A for Albanese during uproarious school visit
The prime minister has made the grade as he passed through a public school with flying colours.
Anthony Albanese was greeted like a rockstar on Thursday when he addressed the students of Winthrop Primary School, in Perth's south.
Sensing his imminent arrival, kids began jumping and craning their heads around cameramen, and as he turned into view, a roar erupted from the handball court.
Parting the sea of kids, Mr Albanese was generous with his high-fives, offering them to any desperate hands within arms reach, before heading an assembly.
As 11-year-old James stepped up for a question, Mr Albanese opined on his age.
"I feel really old at the moment, I feel like I've been campaigning for 11 years," he said on Thursday.
Prior to the prime minister's arrival, deputy principal Simon Dufall impressed on his students the importance of "regulated" behaviour and outlined a vision for the event.
"You can be cheery - regulated - a bit loud and clappy - and regulated - and they want people to be excited," he said.
"I know I can trust 99 per cent of you.
"If you can't do that, go and grab a quiet reading pack."
The students were also subject to a trial run, with the educator briefly pretending to be the prime minister and walking through the crowd of kids so they would know how to position themselves, and asking the crowd to practice their ovation.
"If you're on the side, do you think you're going to get a high-five? No," Mr Dufall said.
"Let's try that again: clap and a cheer and another cheer."
The students were also quizzed on the prime minister's name and though most got it right, there was a lone shout of "Trump".
But the rehearsal paid off.
"That was the most wonderful welcome and when you're beginning to feel a bit tired, that is so uplifting," Mr Albanese said.
The deputy principal later congratulated the kids for their "super fabulous, super respectful" behaviour.
The school was located in the Labor electorate of Tangney, won by former dolphin trainer Sam Lim as part of Labor's 2022 WA sweep.
WA premier Roger Cook, Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles, Mr Lim, state MP Kim Giddens and Mr Albanese's fiancee Jodie Haydon were also swamped by kids as they accompanied the prime minister.
Ms Giddens identified herself as a mother to one of the assembled kids, prompting the boy's friends to point in his direction - to his chagrin.
Labor used the visit to spruik the Commonwealth's commitment to partner with state governments and fully fund all Australian public schools by 2034.
But not everyone was pleased with the prime minister's arrival, with one adult yelling, "Where's Albanese? Get out of the Canberra bubble, he's an arsehole."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
42 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
Retired US General Jack Keane says lack of American submarines ‘real basis' for Trump administration's AUKUS review
Retired US General Jack Keane has said he believes American concerns over having enough submarines for their own fleet is underpinning the AUKUS defence pact review instigated by the Trump administration. A primary pillar of AUKUS, a trilateral security partnership agreed to in 2021, is to enable Australia to acquire nuclear-powered submarines, as well as other advanced weapons. The newly announced review into the pact is being headed by Under-Secretary of Defence for Policy Elbridge Colby, who has previously been critical of the submarine deal. Speaking to Sky News Host Andrew Bolt on Thursday, Mr Keane said he believed concerns over the US holding on to enough submarines is the 'real basis' for AUKUS coming under the microscope. 'I mean, we know for a fact, we don't have anywhere near all the submarines that we would like to have and it's the submarines where we have the advantage, the United States and our allies, over China itself,' the former general said. '(China) have decisive advantages in surface ships, in offence and defensive missiles, and also the number of aeroplanes that they have every day in the region. Submarines is something we want more of.' However, Mr Keane said he thought having Australian-operated American submarines in Indo-Pacific waters would be a 'real strategic plus'. The former general was asked whether the American popular opinion could swing away from thinking US submarines being operated under an Australian flag is good idea, but Mr Keane said he did not hold such concerns. 'I think the primary issue is the number of submarines. The United States knows we don't have enough. It takes us too long to build them, and we've got to get it right,' he said. The former general's remarks come as questions continue to be asked about whether the Albanese government has pledged enough of the nation's GDP towards defence, with pressure mounting from Washington for Canberra to boost its military spending. Sky New News Host Sharri Markson revealed on Thursday the Trump administration will use the AUKUS review as way to try and push Australia towards increasing its defence budget. Meanwhile, former prime minister Scott Morrison, who oversaw the formation of AUKUS, has declared he is not concerned about what the US-led review may mean for the future of the security partnership. 