ABC rushes to delete story after Defence Correspondent Andrew Greene received $16,000 by weapons company for travel costs
Greene is formally under investigation by ABC management after Media Watch's Linton Besser exposed the veteran journalist for taking financial benefit from German weapons company TKMS (ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems) in the form of business class flights.
The journalist did not tell his bosses about the arrangement and the segment went to air promoting the weapons manufacturer and publicising quotes from TKMS CEO Oliver Burkhard, which were included in the Media Watch segment.
"We know what we're doing," Mr Burkhard told the ABC journalist.
"I know our competitors, they never have been exported in the past."
Besser was scathing of Greene, suggesting he had become 'undone by weakness before temptation' and said the scandal would undermine trust in journalistic institutions.
The Media Watch host said Australian journalists who were "forever blocked by a Defence bureaucracy addicted to secrecy" had to "cozy up" to military contractors for basic information.
Besser listed journalists from The Australian, the Seven Network and The Sydney Morning Herald whose travel expenses were paid for by defence companies to travel to Spain, Germany and Japan to cover emergent military stories.
Besser said the news ecosystem revolved around "generous hospitality" which posed a problem for the ABC which had strict rules for journalists.
"The veteran reporter had travelled from Sydney to Dubai to Germany and back again on a business class ticket that we estimate was worth about $16,000 and staying in hotels in Hamburg and Kiel all of it paid for by none other than the German weapons company TKMS," Besser said.
Besser added that Greene could not disclose the trip to his ABC audience because he had not done so to his bosses at the ABC.
The Media Watch host said after questions were sent to ABC, his colleague's World Today story was "quickly scrubbed" from the national broadcaster's website.
ABC spokesperson Sally Jackson put out a statement on Monday addressing the "serious allegations".
"These are serious allegations and the ABC is investigating them," she wrote.
"The ABC has rigorous editorial policies and any such behaviour, if proven, would be unacceptable and could constitute misconduct. For reasons of due process and confidentiality we won't comment further while the investigation is underway."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
3 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
'Unacceptable': closing gender pay gap still hard work
Employers are being urged to end the gender pay gap by addressing segregation and workplace discrimination, as data reveals it could still take more than 20 years to close the gap. Equal Pay Day on August 19 marks the 50 additional days women must work on average to earn the same amount their male colleagues had by the end of the financial year. The gap is driven by three main factors - gender segregation of occupations and industries, unequal distribution of caring and family responsibilities and workplace discrimination - research by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency found. Thousands of people have used the agency's pay calculator to work out their equal pay date at their employer. It should be a call-to-action for employers and spark conversations about the gender pay gap in workplaces, the agency's chief executive Mary Wooldridge said. "We can talk about pay gap percentages but when you see it in terms of actual numbers of days women need to work to earn the same as men, it makes it very tangible," she told AAP. "For executives, this is an opportunity as leaders and people managers to take steps to understand what is driving pay gaps in the workplace, and can be a catalyst for starting that process. "For employees, it's a chance to start a conversation that sometimes can be delicate, but the data enables them to be more informed in terms of having that conversation." More than eight in 10 Australian employers - 84.7 per cent - have average gender pay gaps outside the target range of plus or minus five per cent. "Every industry in Australia, including those that are women-dominated or that are gender-balanced, has a gender pay gap in favour of men," Ms Wooldridge said. "Equal Pay Day reminds us that there is still significant work to do to achieve equal and fair workplaces for all people." The timeline to reach pay equity in Australia is currently 21.5 years, according to analysis by the Financy Women's Index. When the timeline was first measured in 2017, it estimated the gender pay gap would take 37.5 years to fix. "Equal Pay Day is a stark reminder of the economic reality for women, and our 21.5-year time frame quantifies the long road ahead," index founder Bianca Hartge-Hazelman said. "While it's positive to see the number come down over the long term, it represents the median point in a much more complex journey. "The fact that women have to work an extra 50 days into the new financial year just to catch up to men's earnings is unacceptable." Employers are being urged to end the gender pay gap by addressing segregation and workplace discrimination, as data reveals it could still take more than 20 years to close the gap. Equal Pay Day on August 19 marks the 50 additional days women must work on average to earn the same amount their male colleagues had by the end of the financial year. The gap is driven by three main factors - gender segregation of occupations and industries, unequal distribution of caring and family responsibilities and workplace discrimination - research by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency found. Thousands of people have used the agency's pay calculator to work out their equal pay date at their employer. It should be a call-to-action for employers and spark conversations about the gender pay gap in workplaces, the agency's chief executive Mary Wooldridge said. "We can talk about pay gap percentages but when you see it in terms of actual numbers of days women need to work to earn the same as men, it makes it very tangible," she told AAP. "For executives, this is an opportunity as leaders and people managers to take steps to understand what is driving pay gaps in the workplace, and