Latest news with #Americanization
Winnipeg Free Press
3 days ago
- Politics
- Winnipeg Free Press
Olympic champion kayaker Adam van Koeverden steps to helm of Canadian sport
Olympic champion paddler Adam van Koeverden is the latest politician to step into the leadership of sport in Canada. The MP for Burlington North-Milton West in Ontario was appointed Secretary of State for Sport when Prime Minister Mark Carney announced his first cabinet last month. Van Koeverden, winner of Olympic gold and three more medals in kayak sprints, follows a succession of people overseeing the federal sports portfolio over a decade of Liberal government. 'Most of those ministers of sport had something else on their portfolio, whereas I am uniquely focused on sport, which provides clarity of mandate,' van Koeverden said Monday in a phone interview. 'It's very, very obvious to me that Mark Carney values sport. He brings up sport regularly in his speeches, even when he's not talking about the (Edmonton) Oilers.' Given van Koeverden's background, the government had him involved in sport as soon as he was elected an MP in 2019 as parliamentary secretary to sport ministers for six years. The 43-year-old is now in charge of the file that's coming to grips with what's been called a safe-sport crisis by predecessors, and one in which national sports organizations are pleading for an increase in core funding. Whether his title was secretary or minister, Van Koeverden says he can keep the spotlight on sport on Parliament Hill. 'I want to ensure that sport is prominent, and is a big part of our government's plan to protect and build up Canada,' he said. 'We were just elected last month to do a bunch of things, not the least of which is protect our national identity from Americanization and from people who are suggesting both from south of the border and within our border that we ought to be more like our southern neighbours.' Sport Canada remains under the Heritage umbrella and Minister Steven Guilbeault. Van Koeverden says he and Guilbeault both have the power to approve Own The Podium funding recommendations. OTP makes recommendations, based on medal potential, directing roughly $80 million per year to Olympic and Paralympic winter and summer national sports organizations. 'Steven and I am a good team. We've been working together for years,' van Koeverden said. 'I was parliamentary secretary when he was Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. There's never going to be any light between us on any file. 'When a sport question arises in the House of Commons, it's me. When there's a project that needs to be done with Sport Canada, it's me. When we're discussing grants and contributions with sport in Canada, it's me.' Guilbeault, Kirsty Duncan, Pascale St-Onge, Kent Hehr, Terry Duguid and Carla Qualtrough (twice) all rotated through the leadership of the federal sports portfolio over the last decade. The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport is currently absorbing the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner (OSIC), which was established in 2022 by St-Onge. The Future of Sport in Canada Commission, announced in Qualtrough's second stint, is ongoing and will produce a final report and recommendations next year. The commission's mandate under Justice Lise Maisonneuve is to make sport safer and improve the sport system overall. 'I'll be one of the people here in Ottawa implementing some of those recommendations,' van Koeverden said. Van Koeverden worked on getting athletes raises in their monthly 'carding' money, or Athletes Assistance Program, in 2017 when he was the vice-chair of the Canadian Olympic Committee's athletes commission, and in 2024. Some athletes now say they're using that extra money to cover training and competition costs their national sport organizations can no longer afford. The Canadian Olympic and Paralympic committees are jointly lobbying on behalf of 62 NSOs for a $144-million annual increase in core funding, which is at 2005 levels. Thursdays Keep up to date on sports with Mike McIntyre's weekly newsletter. Core funding, separate from OTP money, is what NSOs count on to fund operations, athletes, coaches and support staff. A Deloitte survey of NSOs concluded they're cutting back on competitions, training camps and development of next-generation athletes. 'It's definitely true the national sport organizations need more money,' van Koeverden said. 'We need to make sure that they are able to engage with corporate Canada and generate a little bit of own-source revenue. We also want provinces to contribute as well to some of the NextGen, some of the pre-Canada Games opportunities, some of the provincial opportunities. 'We're working really hard to make sure that we increase the amount that's available. Not every dollar that should go into sport ought to come from the federal government, but we've demonstrated real leadership on that at the community sport level because we've invested about $75 million into community sport in the last couple of years.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 2, 2025.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Olympic champion kayaker Adam van Koeverden steps to helm of Canadian sport