'It's totally within their remit… Incoming governments do reviews. Keir Starmer did a review and that resulted in the UK government being even more committed to AUKUS,' Mr Morrison told Sky News. His sentiments were echoed by Defence Minister Richard Marles, who downplayed anxieties while also confirming Australia knew about the review in advance. Former Australian Minister Alexander Downer has likewise said he does not think Australia should be concerned, asserting his belief the US will not scrap the agreement under President Trump's reign. 'I think there is going to be a debate within the American system about selling to Australia Virginia-class submarines,' Mr Downer told Sky News Host Chris Kenny on Thursday. 'Not because of the technology of the submarines, but because the American administration will argue that they haven't got enough submarines and they can't build them fast enough.' Mr Downer also said he thinks the US are concerned about Australia's defence spending in light of the review. "I think they would be concerned about our low level of defence expenditure and the way the Australian defence forces have become increasingly depleted," he said. "But I don't think in the end the Americans are going to cancel the AUKUS programme. You have to remember this is a trilateral programme, not a bilateral programme, and Britain is the, if you like, second player in it, certainly the second most important player in it."
Sky News AU
43 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
Defence experts warn Australia's armed forces 'languishing', short on firepower due to 'deeply inadequate' military spending
Australia's defence force is weaker than it was before East Timor, is under armoured and short of firepower according to stinging analysis by two of the nation's leading defence experts. With the Prime Minister heading to the G7 in Canada, defence analyst Peter Jennings and Retired Chief of Army, Peter Leahy have both given their thoughts on the AFD and how it stacks up. A break down by Sky News of regional power players also lays out Australia's fragile capabilities despite numerous governments talking up potency, reliability and acquisitions. 'We are in a very dangerous strategic situation now,' said Peter Jennings, from Strategic Analysis Australia. It's a sentiment shared by Retired Lieutenant General, Peter Leahy. 'In the case of the Australian Army I was the Chief from 2002 to 2008. If I look at the army now it is smaller than what it was then. It's not as capable. It has less armoured protection and recruiting is really quite difficult,' said the former Chief. A former senior naval officer who wished to remain anonymous affirmed the Royal Australian Navy was down on the missile firepower it had 30 years ago – leaving it short of ships and under-gunned. With Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Europe rearming and the Chinese Communist Party intent on achieving hegemony in the region, armouries are growing, and defence budgets are being stretched. This year the United States intends to spend (in Australian dollars) $1.56 trillion on defence. China stated spend is $375-billion although its estimated to more accurately be around $620 billion. It's acquired three aircraft carriers and the world's second largest air force in a little over decade. It's also expanding its nuclear arsenal and is amassing a bespoke fleet to potentially take the democratically governed islands of Taiwan. Japan continues to ramp up its own defence spending, reportedly up nearly ten per-cent year on year to $105-billion. The sum is equal to one-point-eight percent of its GDP. Australia will spend $59 billion. It's roughly two per-cent of GDP with an intention to reach two-point-four per cent by 2034. 'We are facing some difficult times,' said Peter Jennings. 'Up against that level of risk, our defence spending is deeply inadequate… We are just a tiny shade over two per-cent of GDP and you know, that I think was a peace time level spend.' When it comes to combat airpower – fighters, bombers and long-range armed drones, America's force numbers around 3,276. China's air fleet is estimated to be around 2750. It remains highly secretive around the number of long-range drones capable of inflicting damage. Japan's defence force numbers 258. Indonesia's strike force is 116. Australia's modest but capable strike force numbers 108. The Department of Defence was specifically asked how many long-range armed drones Australia has acquired, but in its answer, didn't identify any. It's concerning considering the state of the Royal Australian Navy, which critics believe lags a decade behind in acquisition. Australia operates on a 'three to one' rotation policy meaning its force needs to be divided by three. Consequently, it aims to have two submarines, one destroyer and two frigates available for deployment. Although Australia's two resupply ships are both currently out of action tethering the navy even closer to shore. When it comes to soldiers and marines, China's fighting force numbers more than a million. Indonesia stands around 300,000. Australia's active duty force has shrunken to 28,500. 