can be a catalyst for starting that process. "For employees, it's a chance to start a conversation that sometimes can be delicate, but the data enables them to be more informed in terms of having that conversation." More than eight in 10 Australian employers - 84.7 per cent - have average gender pay gaps outside the target range of plus or minus five per cent. "Every industry in Australia, including those that are women-dominated or that are gender-balanced, has a gender pay gap in favour of men," Ms Wooldridge said. "Equal Pay Day reminds us that there is still significant work to do to achieve equal and fair workplaces for all people." The timeline to reach pay equity in Australia is currently 21.5 years, according to analysis by the Financy Women's Index. When the timeline was first measured in 2017, it estimated the gender pay gap would take 37.5 years to fix. "Equal Pay Day is a stark reminder of the economic reality for women, and our 21.5-year time frame quantifies the long road ahead," index founder Bianca Hartge-Hazelman said. "While it's positive to see the number come down over the long term, it represents the median point in a much more complex journey. "The fact that women have to work an extra 50 days into the new financial year just to catch up to men's earnings is unacceptable." Employers are being urged to end the gender pay gap by addressing segregation and workplace discrimination, as data reveals it could still take more than 20 years to close the gap. Equal Pay Day on August 19 marks the 50 additional days women must work on average to earn the same amount their male colleagues had by the end of the financial year. The gap is driven by three main factors - gender segregation of occupations and industries, unequal distribution of caring and family responsibilities and workplace discrimination - research by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency found. Thousands of people have used the agency's pay calculator to work out their equal pay date at their employer. It should be a call-to-action for employers and spark conversations about the gender pay gap in workplaces, the agency's chief executive Mary Wooldridge said. "We can talk about pay gap percentages but when you see it in terms of actual numbers of days women need to work to earn the same as men, it makes it very tangible," she told AAP. "For executives, this is an opportunity as leaders and people managers to take steps to understand what is driving pay gaps in the workplace, and can be a catalyst for starting that process. "For employees, it's a chance to start a conversation that sometimes can be delicate, but the data enables them to be more informed in terms of having that conversation." More than eight in 10 Australian employers - 84.7 per cent - have average gender pay gaps outside the target range of plus or minus five per cent. "Every industry in Australia, including those that are women-dominated or that are gender-balanced, has a gender pay gap in favour of men," Ms Wooldridge said. "Equal Pay Day reminds us that there is still significant work to do to achieve equal and fair workplaces for all people." The timeline to reach pay equity in Australia is currently 21.5 years, according to analysis by the Financy Women's Index. When the timeline was first measured in 2017, it estimated the gender pay gap would take 37.5 years to fix. "Equal Pay Day is a stark reminder of the economic reality for women, and our 21.5-year time frame quantifies the long road ahead," index founder Bianca Hartge-Hazelman said. "While it's positive to see the number come down over the long term, it represents the median point in a much more complex journey. "The fact that women have to work an extra 50 days into the new financial year just to catch up to men's earnings is unacceptable." Employers are being urged to end the gender pay gap by addressing segregation and workplace discrimination, as data reveals it could still take more than 20 years to close the gap. Equal Pay Day on August 19 marks the 50 additional days women must work on average to earn the same amount their male colleagues had by the end of the financial year. The gap is driven by three main factors - gender segregation of occupations and industries, unequal distribution of caring and family responsibilities and workplace discrimination - research by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency found. Thousands of people have used the agency's pay calculator to work out their equal pay date at their employer. It should be a call-to-action for employers and spark conversations about the gender pay gap in workplaces, the agency's chief executive Mary Wooldridge said. "We can talk about pay gap percentages but when you see it in terms of actual numbers of days women need to work to earn the same as men, it makes it very tangible," she told AAP. "For executives, this is an opportunity as leaders and people managers to take steps to understand what is driving pay gaps in the workplace, and can be a catalyst for starting that process. "For employees, it's a chance to start a conversation that sometimes can be delicate, but the data enables them to be more informed in terms of having that conversation." More than eight in 10 Australian employers - 84.7 per cent - have average gender pay gaps outside the target range of plus or minus five per cent. "Every industry in Australia, including those that are women-dominated or that are gender-balanced, has a gender pay gap in favour of men," Ms Wooldridge said. "Equal Pay Day reminds us that there is still significant work to do to achieve equal and fair workplaces for all people." The timeline to reach pay equity in Australia is currently 21.5 years, according to analysis by the Financy Women's Index. When the timeline was first measured in 2017, it estimated the gender pay gap would take 37.5 years to fix. "Equal Pay Day is a stark reminder of the economic reality for women, and our 21.5-year time frame quantifies the long road ahead," index founder Bianca Hartge-Hazelman said. "While it's positive to see the number come down over the long term, it represents the median point in a much more complex journey. "The fact that women have to work an extra 50 days into the new financial year just to catch up to men's earnings is unacceptable."