Olympic champion paddler Adam van Koeverden is the latest politician to step into the leadership of sport in Canada. The MP for Burlington North-Milton West in Ontario was appointed Secretary of State for Sport when Prime Minister Mark Carney announced his first cabinet last month. Advertisement Van Koeverden, winner of Olympic gold and three more medals in kayak sprints, follows a succession of people overseeing the federal sports portfolio over a decade of Liberal government. "Most of those ministers of sport had something else on their portfolio, whereas I am uniquely focused on sport, which provides clarity of mandate," van Koeverden said Monday in a phone interview. "It's very, very obvious to me that Mark Carney values sport. He brings up sport regularly in his speeches, even when he's not talking about the (Edmonton) Oilers." Given van Koeverden's background, the government had him involved in sport as soon as he was elected an MP in 2019 as parliamentary secretary to sport ministers for six years. Advertisement The 43-year-old is now in charge of the file that's coming to grips with what's been called a safe-sport crisis by predecessors, and one in which national sports organizations are pleading for an increase in core funding. Whether his title was secretary or minister, Van Koeverden says he can keep the spotlight on sport on Parliament Hill. "I want to ensure that sport is prominent, and is a big part of our government's plan to protect and build up Canada," he said. "We were just elected last month to do a bunch of things, not the least of which is protect our national identity from Americanization and from people who are suggesting both from south of the border and within our border that we ought to be more like our southern neighbours." Advertisement Sport Canada remains under the Heritage umbrella and Minister Steven Guilbeault. Van Koeverden says he and Guilbeault both have the power to approve Own The Podium funding recommendations. OTP makes recommendations, based on medal potential, directing roughly $80 million per year to Olympic and Paralympic winter and summer national sports organizations. "Steven and I am a good team. We've been working together for years," van Koeverden said. "I was parliamentary secretary when he was Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. There's never going to be any light between us on any file. "When a sport question arises in the House of Commons, it's me. When there's a project that needs to be done with Sport Canada, it's me. When we're discussing grants and contributions with sport in Canada, it's me." Advertisement Guilbeault, Kirsty Duncan, Pascale St-Onge, Kent Hehr, Terry Duguid and Carla Qualtrough (twice) all rotated through the leadership of the federal sports portfolio over the last decade. The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport is currently absorbing the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner (OSIC), which was established in 2022 by St-Onge. The Future of Sport in Canada Commission, announced in Qualtrough's second stint, is ongoing and will produce a final report and recommendations next year. The commission's mandate under Justice Lise Maisonneuve is to make sport safer and improve the sport system overall. Advertisement "I'll be one of the people here in Ottawa implementing some of those recommendations," van Koeverden said. Van Koeverden worked on getting athletes raises in their monthly "carding" money, or Athletes Assistance Program, in 2017 when he was the vice-chair of the Canadian Olympic Committee's athletes commission, and in 2024. Some athletes now say they're using that extra money to cover training and competition costs their national sport organizations can no longer afford. The Canadian Olympic and Paralympic committees are jointly lobbying on behalf of 62 NSOs for a $144-million annual increase in core funding, which is at 2005 levels. Advertisement Core funding, separate from OTP money, is what NSOs count on to fund operations, athletes, coaches and support staff. A Deloitte survey of NSOs concluded they're cutting back on competitions, training camps and development of next-generation athletes. "It's definitely true the national sport organizations need more money," van Koeverden said. "We need to make sure that they are able to engage with corporate Canada and generate a little bit of own-source revenue. We also want provinces to contribute as well to some of the NextGen, some of the pre-Canada Games opportunities, some of the provincial opportunities. "We're working really hard to make sure that we increase the amount that's available. Not every dollar that should go into sport ought to come from the federal government, but we've demonstrated real leadership on that at the community sport level because we've invested about $75 million into community sport in the last couple of years." This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 2, 2025. Donna Spencer, The Canadian Press
Epoch Times
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Epoch Times
Conrad Black: As an American, Pope Leo's Election Augurs Well for the World
Commentary There is some significance in the fact that the new leader of the world's largest religious denomination, and the head of the state and government of the world's most powerful and influential country, are both Americans. This certainly does not mean the impending Americanization of the Roman Catholic Church, any more than it implies the Catholicization of America. But it does demonstrate that so intelligent and international an electorate as the It should also be taken as significant, and in fact, symmetrical, that both the world's This is a subtle change, as Robert Francis Prevost, now Pope Leo XIV, spent much of his clerical career combating leftist influences in pastoral work in It would be a mistake to exaggerate the impressions generated by the successful end of a papal conclave, but the immediate filling up of Saint Peter's Square and the approaching boulevard with very enthusiastic crowds—conspicuously including large numbers of young people—and the waving of many flags of the prominent nationalities of the world, confirms the widely recognized recent development of increased religious practice amongst Roman Catholics in the United