'The ADF is a professional organisation, sadly I think it's languishing,' said Peter Leahy. 'There's a really solid debate that says we need to spend more money on defence and I agree entirely. But I agree with the Prime Minister and others that it's not just a sum we need to spend, we need to be careful about what we want. How we acquire and how we introduce it into services. 'Everybody is saying it's the most catastrophic circumstances since before the second world war (and) we need to do something …. Action is required.' The former Army Chief dismissed the notion Australians should be scared. 'I don't think there's any reason to be scared …. (but) the public need to be concerned that people are thinking about this.' Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese has publicly sidestepped – if not rebuffed - America's request for Australia to urgently increase the nation's defence spending to three-point-five per cent of GDP, saying 'I think that Australia should decide what we spend on Australia's defence. As simple as that.' 'It's very clear that the Americans think our defence spend is deeply inadequate,' said Peter Jennings. '(US Defense Secretary) Pete Hegseth in Singapore said we should lift it from two per- cent to three-and-a-half per cent. That's a massive increase … So, I think the signal, not particularly coded from the United States is we need to do a lot better.' Former Prime Minister Scott Morrison recently told this reporter, 'We've got to be looking at three per cent. We should be at two-and-a-half per cent as quickly as possible. You know, I'd be saying three-per cent by 2030 … and it's not like we haven't been there before.' Though, it's always easier to talk about where defence spending should be than decide where taxes should increase or what must be cut. In the Second World War Australia's defence spend climbed towards 35 per cent of GDP. It's nothing if not an indication of the financial cost of conflict when diplomacy fails. When it came to opposition, Peter Jennings rebuffed suggestion the outcry amounted to warmongering. 'With the biggest war in Europe since the Second World War, with the Middle East in flame, with China not hiding the fact that it's becoming increasingly aggressive to all of its neighbours, circumnavigating Australia with some of its best military equipment. How could anyone think we are in a benign period and we don't have to worry about these developments,' he said. 'Il's plain for all to see, it's not like you need to have some special security clearance to understand what's going on. We can't afford to be in denial about it,' he said.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Donald Trump has interrupted Anthony Albanese's election honeymoon, just as the pair were due to meet
He is arguably at his zenith, having not only defied history but making it on May 3 when, as leader of the Labor Party, Anthony Albanese defeated his opponents in a landslide. But less than six weeks into his second term as prime minister, the honeymoon has been interrupted, and Albanese is confronted with his first real test: Donald Trump. If all goes to plan (and with Trump, this is hard to predict) Albanese will hold his first face-to-face meeting with the US president on the sidelines of next week's Group of Seven summit in Canada. Nestled in Alberta's Rockies, Kananaskis' population of 130 is about to swell more than 10 times that size as world leaders descend on the verdant valley. It is here that Albanese will be warmly embraced by new Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, a progressive ally, and hold his first formal meetings with the new leaders of Japan and South Korea. The Australian side is hoping Albanese will also get — at the very least — a "grip and grin" with Trump but on Thursday, an already challenged relationship showed further signs of strain. Albanese could find himself walking into an old-fashioned shake-down with a president determined to extract more from his closest friends and allies. The missive landed as most Australians were still asleep: "Pentagon launches review of AUKUS nuclear submarine deal," read the headline in the UK Financial Times. Signal chats from Canberra to Washington started lighting up as everyone from defence officials down tried to understand what it might mean for the $368 billion deal, aimed at countering China's rise in the region. They only needed to log in to Twitter. Pentagon official Eldridge Colby — who will lead the review — fired across the bow, posting a quote from US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth: "Hegseth on Tuesday reiterated Trump's call for allies in the Indo-Pacific to increase their defence burden-sharing". Posted, as they say, without comment but it came only minutes before the story broke in the Financial Times. According to the Pentagon, the aim of the review is to ensure AUKUS "is aligned with the president's America First agenda" which requires "allies step up fully to do their part for collective defense". Colby is an AUKUS-sceptic and doesn't believe Australia is spending