‘Courageous' for PM to embark on six-day tour of increasingly ‘dangerous' China
Anthony Albanese on Friday wrapped up his six-day visit to China where he held talks with President Xi Jinping, Premier Li Qiang and other senior leaders in Beijing earlier this week.
While the PM touted the trip as "another important step in the Australia-China relationship", he has come under fire for not pressing President Xi on more serious foreign policy issues.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
14 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Chalmers needs to show some courage to help save Australian economy
For the first Albanese government timidity resulted in another bite of the cherry. But, unfortunately, caution is lingering as a second-term hallmark, despite a massive landslide that gave Labor open slather to effect wide-ranging change. This month's Economic Reform Roundtable should have been the vehicle for substantial reform. But, amid the Productivity Commission recommendations for tax reform, unions calling for curbs on negative gearing, the capital gains discount and the use of family trusts, business groups railing against too much change and suggestions that the transition from fossil fuels to renewables be speeded up, the government appears to have lost some chutzpah. A day after Prime Minister Anthony Albanese talked down the roundtable's significance, Treasurer Jim Chalmers also started hosing down expectations, sending a clear message around parliament: excited observers should curb their enthusiasm. Beginning on August 19, the three-day Economic Reform Roundtable aims to build consensus on ways to improve productivity, enhance economic resilience and strengthen budget sustainability in the face of global uncertainty. It brings together a mix of leaders from business, unions, civil society and government. Some 900 submissions have been received and anticipations of change were running high. But the Herald' s chief political correspondent Paul Sakkal said cabinet had become concerned about the huge expectations stoked, and the summit is expected to produce a handful of policies to which Chalmers would immediately commit. Speedier approvals for energy projects, cutting red tape and new incentives for home building were seen as quick wins with wide support from warring unions and business lobbies. More significant changes that gain support from assorted experts, captains of industry and unions will be put off for further examination. The roundtable was already seen at risk of becoming a Canberra gabfest. But tax will undoubtedly be the elephant in the room, given Albanese's refusal to consider changing the GST, a veto that is already tying one of the government's hands behind its back. The exclusion of those major players in taxation and deregulation, states and territories, is another handicap. For a summit considering Australia's economic future, ignoring the GST seems blinkered, especially as economist Richard Holden and independent MHR Kate Chaney suggested to the Herald 's Shane Wright that a 15 per cent GST could deliver a $28 billion boost to government coffers while providing an annual $3300 rebate to all Australians as an offset. However, almost all other taxes are on the table. The Productivity Commission has proposed a company tax cut for smaller businesses, while larger companies pay more. New visions are required in a world where old certainties are quickly fading, and the one reality is that productivity is key to meeting future challenges. That said, courage and big ideas – including controversial reform of the GST – will help drive the Australian economy, not the risk aversion displayed by a Labor government too afraid for, or of, its own mandate to act for the greater good.
