Prime Minister Anthony Albanese speaks out against 'repulsive' Mark Latham, opens up on meeting with Xi Jinping
The comments came during a wide-ranging interview with 7.30 in which Mr Albanese spoke on his trip to China, his relationship with President Xi Jinping and whether he felt the US would be concerned by their meeting.
While Mr Albanese was in China, Mr Latham — now an independent NSW MP — faced mounting pressure to resign following allegations he participated in a consensual sex video in his parliamentary office, an allegation that arose as part of a wide-ranging complaint of emotional and physical abuse by his ex-partner Nathalie Matthews.
Mr Latham has denied breaking any laws or breaching legislative standing orders and as a former Labor leader his portrait still hangs in the Labor caucus room in Parliament House.
Federal Labor decided on Monday that the portrait will remain hanging and new text will be added, reading: "In 2017, Mark Latham was expelled from the Australian Labor Party and banned for life. His actions do not accord with Labor values and fail to meet the standards we expect and demand".
Tanya Plibersek previously told the ABC that Mr Latham's election to the party leadership was the only thing that made her cry during a long political career.
Mr Albanese was asked if he wanted to take the picture down and, while he stopped short, he did comment on Mr Latham's leadership.
"I didn't want Mark Latham to be the leader of the Labor Party, and was very clear about that at the time," Mr Albanese told 7.30 before speaking about the decision to keep the portrait hanging.
"It's a historical fact. It's a bit like statues and a range of things, history is there. The way to deal with that is to point out the changes that have occurred.
Mr Latham was elected to the leadership of federal Labor in December 2003 when he defeated Kim Beazley.
He would go on to lose the 2004 federal election to Coalition prime minister John Howard, dropping five extra seats in a landslide defeat.
Mr Albanese told 7.30 it was lamentable Mr Latham was ever in that position.
"That's something I fought very hard on when I was one of the people doing the numbers for Kim Beazley in that ballot.
"I think that history has proven that judgement to be correct."
Mr Albanese expanded on his private lunch appointment with Xi Jinping, which he told Nine newspapers involved personal exchanges between the two leaders.
The meeting came in a week where the federal opposition's defence spokesperson Angus Taylor called for Australia to take a stronger stance on any potential Chinese action taken against Taiwan.
The prime minister said he would not break Mr Xi's trust by releasing the details of their conversation but said it related to of their personal histories.
"It wasn't so much discussing the affairs of state that we did in our formal bilateral meeting as President of China and Prime Minister of Australia, it was more talking about personal issues, our history, our backgrounds," he told 7.30.
"I learned a fair bit ... he I think is quite a private person and its important that you're able to have those conversations ... and I feel as though we got to know each other much more."
Pressed as to whether the pair discussed Taiwan given that Mr Xi's father's final role in the Chinese Communist Party was to pursue the reunification of Taiwan, Mr Albanese said not.
"We support the status quo when it comes to the Taiwan Straits."
Mr Albanese said he had no reason not to trust his Chinese counterpart.
"I have said before that anything that he has said to me has been fulfilled," the prime minister said.
"There hasn't been any breaches of personal commitments that he has given to me.
"That doesn't mean he's agreed with everything that I've put forward far from it, but I'd rather that than someone on an international level saying, 'yep, we can do all that' and then doing the opposite."
While Mr Albanese has been criticised by the Coalition for not meeting with Donald Trump since the US president took office for his second term, the prime minister looked to dispel any concerns about the optics of spending days in China and personal time with Mr Xi.
Those included whether Australia's Ambassador to the United States, Kevin Rudd, had to do any damage control on the government's behalf.
It was a notion the PM rebuffed.
"I would've thought that Australia engaging with our major trading partner is something that's very sensible.
"I visited the United States five times since I've been prime minister, I've visited China twice.
"China is our major trading partner. One in four of Australia's jobs, depends upon trade and China is larger. The export, our export trade with China is worth more than the next four countries combined."
With parliament set to return, one major issue facing the government is the crisis in Australia's childcare sector.