The Advertiser
3 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
Trade is a great peacemaker. Why should we go near another US-led folly?
Over the past week, several security experts in the US have been revealing that the US Administration wants Australia to speak out more clearly about the supposed threats posed by China. That is clearly the view of the Trump Administration, even though it has not declared it. But Prime Minister Anthony Albanese shows no sign of doing anything about it. Indeed, his work to improve Australia-China relations and his proposed recognition of a Palestinian state have put some friction in Australia-US relations. It is not new for Labor in Australia to hold back from falling in lock step with whatever the US does in the world, unlike the "All the way with LBJ" Coalition. In 1965, Labor leader Arthur Calwell expressed vehement opposition to the decision of the Coalition Menzies government to commit Australian troops to join US forces in Vietnam. In 2003, Labor leader Simon Crean opposed the Coalition Howard government's decision to join the US in the Coalition of the Willing to invade Iraq. They both said they would be vilified as unpatriotic at the time, but be vindicated later: foresight, not hindsight. The difference now is that Labor is in government. The pity is that Labor was not in government in 1965 and 2003, and our role in those disastrous wars would have been avoided. This time, the question is over China and its increasing military presence in the South China Sea and its attitude that it would be legitimate to use force to bring Taiwan under the control of the Communist Party of China. Can we learn from history and not follow the US blindly into conflict with China over Taiwan? We should because that history is littered with folly. Vietnam was a civil war, not a war of communist expansion. The Taliban is back in control in Afghanistan. The first Iraq war failed to capture and arrest Saddam Hussein, who was guilty of waging an aggressive war. In the second Iraq war, no weapons of mass destruction were ever found, and the invasion resulted in the rise of ISIS and untold death, destruction, and misery - not the promised peace and democracy. So why should we go near another US-led folly over Taiwan? MORE FROM CRISPIN HULL: In the meantime, maybe Albanese should be more outspoken about the so-called "threats" from China. He could cite the true position. What is the threat? What about around zero? China has a massive population, significant naval, air, and land power, and large economic power. China says Taiwan is part of China and that there are legitimate reasons why it should be under the control of the central Chinese government. Yet, the Communist Party of China has not exercised its national policing power to bring Taiwan under its control. This is presumably because the exercise would be so bloody and costly that it would set back China's aim to be the predominant power in the Indo-Pacific or, indeed, the world, for a very long time. Taiwan has a population of 23 million and is about 130 kilometres from the Chinese mainland. Some of its lesser islands are much closer. Australia, on the other hand, has a population of 26 million and is about 7500 kilometres from China. So, if China is incapable at present of a quick invasion of Taiwan and takeover of its government, what prospect is there of China invading and subjugating a nation 7370 kilometres away over which it has no scintilla of a legitimate claim and which would require overflight and transit through Indonesia. If China is not politically willing or militarily unable to do the relatively easy task of taking Taiwan, why would anyone imagine it would do the massively more difficult task of invading Australia? Australia exports $220 billion worth of goods to China and imports $100 billion. China invests $90 billion a year in Australia. The recent lifting of China's restrictions on Australia proves the point that China needs Australia for its prosperity as much as Australia needs China. Australia is not like the US, which sees China as a competitor. Trade is a great peace-maker. China poses near-zero risk to Australia. And it would pose an even less risk if it were silly enough to invade Taiwan and got a very bloody nose and serious military weakening while Australia stood on the sidelines and watched. But US naval operations expert Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute with close links to the administration, said the US was asking, "Why isn't Australia being more straightforward about why they are buying these submarines?". By not saying so, it made people in the administration think that "short of a direct attack on Australia, these submarines are probably not going to be in the mix". It is pretty telling. The previous Coalition government signed up to AUKUS and the nuclear submarines to use against China, which it had been baiting for years. Labor in Opposition went along with it, so it would not be branded unpatriotic or anti-American. The AUKUS deal is a dud made more dud by an escape clause that means the US does not have to deliver any submarines, and Australia still has to contribute $3 billion to US shipbuilding and would be made even more dud if the US is allowed to dictate how Australia is to use the submarines. It is a belittling insult to Australian sovereignty. We should decide which military hardware we will acquire and the circumstances in which it will be used. We are buying submarines we may never get, with money we haven't got, to fight an enemy we don't have, in places we don't have to go to. It does not excuse it, but what China is doing now - cementing its territory 80 years since being freed of Japanese occupation in 1945 - is much as what the US did in the 80 years since it was finally free of the British in 1783: the 1803 purchase-seizing of Louisiana; the 1823 Monroe Doctrine warning Europeans to stay out of the US's western hemisphere; the war with Mexico 1846-48 in which it grabbed 1.3 million square kilometres of land; and the 1867 purchase of Alaska. But unlike the US, China