Anthony Albanese calls for US-China dialogue, Australia to play ‘constructive middle power' after Beijing
The Prime Minister said Australia could be a 'calm, consistent and clear voice for stability, security, economic growth and certainty going forward'.
'I think we can play a positive role. We are US allies, but we have a constructive relationship with China,' Mr Albanese said following his high level meetings with China's top leadership during his six-day tour of the country.
'Australia as a middle power can play a positive and constructive role in the world. We are living in uncertain times and there is turbulence in the world.'
The Prime Minister invoked two Labor titans on his tour, first walking in the footsteps of Gough Whitlam as he visited the Great Wall of China and recalled how the former leader opened the door to Australia's modern day relations with Beijing by establishing formal diplomatic ties with the People's Republic of China in 1972.
Mr Albanese also became the first Australian Prime Minister since Bob Hawke in 1986 to visit Chengdu in the southwest province of Sichuan.
Mr Hawke enjoyed access to the senior PRC leadership that was unmatched by other major Western leaders. Professor James Curran had previously highlighted in a 2023 research paper that Mr Hawke played a bridging role between China and the United States.
Mr Albanese said he did not view himself in a conduit role given the US and China had a separate relationship but he urged the two global giants to open up dialogue, similar to the 'communication mechanisms' the US and the Soviet Union adopted during the Cold War.
'It is in the world's interests that the two major powers are able to engage and where there are differences talk about them,' he said.
Mr Albanese's week-long, trade-focused trip drew together Australian and Chinese industry executives for roundtable talks on widening business collaboration and cooperation on green energy.
But the centrepiece of the visit was a series of bilateral meetings in Beijing with President Xi Jinping, Premier Li Qiang and Communist Party chief Zhao Leji, who all rolled out the red carpet treatment for Mr Albanese.
'I have a good relationship with the Chinese president and Premier and we met the number three, Chairman Zhao as well,' he said.
'We had a very constructive meeting, he'll lead a delegation to Australia later this year.
'Having two-and-a-half hours with Premier Li and two-and-a-half hours with President Xi sends a message to the whole of the Chinese government and therefore the whole of the Chinese economic system that they value the relationship with Australia.'
Mr Albanese agreed the goodwill of the past week would make it easier to pick up the phone to Beijing if there was a future crisis.
'I have been able to engage in a constructive way,' he said.
'We're able to have discussions both publicly and be able to act diplomatically.'
Hashtags
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
'It's Covid all over again': Labor bending at the knee to eSafety Commissioner's advice on YouTube ban while turning blind eye to our freedom, education
There is nothing in politics more ominous than a government that wants to be seen to be 'doing something'. A government that feels something must be done on a controversial topic is likely to act so boldly and so quickly that they don't have time to consider the consequences, and those who suffer are left to pick up the pieces. The popular thing to do these days is find an expert on an issue and outsource all responsibility on policy to them. Trusting an expert sounds nice - they know a lot and often have a reassuring 'Dr' at the start of their name. It's never the case that this expert is democratically elected or answerable to the people that their decisions affect. They are there for the government to hide behind - don't look at us, we had to do whatever the expert told us to. This was all the rage during Covid. Various state governments' preferred experts would recommend all sorts of bizarre restrictions - shutting South Australia down over a pizza box, for instance - but the government could tell their voters they were taking the issue seriously, because they were listening to the experts. I thought after Australians were told not to touch a football if it came into the stands of the Adelaide Oval that Australians were done stomaching the idea that we should listen solely to the experts. But Labor's talking points over the social media ban - especially its backflip on an exemption for YouTube - is a test for my theory. Social media use in teenagers is an area the government really wants to be seen as 'doing something'. It's a hot topic and for good reason. Mental health in teenagers, particularly among girls, has nosedived since smartphones and social media became widespread. Parents feel helpless. They know that social media will hurt their child, but also know depriving them of social media when all of their friends have them harms them as well. The government has jumped on this and come up with their social media ban. They also found their expert and outsourced responsibility to her. Enter the eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant. The level of deferral from the government to this public servant is galling. In Question Time on Wednesday, Minister Anika Wells referenced the commissioner four times in her one answer about the social media ban - including saying she 'was required by the law to seek advice from the eSafety Commissioner on the draft rules, and the eSafety Commissioner's advice was clear'. That's all well and good - but the Australian people did not elect the eSafety commissioner. They elected Anika Wells, and they elected her to do far more than ask Julie Inman Grant what to do then listen politely. The eSafety Commssioner's duty according to the government is to ensure Australians 'have safer, more positive online experiences.' But that is just one piece of the puzzle when it comes to forming policy about the online world. Safety must be