States and a number of other disparate countries, including Spain and South Korea. This is not a surprising fact in itself, but a confirmation of widespread disillusionment with the egregious failure of secular government in most of the world's important countries, and the great majority of its less important ones. The initial victory of Donald Trump in 2016 against all odds, and his astonishing comeback last year against a solid wall of media and financial opposition—as well as a desperate, unprecedented, and dangerously unconstitutional assault from a politicized perversion of the prosecution system—indicate that the world's most important country has opted for a reversion to the traditional goals and values that made it the greatest nation in history, and is already reinforcing its status in that regard. Related Stories 5/5/2025 4/29/2025 It would be presumptuous and premature to identify particular characteristics to the nationality of the new pope too precisely, but it is the first time since the era of the Christian Roman emperor, Whatever its practical implications, and however it may be obscured or diluted by the ever-flowing deluge of haughty disdain and snide envy constantly directed against the United States—including that vocal minority of Americans who believe their country deserves a good thrashing and humiliation for its multi-sided moral turpitude—the election of an American pope nearly 2,000 years after the Taking a wider perspective—and assuming that the views of the new pope are not radically different from what is generally believed by those who know him and have commented on him, including members of his own family—the Roman Catholic Church, with 1.4 billion ostensible members and approximately a billion of more or less practicing coreligionists, may be taking some distance from the previous pope's dalliance with the secular left at the same time that the United States re-elected a president who is applying unconventional means to the pursuit of traditional patriotic American goals. If this is what is happening, it may indicate an epochal sea change in the correlation of political and ideological forces in the world. The left, and particularly the atheistic and extreme left, has failed everywhere and is rejected almost everywhere. Pope John Paul II and President Reagan, though they scarcely knew each other, collaborated usefully against international communism, especially in Poland and Nicaragua. Nothing should be assumed, but it is conceivable that President Trump and Pope Leo XIV, sharing the same national upbringing, could also find a good deal of common ground. I am probably the only commentator in the world who thinks that we might have seen a harbinger of this change in the absurd and snide criticism directed against Melania Trump when she accompanied her husband to the late pope's funeral If this is a new era, as one dares to hope, it will be an improvement on the last one. Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
The Guardian
30-04-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
‘Still an open wound': damning docuseries revisits Vietnam war 50 years on
This Wednesday, 30 April, marks a full half century since the fall of Saigon. The takeover of the South Vietnamese capital, renamed Ho Chi Minh City, by North Vietnamese forces reunited a country riven by a decades-long civil war that killed more than 3 million civilians – a triumph of one vision of Vietnam's future at the violent expense of another, with many caught perilously in between. For the US, the fall of Saigon was an indisputable humiliation and the end to what was then its longest war, one that killed over 58,000 servicemen, divided a nation and has only grown more ignominious with time. Fifty years on, the picture is clear: the Americanization of the Vietnam War was an unfathomably costly, poorly run, incomprehensibly horrific folly based on political lies and dubious intelligence. It is taught as a brief but upsetting chapter in American schools – if it's taught at all. But as outlined in Turning Point: The Vietnam War, a sweeping new Netflix series on the conflict and its long, dark shadow, the war left an indelible mark on the American psyche that's still festering today. 'The America that existed before the United States engaged militarily in Vietnam was a radically different country than the America that emerged after our troops came home,' said director Brian Knappenberger. 'That new America that emerged from this conflict contained the roots of a lot of what plagues our society today – widespread alienation, deep cynicism, profound distrust in government, a breakdown of our civic institutions.' That cynicism emerged largely from the yawning disconnect between what the government under John F Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford said was happening, and what Americans learned was happening through the news, the experience of their loved ones, or the absence of loves ones who never returned home. In the US, belief in the armed forces went from sacrosanct to curdled; one's view of the conflict depended on who you listened to. 