shows no sign of militarily interfering in other continents, as the US has done to its and Australia's cost. Over the past week, several security experts in the US have been revealing that the US Administration wants Australia to speak out more clearly about the supposed threats posed by China. That is clearly the view of the Trump Administration, even though it has not declared it. But Prime Minister Anthony Albanese shows no sign of doing anything about it. Indeed, his work to improve Australia-China relations and his proposed recognition of a Palestinian state have put some friction in Australia-US relations. It is not new for Labor in Australia to hold back from falling in lock step with whatever the US does in the world, unlike the "All the way with LBJ" Coalition. In 1965, Labor leader Arthur Calwell expressed vehement opposition to the decision of the Coalition Menzies government to commit Australian troops to join US forces in Vietnam. In 2003, Labor leader Simon Crean opposed the Coalition Howard government's decision to join the US in the Coalition of the Willing to invade Iraq. They both said they would be vilified as unpatriotic at the time, but be vindicated later: foresight, not hindsight. The difference now is that Labor is in government. The pity is that Labor was not in government in 1965 and 2003, and our role in those disastrous wars would have been avoided. This time, the question is over China and its increasing military presence in the South China Sea and its attitude that it would be legitimate to use force to bring Taiwan under the control of the Communist Party of China. Can we learn from history and not follow the US blindly into conflict with China over Taiwan? We should because that history is littered with folly. Vietnam was a civil war, not a war of communist expansion. The Taliban is back in control in Afghanistan. The first Iraq war failed to capture and arrest Saddam Hussein, who was guilty of waging an aggressive war. In the second Iraq war, no weapons of mass destruction were ever found, and the invasion resulted in the rise of ISIS and untold death, destruction, and misery - not the promised peace and democracy. So why should we go near another US-led folly over Taiwan? MORE FROM CRISPIN HULL: In the meantime, maybe Albanese should be more outspoken about the so-called "threats" from China. He could cite the true position. What is the threat? What about around zero? China has a massive population, significant naval, air, and land power, and large economic power. China says Taiwan is part of China and that there are legitimate reasons why it should be under the control of the central Chinese government. Yet, the Communist Party of China has not exercised its national policing power to bring Taiwan under its control. This is presumably because the exercise would be so bloody and costly that it would set back China's aim to be the predominant power in the Indo-Pacific or, indeed, the world, for a very long time. Taiwan has a population of 23 million and is about 130 kilometres from the Chinese mainland. Some of its lesser islands are much closer. Australia, on the other hand, has a population of 26 million and is about 7500 kilometres from China. So, if China is incapable at present of a quick invasion of Taiwan and takeover of its government, what prospect is there of China invading and subjugating a nation 7370 kilometres away over which it has no scintilla of a legitimate claim and which would require overflight and transit through Indonesia. If China is not politically willing or militarily unable to do the relatively easy task of taking Taiwan, why would anyone imagine it would do the massively more difficult task of invading Australia? Australia exports $220 billion worth of goods to China and imports $100 billion. China invests $90 billion a year in Australia. The recent lifting of China's restrictions on Australia proves the point that China needs Australia for its prosperity as much as Australia needs China. Australia is not like the US, which sees China as a competitor. Trade is a great peace-maker. China poses near-zero risk to Australia. And it would pose an even less risk if it were silly enough to invade Taiwan and got a very bloody nose and serious military weakening while Australia stood on the sidelines and watched. But US naval operations expert Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute with close links to the administration, said the US was asking, "Why isn't Australia being more straightforward about why they are buying these submarines?". By not saying so, it made people in the administration think that "short of a direct attack on Australia, these submarines are probably not going to be in the mix". It is pretty telling. The previous Coalition government signed up to AUKUS and the nuclear submarines to use against China, which it had been baiting for years. Labor in Opposition went along with it, so it would not be branded unpatriotic or anti-American. The AUKUS deal is a dud made more dud by an escape clause that means the US does not have to deliver any submarines, and Australia still has to contribute $3 billion to US shipbuilding and would be made even more dud if the US is allowed to dictate how Australia is to use the submarines. It is a belittling insult to Australian sovereignty. We should decide which military hardware we will acquire and the circumstances in which it will be used. We are buying submarines we may never get, with money we haven't got, to fight an enemy we don't have, in places we don't have to go to. It does not excuse it, but what China is doing now - cementing its territory 80 years since being freed of Japanese occupation in 1945 - is much as what the US did in the 80 years since it was finally free of the British in 1783: the 1803 purchase-seizing of Louisiana; the 1823 Monroe Doctrine warning Europeans to stay out of the US's western hemisphere; the war with Mexico 1846-48 in which it grabbed 1.3 million square kilometres of land; and the 1867 purchase of Alaska. But unlike the US, China shows no sign of militarily interfering