Recent ABC reports have revealed several issues within the sector and that came before alleged paedophile Joshua Dale Brown was charged with 70 offences relating to eight children between October 2021 and February 2024, including sexual assault and producing child abuse material.
"We need to do better," Mr Albanese said of improving the childcare sector.
"Which is why this week we'll be introducing important legislation, allowing the Commonwealth to use the power that we do have, which is essentially funding power, as well as using increased access to make sure that the Commonwealth can play a role there."
Mr Albanese said he could understand the concerns of parents and that he was not focused on his own legacy, rather the safety of children.
"Overwhelmingly, childcare centres are good in the way that they function and we shouldn't tar the whole sector with what has been serious issues," he said.
"It would cause enormous distress and I understand that as a parent who's had a child in childcare.
Watch 7.30, Mondays to Thursdays 7:30pm on ABC iview and ABC TV
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
44 minutes ago
- Perth Now
Australia, UK to ink 50-year deal to underpin AUKUS
Australia and the UK will ink a 50-year deal to underpin delivery of the AUKUS nuclear submarine agreement, amid concerns about a US review of the trilateral pact. AUKUS, formed in 2021 between Australia, the UK and US to address shared concerns about China's rising military ambition, is designed to enable Australia to acquire nuclear-powered attack submarines in the 2040s. But doubts have been raised about the future of the $368 billion program after the Trump administration this year initiated a review of the deal to examine if it met its "American First" criteria. Defence Minister Richard Marles said he remained confident about the future of US involvement on the eve of Australia and the UK signing a multi-decade bilateral deal cementing their commitment. "It is a profoundly important treaty that we will sign," Mr Marles said on Friday alongside Foreign Minister Penny Wong and their British counterparts John Healey and David Lammy. "It forms part of a trilateral agreement that we have and we are really confident about the progress of all three countries in bringing that to fruition." The treaty, to be signed in Geelong on Saturday, would allow "comprehensive co-operation" on the design, build, operation, sustainment, and disposal of AUKUS submarines, the ministers said in a joint statement. It will also support development of personnel, workforce, infrastructure and regulatory systems for Australia's nuclear-powered submarine program, the statement said. Mr Lammy said the treaty showed the strength of Australia and the UK's commitment to AUKUS. "It's clear that the UK-Australia relationship is an anchor in what is a very volatile world, providing stability in troubled waters and a relationship that holds steady whichever way the geopolitical winds are blowing," he said. Mr Healey said the UK was confident it could meet its obligations under the deal on industrial capacity to deliver SSN-AUKUS submarines. "We have the technology and the designs to be able to deliver our commitments to the SSN-AUKUS and we will," he said. Australia will pay $5 billion to support British industry to design and produce nuclear reactors to power the future AUKUS-class submarines. Australia will acquire at least three Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines from the US in the early 2030s. On Sunday, the ministers will visit Darwin to observe joint military exercises known as Talisman Sabre, which comprise more than 30,000 personnel from 19 militaries. This year, the war games involve the UK's Carrier Strike Group, led by the Royal Navy flagship HMS Prince of Wales - the first UK carrier strike group to visit Australia since 1997.