balanced with freedom, educational possibilities, economic concerns and a whole raft of other factors. We'd all be free of harm from social media if we never went on the internet again - but we'd also lose all of the wonderful benefits it gives us too. It's Covid all over again. Then governments outsourced responsibility to Chief Health Officers whose primary concern was safety and stopping the spread of the virus - because that was their area of expertise. Other concerns like students' education, mental wellbeing, individual freedom and the economy - issues that should have been considered with the same seriousness as the virus itself - were swept aside in the narrow view of stopping the spread. And now other factors are being swept aside in the narrow view the government and the eSafety Commissioner are taking when it comes to social media, and particularly YouTube. The government this week reversed its commitment to exempt YouTube from their social media ban for people under the age of 16. The problem with that is that YouTube does not behave in the same way as Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook or the other social media networking sites. Those latter sites rely on users sharing information with each other, such as photos and updates. Teenagers spend hours cultivating their profiles to make their lives look idyllic, and spend further hours seeing the photos and lifestyles of people they know look even more idyllic - a vicious cycle that harms mental health. YouTube does not act like that. There is not as much person-to-person sharing as there are in the other social media networks. People watch videos and move on to other videos. In fact a survey released by the eSafety Commission itself found that YouTube is one of the safest social media websites for teenagers in terms of the risk of grooming, sexual harassment and bullying. Teenagers are more likely to be targeted over text message than over YouTube. The 'safety' concerns around YouTube are less about bullying and comparative lifestyles and more about what content is popular on YouTube, such as conservative opinions. Julie Inman Grant told the National Press Club this year that she was concerned YouTube's 'opaque algorithms' were 'driving users down rabbit holes they're powerless to fight against'. That's a whole different reason for enforcing safety and completely removed from the original conversation around protecting children online. But it's not unexpected considering the eSafety Commissioner's remit is to ensure online safety. It's up to the government to balance the desire for safety with other effects a ban on YouTube would have - especially education. Oxford Economics this year found that 72 per cent of parents agree that YouTube helps their children learn and 79 per cent of parents agree YouTube provides quality content for their children's learning. In an interview on Sky News this week, YouTube personality Leo Pugilsi said his teachers upload videos of themselves explaining what was discussed in school to help children out with homework. This is what the government is impacting when it listens solely to the eSafety Commissioner. An unforgivable sin from Covid was our governments letting experts tell them the education of children was a secondary concern. By listening solely to the eSafety Commissioner and ignoring the educational benefits of YouTube, Labor is making the same mistake again - all in the name of "doing something". James Bolt is a Sky News Australia contributor.
Sky News AU
42 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
Ex-Labor climate advisor Ross Garnaut makes incredible net zero admission as renewables push falters yet again
Ross Garnaut was once Labor's go-to expert on climate change. His landmark reviews under the Rudd and Gillard governments framed emissions reduction as a moral imperative. Now he's warning that the Albanese government's plans are not just off track but wildly detached from reality. Speaking to the Clean Energy Council this week, Mr Garnaut declared that Australia will miss its target of 82 per cent carbon-free electricity by 2030 'not by a little, but by a big margin'. It was a sober, data-driven indictment that few in the energy sector would seriously contest. The scale of the shortfall is hard to ignore. The rapid deployment of wind and solar the target demands has simply not materialised. Hundreds of renewable projects remain 'in the pipeline,' as Energy Minister Chris Bowen likes to point out. But very few are crossing the line into financial commitment. Most of those that do are now propped up by taxpayers via the Capacity Investment Scheme or other forms of implicit subsidy. It's a long way from the rosy optimism of December 2021, when Mr Bowen and Anthony Albanese unveiled their plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 43 per cent by the end of the decade. Mr Bowen described it as 'ambitious but achievable,', insisting it wasn't a vague aspiration but 'a target with teeth.' Yet the numbers tell another story. According to the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory, Australia's emissions were 24.7 per cent below 2005 levels in December 2022. By December last year, they'd improved only marginally, sitting at 27 per cent. To hit the 2030 target, emissions would need to fall by another 16 percentage points, more than three points per year. That would require a pace of change Australia has never achieved, particularly given the backlog of delays in generation, transmission, and storage. Flagship projects like Snowy Hydro are years behind schedule and blowing out budgets. Transmission infrastructure is not keeping up. Mr Bowen's hopes were pinned partly on green hydrogen, which almost no serious analyst considers technologically or economically viable at scale in this decade. He could have done without the reminder this week from the UN's climate tsar, Simon Stiell, that Australia's 2035 targets are due by September under the Paris timetable. In a rational policy environment, such headwinds would prompt a reassessment. Realistically, that would mean recalibrating the 2030 target and attaching heavy caveats to any post-2030 pledges. But climate politics rarely allows for realism. For a party of the progressive left, targets are not tools, they are moral declarations. Practical obstacles are downplayed, achieving them is merely a matter of political will. Those who dominate the climate debate rarely come from sectors responsible for delivering emissions cuts - energy, agriculture, transport, industry. Instead, they are diplomats, bureaucrats, or climate advocates like Mr Stiell, whose job is to rally nations around the IPCC's global ambitions. He called on Australia this week to 'demonstrate what ambition looks like' and to accelerate its departure from fossil fuels. 