enough to defend itself in this deteriorating strategic environment. Before he was even appointed to the role, he told Congress the main concern the US should raise with Australia was its spending on defence, which is currently on track to reach 2.3 per cent of GDP by 2033. "Australia is currently well below the 3 per cent level advocated for by NATO Secretary General [Mark] Rutte, and Canberra faces a far more powerful challenge in China," he said earlier this year. NATO, for what it's worth, is now advocating a target of five per cent of GDP (a "quantum leap in our collective defence") to keep aggressors like Russia at bay. On the issue of defence spending, Colby has a powerful ally in Hegseth — the US Defense Secretary — who held face-to-face talks with Defence Minister Richard Marles a fortnight ago. At the Shangri-La dialogue in Singapore, Hegseth "conveyed that Australia should increase its defence spending to 3.5 per cent of its GDP as soon as possible" according to a Pentagon read-out. Albanese has firmly pushed back on the US demands, bristling at the suggestion that Australia set an "arbitrary" spending target: "Australia should decide what we spend on Australia's defence," the prime minister said. If the government knew about the impending review "for weeks", as Marles asserted, it could well have been that Hegseth also used that meeting to inform him of the Trump administration's move. Although, you wouldn't have guessed it from his comments. Asked by a journalist about the state of the pact immediately following those talks, Marles said: "we walk forward with a sense of confidence about the way in which AUKUS is proceeding." No hint of a review to be announced only a fortnight later — to the surprise of many. Publicly, the government is trying to appear unfazed, saying it is natural that the new administration would want to examine the agreement, and pointing out the UK had recently completed its own. It is adamant Australia's decision to sanction two far-right Israeli ministers on Wednesday is not in any way connected. Privately, they speculate the review might be a Colby-led frolic but what they don't know is whether he is proceeding with the blessing of Trump (who has never spoken publicly about AUKUS) or if the future of the AUKUS deal is genuinely in peril without a sharp increase in spending. Under the three-nation, 30-year pact, Australia will acquire eight conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines, and the first three will come directly from the United States before the allies create the new SSN AUKUS fleet. Australia has already made a down-payment — handing over more than $1 billion to the Americans — but there are real concerns about the ability of US shipyards to build enough subs to replace the ones it is selling. Working in Australia's favour is the fact that Hegseth himself is a big backer of AUKUS, the deal has strong bipartisan support in Congress, and between Washington, London and Canberra it enjoys "deep institutional buy-in", according to sources. But the deal has now been caught in a complex web of forces in the United States — both political and industrial — and at this early stage, it is not yet clear who will prevail. These are the questions Albanese will be seeking to answer if he scores a meeting with Trump because, when it comes to replacing our ageing fleet of submarines, Australia has no Plan B. During the election campaign, the prime minister successfully used anti-Trump rhetoric to his advantage, something he and Carney have in common. Having now been returned to power, he will need to build a connection with Trump as the list of disagreements, from defence spending and tariffs to Israel, grows longer. When Trump lands in Canada — a country he openly covets — he will likely cut a lonely figure on the world stage. His last appearance at a G7 summit in Canada ended in a blow-up over — you guessed it — tariffs, and produced the iconic image of Trump looking like a diminished figure in the shadow of then-German chancellor Angela Merkel. This time around, just months into his second term as president, Trump has managed to make himself even more isolated. As the New York Times has observed, next week's summit will be the first time since Trump was re-elected that he will be confronting such a large array of allies on the receiving end of hostile actions by his administration. And none are happy about it. Carney, who is presiding over the talks, is using Trump's retreat to his advantage, reportedly planning bilateral and smaller meetings on the sidelines — without the US president. "Canada is ready to lead," the Canadian prime minister said, adding: "The G7 must meet this moment with purpose and with force." As well as Albanese, Carney has invited the NATO secretary and UN secretary general to the talks, on top of multiple observers, including the leaders of Ukraine, India, the UAE, South Korea and South Africa. It is a show of unity among largely like-minded nations who, by-and-large, disagree with the notion that it is only biggest who should set the global rules. Trump is reshaping the world order but perhaps not in the way he had imagined.
