghurs are suffering a worse fate in discriminatory detention. China boasts of its intention to seize Taiwan by military force if necessary. Nor is subtle about its projection of naval force close to our shores as it seeks to establish dominance across the Pacific and into the Southern Ocean. To put it bluntly, there are strict limits to the common interests we share with China so long as it is led by a Communist regime irredeemably opposed to the human values we cherish. We must enter any dealings with China with our eyes wide open, just as we should with other untrustworthy regimes in Tehran, Moscow and Tehran. There can be no confusion about which nations we can trust, the nations of a civilised frame of mind, governed by the rule of law, with respect for the rights of sovereignty. Israel's conflict with Iran is a case in point. Albanese must look beyond policy disagreements over Gaza and recognise Israel as a fellow liberal democracy under siege by a theocratic regime that sponsors terrorism and seeks its annihilation. When he next meets with the U.S. President, Albanese must speak with conviction. He should reaffirm that, through thick and thin, Australia stands with the United States not out of dependency, but as a partner in defending the free world. He must be clear that, in this new age of strategic competition, our interests align. We do not seek favours—we seek solidarity. To adapt the words of John F. Kennedy: the question is not what America can do for us, but what we can do, again, for the alliance that has underpinned our security for generations. Nick Cater is a senior fellow of the Menzies Research Centre
Sydney Morning Herald
2 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
No backing out now for Labor. Chalmers has set the tone, and the goal, for term two
At base, this is about making the budget add up – people can ask for tax cuts, but only if taxes are raised elsewhere or spending is cut. Mostly, though, Chalmers has, quite properly, reminded us that tax reform is unavoidably a political project. 'Trade-offs' are, traditionally, the very essence of politics: something is gained and something is lost. Crucially, this is a very different type of politics for the Albanese government. Labor's first term was not much about trade-offs. With a couple of exceptions, it was mostly about shepherding change through quietly: making sure that nobody was losing enough that they would complain. Now, it seems, the government will contemplate policies with much more dramatic impacts – impacts everyone will notice. Significant losses will be matched by equally significant gains. The political complexity lies in who bears the losses and who gets the gains. It was a strikingly bold – and potentially historic – moment for Labor. Loading Two weeks ago, the Coalition's finance spokesman, James Paterson, insisted the Coalition was up for talking to the government about tax reform, including reducing taxes and then collecting 'that revenue in less distortionary ways'. That sounded a lot like higher taxes in some areas. But, he also said, the opposition would not help Labor 'increase taxes'. 'But isn't that tax reform?' asked the ABC's David Speers. 'You're gonna have to put something up to cut somewhere else.' Paterson insisted, 'We are not interested in increasing taxes'. You can perhaps, if you squint, make sense of this – it will be up to new opposition leader Sussan Ley, in her own turn at the Press Club this week, to try. The likelihood is that Chalmers will face a version of what Keating faced: support for some bits, but not for the others that make them politically plausible. Chalmers talked a lot about consensus in his speech. Reaching agreement would be 'everyone's responsibility'. It's an important point. It is also a useful point to make at this stage of the process: after all, it is Chalmers' job to push everyone towards agreement by making clear the government shouldn't be expected to do all of this by itself. Loading But what if, in the end, there is not consensus? Or what if consensus forms only around a very limited set of changes? Chalmers declared, 'if we fail it won't be because of a shortage of ideas, options or choices. It won't be a shortage of courage – but a shortage of consensus.' Ultimately, though, if there is not consensus, courage will be required. If you read Chalmers' words as a persuasive tactic, they are fair enough. If, on the other hand, the government thinks it has given itself an alibi, it is kidding itself. The goal has been set. Political embarrassment would not be the only consequence of a retreat on tax reform. Keating's mentions of Medicare and superannuation are reminders that economic reform does not have to be only about tax. Instead, tax changes can take their place within a grander Labor project, alongside other concrete policies, the benefits of which voters more readily grasp. But it is hard to see how that larger Labor project works if tax reform fails.