'The science is calling for a collective effort for all countries to cut emissions by 60 per cent by 2035,' he said. Mr Bowen's response carried a hint of irritation: 'Targets are easier set than met,' he noted. 'We will set a target informed by expert advice in the national interest.' Mr Stiell's authority as a scientific voice is undermined by the apocalyptic tone of his rhetoric. In London last year, he warned that humanity had just two years left to 'save the world.' This week in Sydney, he predicted 'mega-droughts' that would make 'fresh fruit and veg a once-a-year treat.' Such claims are not supported by the IPCC's own findings, which express 'low confidence' in any global trend in drought since the mid-20th century. The evidence for widespread climate-driven crop failures is similarly thin. Agricultural yields have surged globally despite warming. In 2022, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization reported record global grain output. The uncertainty is no surprise. As physicist and former Obama science adviser Steven Koonin notes in ' Unsettled' , precipitation data is highly variable and difficult to synthesise. 'There is no easy way to combine precipitation data from scattered weather stations to get at the bigger picture,' he writes. Mr Koonin's verdict? Predictions of climate-induced food collapse are 'yet another apocalypse that ain't.' Mr Stiell also warned that Australia could suffer an $8 trillion GDP loss by 2050 - another figure divorced from mainstream analysis. The IPCC's own modelling projects average global economic growth of two per cent annually through the century, with climate impacts reducing this to 1.96 per cent - a barely perceptible change. In a functional policy process, those numbers would matter. They would be weighed soberly, and targets set accordingly - with engineering, economics, and institutional capacity in mind. Instead, they are shouting from the sidelines - while the government clings to a plan that increasingly looks like a triumph of political symbolism over practical delivery. Nick Cater is senior fellow at Menzies Research Centre and a regular contributor to Sky News Australia Originally published as Ex-Labor climate advisor Ross Garnaut makes incredible net zero admission as renewables push falters yet again
West Australian
44 minutes ago
- West Australian
Myanmar sentences 12 to life for human trafficking
Myanmar military courts have sentenced a dozen individuals — including five Chinese — to life in prison for multiple human trafficking cases. According to state newspaper Myanma Alinn, the convictions stem from a range of offences, including the online distribution of sex videos and the trafficking of Myanmar women into forced marriages in China. In one case, five people — including two Chinese identified as Lin Te and Wang Xiaofeng — were sentenced to life imprisonment by a military court in Yangon, the country's largest city, late last month. They were found guilty under Myanmar's Anti-Trafficking in Persons law for producing sex videos involving three Myanmar couples and distributing the footage online for profit. In a separate case, the same court sentenced a woman and three Chinese — Yibo, Cao Qiu Quan and Chen Huan. The group was convicted of planning to transport two Myanmar women, recently married to two of the convicted Chinese men, into China, the report said. Additionally, three other people received life sentences from a separate military court for selling a woman as a bride to China, and for attempting to do the same with another woman. In another case, a woman from Myanmar's central Magway region was given a 10-year sentence for planning to transport two Myanmar women to be sold as brides to Chinese men, the report said. Human trafficking, particularly of women and girls lured or forced into marriages in China, remains a widespread problem in Myanmar, a country still reeling from civil war after the military seized power from the elected government of Aung San Suu Kyi in February 2021. The persisting conflict in most areas of Myanmar has left millions of women and children vulnerable to exploitation. A 2018 report by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the Kachin Women's Association Thailand (KWAT) estimated that about 21,000 women and girls from northern Myanmar were forced into marriage in China between 2013 and 2017. In its latest report, published in December, KWAT noted a sharp decline in the number of trafficking survivors accessing its services from 2020 to 2023. It attributed the decline to the COVID-19 pandemic and border closures caused by ongoing conflict following the army takeover. However, it reported a resurgence in 2024 as people from across Myanmar began migrating to China in search of work. Major-General Aung Kyaw Kyaw, a deputy minister for Home Affairs, said during a June meeting that the authorities had handled 53 cases of human trafficking, forced marriage and prostitution in 2024, 34 of which involved China, according to a report published by Myanmar's Information Ministry. The report also said that a total of 80 human trafficking cases, including 14 involving marriage deception by foreign nationals, were recorded between January and June this year.