ABC News
14 minutes ago
- ABC News
Jim Chalmers treads middle path between unions and business on artificial intelligence
It was only last week the prime minister stood in front of three grieving parents to announce YouTube would be included in his social media ban for kids. One father was cradling an urn as he blamed social media for the loss of his daughter. It was a powerful example of a government, with bipartisan support, scrambling to catch up after the horse bolted on a new technology. Another was the News Media Bargaining Code, introduced by the Morrison government to force Google and Facebook to cough up for news content driving clicks on their sites. Leaving aside arguments about the effectiveness of both moves, they represent attempts at retrofitting regulation to put the social media genie at least partly back in the bottle. Which brings us to the current debate around how to regulate — or not — artificial intelligence. If the treasurer's reform roundtable kicking off in two weeks achieves nothing else, it has at least sharpened a long overdue debate about what role government should play in setting the rules of the road for AI. This technology is already upon us. AI is involved whenever we use search engines, digital assistants (think Siri or Alexa), streaming services (think Netflix), and social media. Banks, big tech, and cyber security firms are all racing to roll it out. Even the care sector is quickly developing ways to harness the opportunities. The Brotherhood of St. Laurence, a social justice organisation that provides aged care, disability and other community services, recently ran an eight-week trial of an AI tool. The results were overwhelmingly positive. Staff involved found AI saved them about an hour a day, which could then be spent focusing more on teams and participants. The technology also improved accessibility for staff with language barriers or neurodiversity. "AI has great potential to help community organisations work smarter, reach more people, and tackle long standing barriers to access and equity — if it's done right", Executive Director Travers McLeod told the ABC. "Used responsibly, AI can free up human time in a way that can generate impact for the communities in which we work and support." The benefits are clear, but McLeod also notes the importance of "strong ethical guardrails and a clear framework for lawful and ethical AI use, along with its environment impact, especially in the care economy". "AI must be used as an accelerant of equity and better outcomes for all, not in a way that grows inequity and poverty," he said. This is where the role of the government comes in. Some of these AI "guardrails" already exist in the care sector. Some exist in other sectors too. There's a federal Privacy Act, some states have a Human Rights Act, some industries have professional guidelines. There is, however, no single set of rules for the entire economy governing the "ethical" use of AI or how it can be used to replace human workers. This is the debate now raging ahead of the treasurer's roundtable. At one end of the spectrum sits the ACTU, which wants a national artificial intelligence act, and a new national AI authority to oversee "mandatory enforceable agreements" in every workplace, to ensure staff are consulted before technology is rolled out. At the other end of the spectrum, business groups and the Productivity Commission want as little additional regulation as possible. They argue existing rules are enough and don't want to slow down a technology viewed as crucial for Australia's future success. Treasurer Jim Chalmers is pitching himself as something of a Goldilocks on this. He says he wants to find the right balance "between over-regulating and under-regulating". This "sensible middle path", as Chalmers calls it, charts a course on AI regulation between those who want to "let it rip" and those who want to "pull the doona over the head". This sounds perfectly reasonable, but notably, it still represents a rejection of the union movement's position. Before this roundtable has even begun, the treasurer has said no to one of the ACTU's biggest demands. Indeed, the treasurer is openly siding with the Productivity Commission on this. "The PC's broad directions are largely consistent with the directions that I set out on the weekend." That is, that AI should be treated "as an enabler, not an enemy." This fundamental difference between the union movement and the Labor government over AI could become a bigger point of friction beyond this month's roundtable, given we're only at the start of the AI transformation. AI will increasingly change the way we live and work. There are bound to be jobs lost. Hopefully, new roles will also be created. Where this transformation leads to is difficult to predict, but the path is unlikely to be smooth. Having put its stake in the ground, the ACTU will now be there whenever jobs are lost, demanding much tougher AI rules than the government is willing to accept. The government is trying to strike the right balance between preventing mass redundancies forced by AI, while also preventing Australia falling behind those countries rapidly embracing the technology. Chalmers is optimistic the benefits will ultimately outweigh the risks. He won't want to be a prime minister 10 years from now trying to retrofit regulation after the AI horse has bolted. David Speers is national political lead and host of Insiders, which airs on ABC TV at 9am on Sunday or on iview.