'There's history in the sense of facts. But there's also history as stories, as narratives,' says historian and writer Viet Thanh Nguyen in the first episode of the series. Nguyen's acclaimed 2015 novel The Sympathizer, which traces a North Vietnamese mole's mutable loyalties over many years, opens during the cataclysmic – or, depending on who you talk to, triumphant – fall of Saigon; as a South Vietnamese refugee in America, Nguyen says, he was aware how 'in both of these countries, there are deeply conflicting histories. That's part of what led to the war in Vietnam'. In five roughly 80-minute chapters, Knappenberger's series delves into those histories, layering subjective narrative – among them, the steadfast binary of communism v democracy that undergirded US involvement and the lionization of Ho Chi Minh in the North – over a clear timeline of events. Knappenberger also directed Turning Point entries on the Cold War and the War on Terror, two conflicts inextricable from America's war in Vietnam; as in those shows, the Vietnam War proceeds chronologically, covering four US presidential administrations starting with John F Kennedy, who initially escalated US military involvement in South Vietnam under the guise of 'advising' their military against real and perceived Communist encroachment from the North. The conflict in Vietnam marked not just a sea change in America's role on the world stage, but in how war was documented. The series relies extensively on archival footage from CBS, one of the preeminent US journalism outlets on the ground in Vietnam, whose reporters were responsible for some of the largest breaks with the US military's party line. For viewers now and then, the footage 'brings us much closer to the reality of what's happening in a way that people found very, very shocking', said Knappenberger. From interviews with US grunts openly questioning why they're fighting, to graphic images of women and children massacred by US soldiers at My Lai, to mass graves in Hue following the brutal North Vietnamese Tet Offensive, the American public was inundated with the horrific reality of war with a revolutionary, chilling closeness. The series also provides stunning proximity to the thinking of American presidents, owing to their seemingly naive recording of all Oval Office meetings and phone calls. Knappenberger and his team sorted through hundreds of hours of these tapes, from Kennedy through Nixon, which reveal how the war 'was often fought for political reasons, and that a lot of the decisions around what to do in Vietnam – particularly the peace process – were really being driven by electoral politics in the United States', said Knappenberger. As later revealed in the Pentagon Papers, American officials knew by 1967 that the US would never decisively 'win' against the North Vietnamese and the People's Liberation Movement, colloquially known as the Viet Cong, and misled the public to continue anyway. 'Nobody wanted to be the president who lost Vietnam,' said Knappenberger, 'and often that took priority over Vietnamese and Americans dying in a conflict that was never going to resolve the way the United States wanted it to resolve.' The toll of that conflict, for civilians and soldiers, fighters and protesters alike, is made clear through an impressive assemblage of interviews, including numerous Vietnamese participants from various factions of the civil conflict. 'So often the events of this war are told from the American perspective only,' said Knappenberger. 'But in Vietnam, it's important to remember that this was very much a civil war as much as anything else. The understanding of these events can't be separated from the fact that there are two different parts of this country who had very, very different visions of what their future might be.' Those visions splintered along overlapping, confounding lines – Viet Cong volunteers, over 70% of whom were women, who experienced brutality from the South Vietnamese government and/or US soldiers; South Vietnamese loyalists who believed in democracy in some form; soldiers from both the North and South haunted by violence; everyday citizens from both sides pulled into the war; millions of refugees to the US, Canada and other countries. Knappenberger, whose father served in Vietnam, also takes time for the various experiences of US veterans, many of whom were drafted into the conflict unwillingly or experienced profound disillusionment when faced with evidence of the war's folly. It is true, as the series recounts in nauseating detail, that the US committed many atrocities in Vietnam – 'you just hunt for people and you kill them. And you kill them any way you want', Scott Camil, a US soldier who later led Vietnam Veterans Against the War, recalls of the mindset encouraged by US military leaders in Vietnam. Camil's testimony before Congress inspired Graham Nash's song Oh! Camil (The Winter Soldier). It is also true that the war was hell, and public sentiment against it or outright contempt for veterans alienated many men traumatized by their experience. 'It's just clear that this war is still an open wound of pain and trauma for so many people,' said Knappenberger. The Vietnam War offers clear lessons of American fallibility and hubris, the intractability of political conflict, the risks of an unscrupulous, coercive and unforthcoming executive branch as exemplified by Nixon, the profound waste that is war. And yet, as the series explicitly points out, the US has repeated many of the same mistakes. Footage of campus protests in the 1960s mirror those today calling for an end to US military support of Israel's war in Gaza, which has again destroyed the lives of too many innocent civilians. Footage of the fall of Saigon eerily foreshadows the same scene in Kabul 46 years later, when the US withdrew from 20 years of counter-insurgency in Afghanistan in a hellish drama of chaos, devastation and broken promises. Then and now, 'you just have this growing sense of who are we as a country?' said Knappenberger. 'What is our role in terms of using our military around the world? And why didn't we learn? Are we the United States of amnesia?' The series exists, in part, to re-contextualize memories of Vietnam for those who lived through it. And, in part, to inform those who know little about it yet grew up in a country shaped by the conflict. 'I hope that plenty of people who were born way after these events see something of our times and of relevance here,' said Knappenberger. 'That they can understand, and can inform their lives and decisions, as younger and younger people end up continuing this human drama, as the story goes on.' Turning Point: The Vietnam War is now available on Netflix