Daily Telegraph
4 hours ago
- Daily Telegraph
Campaigners say tanker carrying Russian oil to dock in WA
Don't miss out on the headlines from Breaking News. Followed categories will be added to My News. A tanker purportedly full of Russian oil is set to dock in Western Australia within days, despite sanctions being in place against Moscow, Ukrainian and anti-Russian oil campaigners According to DFAT, the 'import, purchase or transport' of several goods is prohibited 'if they were exported from, or originated in, Russia'. That includes oil and petroleum products. The ship Seferis left Sika in India two weeks ago full of oil from the Jamnagar refinery, and it is due to arrive in the outer-Perth suburb of Kwinana by 4am Sunday. The Jamnagar refinery is notoriously fed by Russian crude oil, with as much as 55 per cent of their 2025 stock coming from the European pariah. This means the imported oil, which originated in Russia, could end up fuelling Australian vehicles on the road. Anti-Russian oil campaigners allege this ship is full of covertly imported Russian oil The alarm has been raised about a 'loophole' that allows Russian oil to be bought and sold in Australia, with local campaigners and parliamentarians calling for immediate action. Independent federal MP Andrew Wilkie raised the issue in Question Time on Thursday, asking the Defence Minister Richard Marles 'Why are the loopholes in our sanctions so big you can drive a tanker through them?' 'In July, two vessels reportedly docked in Botany Bay, with some 175,000 tonnes of petrol from the Jamnagar refinery in India, which uses up to 55 per cent Russian oil,' Mr Wilkie said. 'So these vessels effectively carry some 90,000 tonnes of Russian-sourced petrol, paid for by Australians, which will help fund Putin's war in Ukraine.' Independent MP Andrew Wilkie questioned the government about the 'loophole'. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman Mr Marles largely avoided the question instead focusing on the sanctions that had been put in place. 'Sanctions, which is the topic of the question the member has asked, is an important part of what we are putting in place to stand with Ukraine,' Mr Marles said. 'And our government will stand with Ukraine. 'I know the Australian people will stand with the people of Ukraine for as long as it takes for Ukraine to resolve this conflict on its terms.' The loophole has recently been closed in the European Union, which has banned the importation of petroleum products refined form Russian crude oil in its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Defence Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles defended Australia's sanctions. NewsWire / Simon Bullard. The Australian Federation of Ukrainian Organisations has urged Australia to take similar action. 'This decisive action closes a glaring and deeply exploited loophole that has allowed Russian crude to enter global markets through refineries in third-party countries – undermining sanctions and fuelling the Kremlin's war machine. 'We urge the Australian government to take similar action and close this loophole in Australia's own sanctions regime. 'Since February 2023, Australia has imported an estimated $3.7bn worth of Russian crude, as a component in refined petroleum products from Indian refineries – sending around $1.8bn in tax revenue to the Kremlin. 'This flow of profits directly helps fund Russia's brutal war against Ukraine.' Originally published as Tanker carrying Russian oil set to dock in WA despite sanctions, campaigners say
ABC News
6 hours ago
- ABC News
Geraldine Doogue takes on the future of journalism in 2025 Andrew Olle lecture
This is an edited version of the 28th annual televised Andrew Olle Media Lecture delivered by ABC journalist Geraldine Doogue in Sydney on Friday, July 25. What a year to be delivering the lecture on the media of the future — or on any subject that requires some certainties or good prophecy — because nothing seems certain in our lives. For quite a while after the invitation to present the 2025 Andrew Olle Media Lecture arrived, I'd settled on those immortal WB Yeats lines as my title: "The centre cannot hold … The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." Yes, those words certainly describe our times. But it just felt too defensive and grim, and I didn't want to leave you all like that. So I settled on "Not Drowning, Waving" as my title, which somehow seemed more apt, with a touch of irony. It is all a bit grim: no doubt about it for those of us who love the media, love working inside it, consuming it, believing it's vital to our way of life. Roy Greenslade, the UK media analyst, was pretty blunt back in 2016 when he said: "It is time to recognise that the whole UK newspaper industry is heading for a cliff fall, that tipping point when there is no hope of a reversal of fortune." The Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford has been forensically examining this. Prospect magazine headlined their coverage of the institute's latest report with: "Journalism is in freefall — and the public doesn't care". That rider has stayed with me. "The public doesn't miss yesterday's news, but journalists miss the public," writes the article's author, Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. As he explains, current trends suggest at best a continued retreat, as the press serves fewer people. It may ultimately end up with a role akin to contemporary art or classical music: highly valued by a privileged few, regarded with indifference by the many. That's our existential crisis, though the fine print of the Reuters research does indicate that the public, in theory, is still with us. It's just that other options loom as better. An article by 360 Info, an outlet