in other continents, as the US has done to its and Australia's cost. Over the past week, several security experts in the US have been revealing that the US Administration wants Australia to speak out more clearly about the supposed threats posed by China. That is clearly the view of the Trump Administration, even though it has not declared it. But Prime Minister Anthony Albanese shows no sign of doing anything about it. Indeed, his work to improve Australia-China relations and his proposed recognition of a Palestinian state have put some friction in Australia-US relations. It is not new for Labor in Australia to hold back from falling in lock step with whatever the US does in the world, unlike the "All the way with LBJ" Coalition. In 1965, Labor leader Arthur Calwell expressed vehement opposition to the decision of the Coalition Menzies government to commit Australian troops to join US forces in Vietnam. In 2003, Labor leader Simon Crean opposed the Coalition Howard government's decision to join the US in the Coalition of the Willing to invade Iraq. They both said they would be vilified as unpatriotic at the time, but be vindicated later: foresight, not hindsight. The difference now is that Labor is in government. The pity is that Labor was not in government in 1965 and 2003, and our role in those disastrous wars would have been avoided. This time, the question is over China and its increasing military presence in the South China Sea and its attitude that it would be legitimate to use force to bring Taiwan under the control of the Communist Party of China. Can we learn from history and not follow the US blindly into conflict with China over Taiwan? We should because that history is littered with folly. Vietnam was a civil war, not a war of communist expansion. The Taliban is back in control in Afghanistan. The first Iraq war failed to capture and arrest Saddam Hussein, who was guilty of waging an aggressive war. In the second Iraq war, no weapons of mass destruction were ever found, and the invasion resulted in the rise of ISIS and untold death, destruction, and misery - not the promised peace and democracy. So why should we go near another US-led folly over Taiwan? MORE FROM CRISPIN HULL: In the meantime, maybe Albanese should be more outspoken about the so-called "threats" from China. He could cite the true position. What is the threat? What about around zero? China has a massive population, significant naval, air, and land power, and large economic power. China says Taiwan is part of China and that there are legitimate reasons why it should be under the control of the central Chinese government. Yet, the Communist Party of China has not exercised its national policing power to bring Taiwan under its control. This is presumably because the exercise would be so bloody and costly that it would set back China's aim to be the predominant power in the Indo-Pacific or, indeed, the world, for a very long time. Taiwan has a population of 23 million and is about 130 kilometres from the Chinese mainland. Some of its lesser islands are much closer. Australia, on the other hand, has a population of 26 million and is about 7500 kilometres from China. So, if China is incapable at present of a quick invasion of Taiwan and takeover of its government, what prospect is there of China invading and subjugating a nation 7370 kilometres away over which it has no scintilla of a legitimate claim and which would require overflight and transit through Indonesia. If China is not politically willing or militarily unable to do the relatively easy task of taking Taiwan, why would anyone imagine it would do the massively more difficult task of invading Australia? Australia exports $220 billion worth of goods to China and imports $100 billion. China invests $90 billion a year in Australia. The recent lifting of China's restrictions on Australia proves the point that China needs Australia for its prosperity as much as Australia needs China. Australia is not like the US, which sees China as a competitor. Trade is a great peace-maker. China poses near-zero risk to Australia. And it would pose an even less risk if it were silly enough to invade Taiwan and got a very bloody nose and serious military weakening while Australia stood on the sidelines and watched. But US naval operations expert Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute with close links to the administration, said the US was asking, "Why isn't Australia being more straightforward about why they are buying these submarines?". By not saying so, it made people in the administration think that "short of a direct attack on Australia, these submarines are probably not going to be in the mix". It is pretty telling. The previous Coalition government signed up to AUKUS and the nuclear submarines to use against China, which it had been baiting for years. Labor in Opposition went along with it, so it would not be branded unpatriotic or anti-American. The AUKUS deal is a dud made more dud by an escape clause that means the US does not have to deliver any submarines, and Australia still has to contribute $3 billion to US shipbuilding and would be made even more dud if the US is allowed to dictate how Australia is to use the submarines. It is a belittling insult to Australian sovereignty. We should decide which military hardware we will acquire and the circumstances in which it will be used. We are buying submarines we may never get, with money we haven't got, to fight an enemy we don't have, in places we don't have to go to. It does not excuse it, but what China is doing now - cementing its territory 80 years since being freed of Japanese occupation in 1945 - is much as what the US did in the 80 years since it was finally free of the British in 1783: the 1803 purchase-seizing of Louisiana; the 1823 Monroe Doctrine warning Europeans to stay out of the US's western hemisphere; the war with Mexico 1846-48 in which it grabbed 1.3 million square kilometres of land; and the 1867 purchase of Alaska. But unlike the US, China shows no sign of militarily interfering in other continents, as the US