News.com.au
27-04-2025
- Business
- News.com.au
Election 2025: Albanese, Dutton head to head in final leaders' debate
The overall winner of Channel 7's final leaders' debate has been confirmed as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. Channel 7's post-debate panel of voters - a focus group of sorts which the network gave the more grandiose term 'jury' - delivered a shock early result in the Prime Minister's favour, and he went on to take out the whole debate with 50 per cent of the vote, compared to 25 per cent for Oppostion Leader Peter Dutton. A quarter of the voters remained undecided. The voters' opinions were broken down issue-by-issue, and on perhaps the chief one, cost of living, they overwhelmingly favoured Anthony Albanese. Sixty-five per cent of them went for Mr Albanese, a mere 16 per cent for Peter Dutton, and 19 per cent were undecided. The room was more evenly split on the issue of housing, with 35 per cent going for Mr Albanese, 30 per cent for Mr Dutton and a whopping 35 per cent undecided. The second batch of results were more mixed than the first, with a win apiece for each leader. Anthony Albanese came out ahead on the issue of tax, with 49 per cent of the voters favouring him and 21 per cent going for Peter Dutton. But that was very nearly flipped completely on indigenous affairs, which showed 46 per cent support for Mr Dutton and 27 per cent for Mr Albanese. A little bit of supporting evidence, there: Seven's new 'The Pulse' measurement, which is similar to the old 'Worm', spiked way into the positive when Mr Dutton was speaking about Welcome to Country ceremonies having gone too far. When it came to 'hot takes', the Prime Minister took 50 per cent of the vote, while Mr Dutton received only 14 per cent. The Opposition leader took a slight lead on defence, 43 per cent to Mr Albanese's 37 per cent. Chalmers: Dutton is a volatile leader Jim Chalmers said the debate proved that the election was a question between 'stability and certainty' from Mr Albanese, and 'risk' from Mr Dutton. 'Volatile times are the worst time for a volatile leader like Peter Dutton. Tonight, we saw Peter Dutton lose his cool,' he said. 'We saw him drop his bundle. We saw him with a number of unhinged rants which are unbecoming of the alternative prime minister of this country.' The Treasurer was also asked to clarify Mr Albanese's comments claiming Mr Trump does not have a phone. He said the 'key point' was that 'Peter Dutton has been copying the politics and policies of the United States'. 'Now we heard that earlier today, when we when we heard earlier today when Peter Dutton made those comments about hate media,' said Mr Chalmers. 'He believes in the Americanization of health and education in Australia. He copies his policies and his politics directly from the United States. We saw that with his comments on the media today.' Paterson backs in Dutton, deflects nuclear question Following the debate, the Coalition's campaign spokesman James Paterson said it was 'truly, utterly bizarre' that Mr Albanese attempted to suggest the US President 'does not have a mobile phone'. 'I think that will be news to the President and his team, and a truly, utterly bizarre moment, and also the Prime Minister's unwillingness to be clear about whether or not he still supports the Voice agenda,' he said. 'We know he signed up to the voice agenda in full.' Senator Paterson was also grilled on why Mr Dutton evaded questions on whether he would visit on of the seven proposed nuclear sites. Mr Albanese beat Mr Dutton to the punch on Wednesday, visiting the Collie Power Station in Western Australia. While Senator Paterson wouldn't give a definite answer, he said the election campaign extended beyond the official five-week lead up. 'Your time as opposition leader is more than just what you do in an election campaign, and Peter Dutton has visited as opposition leader,' he said. 'The truth is that wherever the sites are, all Australians will benefit from our energy plan.' Senator Paterson also softened Mr Dutton's earlier claims which lashed the ABC and The Guardian as 'hate media,' stating the comments were 'tongue in cheek'. 'I think you all know, as you've seen on this campaign trail, Peter engages very well and very respectfully with all media outlets who had great access to him on the campaign trail,' he said. 'Everybody gets questioned every day.' Copacabana, Musk, and the price of eggs As is customary with these debates, the leaders were subjected to a quick fire round, which largely includes word-association games. The first image was of Mr Albanese's $4.3m Copacabana house. Mr Dutton said 'retirement home,' while Mr Albanese said 'marriage,' reminding audiences that the house was purchased with his fiancee Jodie Haydon. The leaders were also asked if they knew the price of a dozen eggs. Mr Dutton said 'about $4.20, Mr Albanese said: 'It's $7 if you can find them because it's hard to find them at the moment'. The answer was $8.80 from Coles, and $8.50 from Woolworths. Mr Albanese and Mr Dutton were also shown a photo of Elon Musk. Mr Albanese said 'Tesla,' and 'a very rich man,' while Mr Dutton said 'evil genius'. This prompts questions on whether Mr Dutton had 'distanced' himself from Mr Trump, a claim he denied. 