ABC News
14 minutes ago
- ABC News
PBS wait times a more urgent issue than Donald Trump's potential pharmaceutical tariffs, peak medicines body warns
Excessive wait times for medicines to be listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) are a much greater threat to the sector than US President Donald Trump's far-reaching tariffs, according to the peak industry body, which has warned people could die waiting for treatment. The Albanese government is frantically working to shield Australia from Donald Trump's ever-expanding tariffs, with the US president now flagging a possible 250 per cent tariff on pharmaceuticals, one of Australia's largest export products to the US. "We'll be putting a, initially, small tariff on pharmaceuticals. But in one year … it's going to go to 150 per cent and then it's going to go to 250 per cent because we want pharmaceuticals made in our country," Mr Trump told CNBC on Wednesday local time. But Medicines Australia CEO Liz de Somer said a more pressing concern was the process behind listing new medicines on the PBS, with a median wait time of 22 months for a new medicine to land on the scheme once it is approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). "And this will have a far greater effect on the Australian system than anything else." When drugs are placed on the PBS, patients are able to receive important and sometimes lifesaving medicines at a small portion of the cost — currently just over $30. The rest of the cost is covered by the federal government. But patients, advocacy groups and pharmaceutical companies argue the process leading up to the PBS listing is overly complex, takes too long and involves excessive red tape. The first complete review of the system in 30 years was handed to the federal government last year, making a raft of recommendations to streamline processes so people could access medicines earlier. The recommendations included expanding access to medicines already subsidised for common cancers to other cancers, when that is backed by evidence. The review also concluded that if pharmaceutical companies applied to have their medications approved by the TGA and placed on the PBS at the same time, 90 per cent of promising new medicines could be listed within six months of TGA registration. Federal Health Minister Mark Butler heralded the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) review as "visionary" but has yet to formally respond to its findings, instead setting up an advisory group to help guide the government's next steps. Rare Cancers Australia CEO Christine Cockburn said urgent action was required, with many people unable to afford lifesaving medication that can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. "They sometimes access superannuation, which of course that is not what superannuation is for, or they remortgage their houses. "Crowdfunding is not uncommon in cancer treatment spaces, which of course comes with a terrible loss of dignity. It's a terrible thing to have to do, and there are people as well who just have to go without because they can't do any of those things." The time it takes to list medications on the PBS is a long-held gripe of US pharmaceutical companies. They also argue the scheme's pricing policies undervalue American innovation and threaten billions of dollars in lost sales. In March, American medical giants pressed Donald Trump to target Australia with punitive tariffs, labelling the PBS as one of the "egregious and discriminatory" programs that undermines US exports. Labor has already categorically ruled out touching the PBS in any trade negotiations, and a raft of frontbenchers have consistently stressed the Trump administration could not exert any direct influence on the scheme. But the government remains concerned that frustrations over the PBS could see the Trump administration retaliate by hitting Australian pharmaceutical exports. Last year, Australia exported $2.2 billion in pharmaceutical products to the US — about 40 per cent of Australia's pharmaceutical exports — according to the UN's Comtrade database. Ms de Somer said the government could better negotiate with the US, while still protecting the PBS, if it followed recommendations from the review. "If the government committed to implement the reforms of the PBS that they have already identified need to happen, it would go some way to assuage the concerns raised by Donald Trump and the US pharmaceutical industry," she said. "Partly, it is about the time it takes for patients to get access to new medicines, and partly it is about valuing innovation and giving the right value to things that are new and transformative and change people's lives." Former chair of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC), which recommends medicines for the PBS, and chair of the review's implementation advisory group, Andrew Wilson, said the complexities of the system made it difficult to reform. "I don't think there's anybody involved in this process that doesn't want to see this happen faster," Professor Wilson said. "One of the challenges that we've had in the past is not that things haven't changed, but they've changed in a piecemeal fashion. They've changed little bits here and not there and the concern has been the extent to which those changes have actually improved the system, or just made it more complicated." However, Shadow Health Minister Anne Ruston accused the government of dragging its feet in its response to the review. "We're sitting here now nearly 12 months after the review has been delivered to government and we have absolutely nothing more from the government," she said. Mr Butler said the implementation advisory group's final report was due early next year, and would help inform future government decisions on reform. "The Albanese government is continuing to make medicines available to Australian patients faster and cheaper," he said. "We know patients want faster access to cutting-edge medicine and treatments. "That's why our government is working through the recommendations of the HTA review, so Australians can get faster access to the best medicines and therapies, at a cost that patients and the community can afford."