has done to its and Australia's cost. Over the past week, several security experts in the US have been revealing that the US Administration wants Australia to speak out more clearly about the supposed threats posed by China. That is clearly the view of the Trump Administration, even though it has not declared it. But Prime Minister Anthony Albanese shows no sign of doing anything about it. Indeed, his work to improve Australia-China relations and his proposed recognition of a Palestinian state have put some friction in Australia-US relations. It is not new for Labor in Australia to hold back from falling in lock step with whatever the US does in the world, unlike the "All the way with LBJ" Coalition. In 1965, Labor leader Arthur Calwell expressed vehement opposition to the decision of the Coalition Menzies government to commit Australian troops to join US forces in Vietnam. In 2003, Labor leader Simon Crean opposed the Coalition Howard government's decision to join the US in the Coalition of the Willing to invade Iraq. They both said they would be vilified as unpatriotic at the time, but be vindicated later: foresight, not hindsight. The difference now is that Labor is in government. The pity is that Labor was not in government in 1965 and 2003, and our role in those disastrous wars would have been avoided. This time, the question is over China and its increasing military presence in the South China Sea and its attitude that it would be legitimate to use force to bring Taiwan under the control of the Communist Party of China. Can we learn from history and not follow the US blindly into conflict with China over Taiwan? We should because that history is littered with folly. Vietnam was a civil war, not a war of communist expansion. The Taliban is back in control in Afghanistan. The first Iraq war failed to capture and arrest Saddam Hussein, who was guilty of waging an aggressive war. In the second Iraq war, no weapons of mass destruction were ever found, and the invasion resulted in the rise of ISIS and untold death, destruction, and misery - not the promised peace and democracy. So why should we go near another US-led folly over Taiwan? MORE FROM CRISPIN HULL: In the meantime, maybe Albanese should be more outspoken about the so-called "threats" from China. He could cite the true position. What is the threat? What about around zero? China has a massive population, significant naval, air, and land power, and large economic power. China says Taiwan is part of China and that there are legitimate reasons why it should be under the control of the central Chinese government. Yet, the Communist Party of China has not exercised its national policing power to bring Taiwan under its control. This is presumably because the exercise would be so bloody and costly that it would set back China's aim to be the predominant power in the Indo-Pacific or, indeed, the world, for a very long time. Taiwan has a population of 23 million and is about 130 kilometres from the Chinese mainland. Some of its lesser islands are much closer. Australia, on the other hand, has a population of 26 million and is about 7500 kilometres from China. So, if China is incapable at present of a quick invasion of Taiwan and takeover of its government, what prospect is there of China invading and subjugating a nation 7370 kilometres away over which it has no scintilla of a legitimate claim and which would require overflight and transit through Indonesia. If China is not politically willing or militarily unable to do the relatively easy task of taking Taiwan, why would anyone imagine it would do the massively more difficult task of invading Australia? Australia exports $220 billion worth of goods to China and imports $100 billion. China invests $90 billion a year in Australia. The recent lifting of China's restrictions on Australia proves the point that China needs Australia for its prosperity as much as Australia needs China. Australia is not like the US, which sees China as a competitor. Trade is a great peace-maker. China poses near-zero risk to Australia. And it would pose an even less risk if it were silly enough to invade Taiwan and got a very bloody nose and serious military weakening while Australia stood on the sidelines and watched. But US naval operations expert Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute with close links to the administration, said the US was asking, "Why isn't Australia being more straightforward about why they are buying these submarines?". By not saying so, it made people in the administration think that "short of a direct attack on Australia, these submarines are probably not going to be in the mix". It is pretty telling. The previous Coalition government signed up to AUKUS and the nuclear submarines to use against China, which it had been baiting for years. Labor in Opposition went along with it, so it would not be branded unpatriotic or anti-American. The AUKUS deal is a dud made more dud by an escape clause that means the US does not have to deliver any submarines, and Australia still has to contribute $3 billion to US shipbuilding and would be made even more dud if the US is allowed to dictate how Australia is to use the submarines. It is a belittling insult to Australian sovereignty. We should decide which military hardware we will acquire and the circumstances in which it will be used. We are buying submarines we may never get, with money we haven't got, to fight an enemy we don't have, in places we don't have to go to. It does not excuse it, but what China is doing now - cementing its territory 80 years since being freed of Japanese occupation in 1945 - is much as what the US did in the 80 years since it was finally free of the British in 1783: the 1803 purchase-seizing of Louisiana; the 1823 Monroe Doctrine warning Europeans to stay out of the US's western hemisphere; the war with Mexico 1846-48 in which it grabbed 1.3 million square kilometres of land; and the 1867 purchase of Alaska. But unlike the US, China shows no sign of militarily interfering in other continents, as the US has done to its and Australia's cost.