'I have not sought to be anybody other than myself, and I believe very strongly, based on my experience working with John Howard closely, he has been my political mentor and I need to make sure we manage the economy as he did.' As the quickfire section of the debate continued, Anthony Albanese was confronted with a clip of his old quote saying 'my word is my bond', regarding his promise not to change the Stage 3 tax cuts. He did, of course, end up breaking that pledge. 'Remember that? You broke your word,' Mark Riley put to him. 'I did, I changed my mind. Because I could not resile from the need to do something to help people because of cost of living pressures,' said Mr Albanese. 'So what I did is I fronted up, I went along to the National Press Club, and did not pretend we had not changed our position. And I went along and argued the case. And guess what? The Coalition voted for it.' Peter Dutton got an equivalent question regarding his own flip-flop during the election campaign on forcing public servants to work from the office. 'I've apologised for the decision that we took in relation to working from home,' was his clip. 'How did you get that policy so wrong?' he was asked. 'We said in relation to public servants in Canberra that we wanted to go back to something like what it was before Covid, which was about 60 per cent of people at work, still flexibility for a lot of people, and I believe very strongly in flexibility in work arrangements,' Mr Dutton replied. 'We have, on a per capita basis, the highest number of public servants in the world, and the government has increased the number of public servants threefold. 'The point I was making is, if Australians are out there working their guts out at the moment, an extra job or a second job, they're paying taxes, they expect their money to be spent efficiently. What the Prime Minister did, as he's done with a number of other issues, is twisted and contorted it into something it wasn't.' Dutton says he'd be fine living near a nuclear reactor Peter Dutton has said he would be fine with a nuclear power plant existing near his own home. 'Would you be happy to have a nuclear plant in your suburb?' asked Mark Riley. 'Yeah, I would Mark,' said the Opposition Leader. 'We have a safe technology.' He pointed to other countries where nuclear power is in operation. Mr Riley asked why, if the technology 'is so good', Mr Dutton has not visited any of his proposed nuclear plant sites during the election campaign. He countered that he had visited one of the sites multiple times before the campaign started, during his tenure as leader. After a back-and-forth on energy policy, involving a fair bit of cross-talk, Mr Dutton erupted at the Prime Minister. 'You will wreck the economy!' he said. 'And you are doing it now. And that is why families are suffering, and why 30,000 small businesses have closed under your watch.' Mr Albanese protested that there are more total small businesses now than when he assumed office. PM not sure Trump 'has' a mobile phone Both leaders were reluctant to say anything critical about US President Donald Trump, large though he looms over global politics at the moment. 'The relationship that I have had with the President is to have discussions, and he has stuck to the agreements we made,' said Anthony Albanese. 'We can trust whoever is in the Oval Office, and we respect the views of the American people,' said Peter Dutton. There was a somewhat strange moment when moderator Mark Riley alluded to Mr Albanese's efforts – mostly fruitless – to get Mr Trump on the phone. 'Do you ever text him?' asked Mr Riley. 'I'm not sure he has a mobile phone. Or Joe Biden. It is not the way it works, with any global leader,' Mr Albanese replied. 'That is the way it works with you. You text people,' Mr Riley pointed out. 'We do, but – global leaders, you set up, there are people taking notes from either side. It is not something that is a casual relationship,' said Mr Albanese. 'We are not good enough to have Trump's phone number, or he doesn't have one?' the moderator pressed again. Mr Albanese essentially repeated his previous answer. Albo's NRL diplomacy backfires The leaders are also asked which 'which country poses the biggest threat to Australia's security'. Mr Dutton answered with China. 'If you were to believe the intelligence that I received as defence minister … the biggest concern from our intelligence agencies and our defence agency is in relation to the Communist Party of China, and they're worried about the conflict in our region,' he said. 'They're worried about what that would do to impact on our trade, what it would do for our own security settings, and what we would need to do to respond to say, a cyber attack on our country.' Mr Albanese's answer was a bit more complicated. He wouldn't explicitly state whether China was the biggest threat to Australia, however agreed it was trying to increase its influence. He agreed that China was seeking to 'increase its influence in the region' but said the relationship was 'complex' as the superpower was also a 'major trading partner'. 'So what we have to do is to invest in our capability. That's what we've done. $57 billion in defence assets increased, but as well, invest in our relationships,' he said. There's a comical moment when Mr Albanese says that the $600m deal to bring PNG into the NRL was the 'best example of soft diplomacy'. Riley says: 'I don't think China plays rugby league … they play ping pong'. Leaders spar in Welcome to Country debate Peter Dutton and Anthony Albanese have clashed on Welcome to Country ceremonies as they face off for the final debate before Australians cast their votes on May 3. Seven's political editor Mark Riley, moderating the debate, peppered the leaders with questions about hecklers who interrupted a Melbourne Anzac Day Dawn Service during the Welcome to Country on Friday – something both leaders have condemned. Riley asked Mr Dutton whether he will 'acknowledge the traditional owners at your official events'. Mr Dutton said there's a sense in the community that they're 'overdone' which 'cheapens the significance of what it was meant to do'. 