that bills itself as "Research Reuters", argues that media players are involved in a war of attention, competing against outlets whose stock-in-trade is harnessing rage and anger. Of course, it is also true that media consumers have become our competitors by creating their own bespoke news outlets — a great irony. "Scare stories about the problems associated with digital media will not bring people back to news," Nielsen writes. "A wiser course of action might be to impress people, rather than try to depress them. "The people best positioned to forge a different path are those journalists and publishers who accept that the next step is to meet people where they are. The aim should not be to take journalism backwards, but to create something new." But what would that look and sound like? Christopher Clark, a professor of modern history at Cambridge University, recently wrote an essay called "The End of Modernity". "A crisis is unfolding before our eyes — and also in our heads," its subtitle read. Before the modern age, people obtained information "from individuals, by word of mouth". With the advent of the modern media industry, "rumour-mongers gave way to trained journalists". The media of the modern era, he writes, "created its own mythology, a story we could tell ourselves, a means of situating ourselves in time, of understanding where we came from and where we were heading". But this modern system, Professor Clark says, is disintegrating before our eyes. "The multi-faceted nature of contemporary politics, the present of turmoil and change without a clear sense of direction, is causing enormous uncertainty," he writes. "It helps explain why we are so easily unsettled by the agitations of the present and why we find it so difficult to plot our course." Maybe, he wonders, there's a general reversal taking place. The gossip-mongers of the internet have once again seized the initiative, leading to the fragmentation of knowledge and opinions. "It has never been so difficult to think calmly," Professor Clark writes. And yet, how necessary it is. Perhaps our journalistic egos have become wrapped up in hitting the headlines ourselves. Who among us can honestly say we were impervious to the Woodward-Bernstein achievements around Watergate? Two young bloods, nobly jousting with the deeply flawed Richard Nixon and his establishment and bringing him down. Journalistic nobility, then super-stardom! We media workers will always have a duty to warn citizens of danger and incompetence, alert them to what's not solved, why today might be different from yesterday: the classic role of the fourth estate. However, I do wonder whether the breadth of the community and its range of tastes and interests are sufficiently canvassed, and whether we're more energised by displaying incompetence rather than searching for competence. The latter could be a real service, though it may not yield that fabulous rush of revelation and schadenfreude. I have long believed that reporting achievements makes for a very good first paragraph. It might in fact persuade doubters that we really are interested in the wider community, not just overturning governments or winning a scalp. Mathias Döpfner, head of German media group Alex Springer, believes one of the reasons people are losing trust in the media is because many confuse "journalism for activism". "More and more young people want to become journalists because they want to improve the world," he told The Sunday Times. "I think that's a dangerous misunderstanding of journalism." In this communitarian model I'm reflecting on, I see a renewal of the covenant between the public and the journalist, of clearly making the effort to be fair and accurate. We're not there to tell people about the comfortable status quo. To some extent, we are there to bother them, to introduce some alert and alarm. And no, we can't guarantee we'll be fully objective, but we can observably try, and be seen to be doing so or judged for not. The public can draw its own conclusions. Intellectual openness is, for me, the glittering prize. That's what I look for in colleagues. And I suspect the public does too. This all dovetails with other, bigger needs within the culture. I would argue that we might well have reached peak-individualism, a sociological urge that manifests in all those solitary searches on the net for some bliss — maybe sometimes found. And yet so many of them are seeking ways to avoid loneliness, separateness or alienation. I don't think we thrive on individualism. We're all looking for green shoots: that's the truth of it. After all, the BBC had to invent all those looks and props and sounds around news presentation, which we simply take for granted now. Moving past individual gossip to something more formal involved massive creativity. We clearly need it again. And to my mind, we need to lionise creativity and service beyond individual achievement to routinely engage lots more people, more regularly. Otherwise, we simply won't have an industry at scale. It won't be prosperous enough to offer careers or cadetships to young people. All sorts of people will end up as artists working in garrets, rationing their time and money, occasionally striking it rich, mostly doing something else. That's no answer. I haven't talked about AI, or the innards of dis- or misinformation. I can't even give you specific new models of this communitarian emphasis I'm discussing. I wish I could. But if we're passive, we might lose this gem of ours, this buoy of modernity. We might lose this industry that I adored from day one, back in 1972, when I wandered up the corridor of Newspaper House at 125 St Georges Terrace, Perth, on a hot January day and said, "Is there a way in, I wonder?" Thank goodness they said yes.