The Advertiser
7 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
Record fine leaves Qantas with unwanted brand baggage
Qantas stands accused of betraying Australian values and undermining its reputation by illegally sacking baggage handlers. Experts warn the airline, which markets itself as the "Spirit of Australia", risks losing its place in the national psyche as a result of its recent indiscretions. Qantas was on Monday fined a record $90 million for outsourcing 1820 ground staff roles, a move the Federal Court ruled was designed to curb union bargaining power in wage negotiations. It added to a $100 million fine it received for selling tickets to flights that were already cancelled between 2021 and 2023, against the backdrop of executives pocketing seven-figure bonuses. Trading on being the "Spirit of Australia" could mean the flag carrier might be held to "exceptional, indeed unique" standards, Justice Michael Lee noted as he delivered the fine. RMIT associate professor of finance Angel Zhong agreed, saying the positioning invited scrutiny of the airline's ethics, not only its performance. "Illegally sacking workers is seen as a betrayal of the very values Qantas claims to represent: fairness, mateship and respect," she told AAP. "If Qantas is the 'Spirit of Australia', then the public expects it to act with a conscience, not just a balance sheet." Illegally sacked Qantas employee Don Dixon said the company meant everything to Australians, but needed to behave with that in mind. "It's an Australian company. You go overseas and see that red kangaroo, you know 'that's my country and I'm going home, I feel safe' ... that's been lost," he told AAP. The embattled airline unsuccessfully appealed against the decision to the High Court, paving the way for the penalty to be awarded. Justice Lee ordered Qantas to pay $90 million in penalties, with $50 million to be paid to the union that brought the proceedings and highlighted the illegal conduct. He cited the "sheer scale of the contraventions, being the largest of their type" as a reason to impose a penalty that would deter other businesses from similar conduct. Qantas will have to pay the hefty bill on top of a $120 million compensation payment it has made to the affected ground staff for their economic loss, pain and suffering following the outsourcing. Public frustration and disappointment with Qantas might have increased, Assoc Prof Zhong said, but it wouldn't necessarily change consumer behaviour with price, route availability and loyalty programs outweighing ethical concerns. "That said, sustained reputational damage can have long-term effects," she said. "If trust continues to decline, Qantas risks losing not just customers, but its privileged position in the national psyche." Qantas stands accused of betraying Australian values and undermining its reputation by illegally sacking baggage handlers. Experts warn the airline, which markets itself as the "Spirit of Australia", risks losing its place in the national psyche as a result of its recent indiscretions. Qantas was on Monday fined a record $90 million for outsourcing 1820 ground staff roles, a move the Federal Court ruled was designed to curb union bargaining power in wage negotiations. It added to a $100 million fine it received for selling tickets to flights that were already cancelled between 2021 and 2023, against the backdrop of executives pocketing seven-figure bonuses. Trading on being the "Spirit of Australia" could mean the flag carrier might be held to "exceptional, indeed unique" standards, Justice Michael Lee noted as he delivered the fine. RMIT associate professor of finance Angel Zhong agreed, saying the positioning invited scrutiny of the airline's ethics, not only its performance. "Illegally sacking workers is seen as a betrayal of the very values Qantas claims to represent: fairness, mateship and respect," she told AAP. "If Qantas is the 'Spirit of Australia', then the public expects it to act with a conscience, not just a balance sheet." Illegally sacked Qantas employee Don Dixon said the company meant everything to Australians, but needed to behave with that in mind. "It's an Australian company. You go overseas and see that red kangaroo, you know 'that's my country and I'm going home, I feel safe' ... that's been lost," he told AAP. The embattled airline unsuccessfully appealed against the decision to the High Court, paving the way for the penalty to be awarded. Justice Lee ordered Qantas to pay $90 million in penalties, with $50 million to be paid to the union that brought the proceedings and highlighted the illegal conduct. He cited the "sheer scale of the contraventions, being the largest of their type" as a reason to impose a penalty that would deter other businesses from similar conduct. Qantas will have to pay the hefty bill on top of a $120 million compensation payment it has made to the affected ground staff for their economic loss, pain and suffering following the outsourcing. Public frustration and disappointment with Qantas might have increased, Assoc Prof Zhong said, but it wouldn't necessarily change consumer behaviour with price, route availability and loyalty programs outweighing ethical concerns. "That said, sustained reputational damage can have long-term effects," she said. "If trust continues to decline, Qantas risks losing not just