'It divides the country,' he said. Mr Albanese is asked to comment on Mr Dutton's claims. He says that he believes the ceremonies are a 'matter of respect,' and adds it's up to the hosts of the event whether they want the ceremony. 'It's up to them, and people will have different views, and people are entitled to their views, but we have a great privilege, from my perspective, of sharing this continent with the oldest continuous culture on earth,' he said. 'Then I welcome international visitors to Parliament House, you know what they want to see? That culture.' Mr Dutton then goes in on the attack and asks: 'Do you think it's overdone?' Continuing, he attacks Mr Albanese for the Voice referendum. 'I think the nation was aghast when the Prime Minister spent four, $50m and sought to divide us over the voice debate on heritage and on cultural grounds,' he said. PM grilled on abandonment of the Voice Anthony Albanese was grilled about his decision to abandon the Voice following the failure of his term's referendum. 'The Voice, you told us, was important for Australia. It was important for who we are, for our standing in the world. It was a polite request from Indigenous people and you dropped it cold afterwards. Why?' Mark Riley asked. 'Because I respect the outcome. We live in a democracy,' Mr Albanese said. 'Do you still believe in it?' asked Mr Riley. 'It is gone,' said the Prime Minister. 'What is your personal view? Sorry-' Mr Riley pressed. 'We need to find different paths to affect reconciliation,' said Mr Albanese. Mr Dutton eventually interjected, saying 'can we get a straight answer'? Both candidates agreed that the date of Australia Day should not be changed. 'You should be ashamed': Dutton blows up In a fiery moment, Peter Dutton accused the Prime Minister of lying after a claim, which Anthony Albanese has made throughout the campaign, that the Coalition would scrap the government's Same Job, Same Pay laws. That is something Mr Dutton ruled out a couple of weeks ago. 'That is just – I mean, that is not true,' Mr Dutton said. 'Honestly. This whole campaign, it's hard to believe anything you say. 'We have a plan before the Australian people, which I believe provides solutions to your problems, the creation of which you should be ashamed of, frankly.' 'You should be ashamed and you're a liar,' Mr Riley put to the PM, paraphrasing. 'Well, Peter can attack me,' said Mr Albanese. 'I'll tell you what I won't let him do: attack the wages of working people.' He went on to argue Australians 'deserve better than the pretence that everything was hunky dory' under the previous, Coalition government. 'You can't stand here telling people they're much better off after three years,' Mr Dutton shot back at him. 'If you had a good story to tell, Prime Minister, you wouldn't be running a scare campaign. You'd be talking about your so-called achievements.' Is Mr Dutton crazy to repeal Labor's tax cuts? There's a pointed moment when Riley zeroes in on the Coalition government vowing to repeal Labor's 2026-27 and 2027-28 tax cuts. 'You're going to this election … promising the people you will repeal a tax cut. I don't know of any leader who's ever done that. Is that crazy brave or just crazy?' Riley asks. Mr Dutton stands by his decision. 'What we've said is that you can have the Labor option, which is 70 cents a day in 15 months time, as you point out. Or you could have a 25 cent a litre cut to fuel excise now,' said Mr Dutton, adding that the cut would equal to about $1500 a year. He also spruiks the Coalition's one-off tax cut of $1200, which will apply once people fuel their tax return after July 1, 2026. 'We're reducing that overall tax burden on the family, but we're providing that as an interim solution until we can fix up Labor's mess,' he said. Mr Albanese is also grilled over Labor's two-year tax cuts, which Riley points out equals to $5-a-week in the first year, and $10-a-week in the second. Mr Albanese defends it as 'a top up' of the revised stage three tax cuts which came in last year. 'We had the guts to make a tough decision, but it was done for the right reasons,' he said. 'I went along to the National Press Club and said that what we are going to do is to change our policy, because we understood that people were doing it tough.' PM insists negative gearing is 'off the table' Mr Riley asked the Prime Minister whether changes to negative gearing were definitely 'off the table'. 'Yes, it's off the table. We were elected in 2022. The Coalition ran this campaign then. We haven't done it,' Mr Albanese said. 'The key is supply, and that measure will not boost supply. So that is what we have been concentrating on.' Asked if he believed the PM's words, Mr Dutton replied: 'No, I don't.' 'The Prime Minister said before the last election that there would be no changes to superannuation, and the Prime Minister has introduced a tax which taxes an unrealised capital gain. To put that into basic terms, if you've got shares, and the shares go up in value or if you've got a house, and the house goes up in value, this government is going to tax you on that gain before you actually sell the shares or the house,' he said. Leader quizzed on migration The next topic is migration. Mr Dutton is asked whether Australia needs more skilled migrants – which is part of the cohort the Coalition will cut in order to reduce permanent migration by 25 per cent. Mr Dutton says that while Australia is a 'beneficiary of a great migration program, but it needs to be done in a balanced and measured way'. Mr Dutton says increased migration is a key reason why the standard of living had decreased and why young Australians had been locked out of the housing market. 