customers, but its privileged position in the national psyche." Qantas stands accused of betraying Australian values and undermining its reputation by illegally sacking baggage handlers. Experts warn the airline, which markets itself as the "Spirit of Australia", risks losing its place in the national psyche as a result of its recent indiscretions. Qantas was on Monday fined a record $90 million for outsourcing 1820 ground staff roles, a move the Federal Court ruled was designed to curb union bargaining power in wage negotiations. It added to a $100 million fine it received for selling tickets to flights that were already cancelled between 2021 and 2023, against the backdrop of executives pocketing seven-figure bonuses. Trading on being the "Spirit of Australia" could mean the flag carrier might be held to "exceptional, indeed unique" standards, Justice Michael Lee noted as he delivered the fine. RMIT associate professor of finance Angel Zhong agreed, saying the positioning invited scrutiny of the airline's ethics, not only its performance. "Illegally sacking workers is seen as a betrayal of the very values Qantas claims to represent: fairness, mateship and respect," she told AAP. "If Qantas is the 'Spirit of Australia', then the public expects it to act with a conscience, not just a balance sheet." Illegally sacked Qantas employee Don Dixon said the company meant everything to Australians, but needed to behave with that in mind. "It's an Australian company. You go overseas and see that red kangaroo, you know 'that's my country and I'm going home, I feel safe' ... that's been lost," he told AAP. The embattled airline unsuccessfully appealed against the decision to the High Court, paving the way for the penalty to be awarded. Justice Lee ordered Qantas to pay $90 million in penalties, with $50 million to be paid to the union that brought the proceedings and highlighted the illegal conduct. He cited the "sheer scale of the contraventions, being the largest of their type" as a reason to impose a penalty that would deter other businesses from similar conduct. Qantas will have to pay the hefty bill on top of a $120 million compensation payment it has made to the affected ground staff for their economic loss, pain and suffering following the outsourcing. Public frustration and disappointment with Qantas might have increased, Assoc Prof Zhong said, but it wouldn't necessarily change consumer behaviour with price, route availability and loyalty programs outweighing ethical concerns. "That said, sustained reputational damage can have long-term effects," she said. "If trust continues to decline, Qantas risks losing not just customers, but its privileged position in the national psyche." Qantas stands accused of betraying Australian values and undermining its reputation by illegally sacking baggage handlers. Experts warn the airline, which markets itself as the "Spirit of Australia", risks losing its place in the national psyche as a result of its recent indiscretions. Qantas was on Monday fined a record $90 million for outsourcing 1820 ground staff roles, a move the Federal Court ruled was designed to curb union bargaining power in wage negotiations. It added to a $100 million fine it received for selling tickets to flights that were already cancelled between 2021 and 2023, against the backdrop of executives pocketing seven-figure bonuses. Trading on being the "Spirit of Australia" could mean the flag carrier might be held to "exceptional, indeed unique" standards, Justice Michael Lee noted as he delivered the fine. RMIT associate professor of finance Angel Zhong agreed, saying the positioning invited scrutiny of the airline's ethics, not only its performance. "Illegally sacking workers is seen as a betrayal of the very values Qantas claims to represent: fairness, mateship and respect," she told AAP. "If Qantas is the 'Spirit of Australia', then the public expects it to act with a conscience, not just a balance sheet." Illegally sacked Qantas employee Don Dixon said the company meant everything to Australians, but needed to behave with that in mind. "It's an Australian company. You go overseas and see that red kangaroo, you know 'that's my country and I'm going home, I feel safe' ... that's been lost," he told AAP. The embattled airline unsuccessfully appealed against the decision to the High Court, paving the way for the penalty to be awarded. Justice Lee ordered Qantas to pay $90 million in penalties, with $50 million to be paid to the union that brought the proceedings and highlighted the illegal conduct. He cited the "sheer scale of the contraventions, being the largest of their type" as a reason to impose a penalty that would deter other businesses from similar conduct. Qantas will have to pay the hefty bill on top of a $120 million compensation payment it has made to the affected ground staff for their economic loss, pain and suffering following the outsourcing. Public frustration and disappointment with Qantas might have increased, Assoc Prof Zhong said, but it wouldn't necessarily change consumer behaviour with price, route availability and loyalty programs outweighing ethical concerns. "That said, sustained reputational damage can have long-term effects," she said. "If trust continues to decline, Qantas risks losing not just customers, but its privileged position in the national psyche."