'For many families, otherwise, parents and grandparents, they're staying in the workforce for longer because they're either having to help their kids with a deposit or to make the repayments,' he said. 'That's the crisis the Prime Minister's created, and that's why we have to cut migration, to focus on the skilled migration, yes, but to make sure that Australians can get into housing.' Mr Albanese is also asked to answer. He says a Labor government will lower migration while building housing – attacking the Coalition for not adequately investing in housing. 'The former government didn't even have a Housing Minister for half the time they were in office and invested a total of $5bn we've got a $43bn homes for Australia plan,' he said. 'Not an issue for you': Leaders chided on housing Moving on to housing, Mr Riley had a little dig at both potential prime ministers. 'Mr Albanese, you recently bought a $4.3 million beachside house. Mr Dutton, we know you've had $30 million in properties throughout your life. We can all agree housing is not an issue for you,' he pointed out. Mr Dutton responded by saying housing, for many Australians and young Australians in particular, had become 'a nightmare'. 'Rents have gone up by almost 20 per cent, and this Prime Minister has brought in a million people over the course of the last two years through the migration program,' he said. 'When you bring a million people in, they want a house for their kids and their family. Fair enough. But what we've seen is Australians being displaced from home ownership.' Mr Albanese insisted the housing market had not become a problem 'in the last couple of years'. 'We've had a decade or even more of neglect. And the question isn't, 'Do you identify a problem?' It's, 'Can you work towards a solution?' That is what my government's done.' Both leaders spoke about their now very familiar housing policies from the campaign. 'Band-Aid on a bullet wound' Moderator Mark Riley has spent several minutes addressing the cost of living. 'Australian families, we know, are doing it tough. They're under the pump. Our viewers constantly tells us that they're getting smashed at the supermarkets every week. What will you do, from Sunday, to make their lives easier?' Anthony Albanese answered first. 'We completely understand how tough it is for people out there. That's why we have already acted on cost of living, but we know there's more to do,' he said. 'That is why we'll deliver an increased tax cut – not just one, but two tax cuts in the next term. That's why we'll continue to support real wage growth. 'We've also got plans for cheaper medicines. Energy bill relief. Cheaper childcare. 'We will continue to address those cost of living measures while getting inflation down. Inflation had a six in front of it when we got elected. It's now at 2.4 per cent.' Peter Dutton retorted that he wanted to provide 'immediate relief to Australian families' through a cut in the fuel excise by 25 cents a litre. 'Secondly, $1200 back by way of a tax rebate. That will help people deal with Labor's cost of living crisis. But the Prime Minister promises a bandaid on a bullet wound.' Dutton's fuel excise cut a 'taxpayer funded shopper docket' Riley also questions whether Mr Dutton's 25c cut to the fuel excise is essentially a 'taxpayer funded shopper docket'. He talks around the questions, and attacks Labor on their broken election promise to bring down electricity prices by $275. His key message is that the 'Coalition always manages money and the economy more efficiently than Labor.' Eventually he's guided back to petrol, and says the fuel excise cut is 'immediate support'. 'That 25 cent a litre cut in petrol that can be provided to help people with the bills that they're facing now,' he said. What are the major parties doing for supermarkets? The cost-of-living theme continues, and the leaders are asked what they are doing to help lower groceries. Mr Albanese says Labor has mandated a Code of Conduct which can hit supermarkets with multimillion-dollar penalties and will stop price gouging. 'The former government just had a voluntary code that was abused. People know that when they go to the supermarket and they see the price of a good reduced or put up by $1 and then reduced by 50 cents, and they pretend that that's a price cut,' he said. He also lashed the Coalition for 'temporary' policies, like its one-year fuel excise and one-off tax cut. 'They disappear in a year's time. The difference between that and what we're putting forward is that ours are permanent, permanent tax cuts,' he said. 'In tears': Huge claim as election looms Opposition leader Peter Dutton has opened the final leaders' debate, revealing he had spoken to Australians 'literally in tears' about the cost of living crisis. In his opening statement, Mr Dutton said he was confident Australia's would 'vote for change' next Saturday. 'This election is all about who can best manage the economy. If we can manage the economy well, we can bring inflation down, we can help Australians with the cost of living crisis,' Mr Dutton said. 'As we've moved around the country, we have spoken to families literally in tears. They cannot afford to put food on the table. They have stopped the registration renewal on their car or their house. These have been a tough three years under this Prime Minister's watch. 'We need to make sure our country can be kept safe, and we need strong leadership in a very uncertain world to make sure that we can keep our country safe. 'I believe very strongly that at this election, Australians will vote for change.' Mr Albanese, in his own opening statement, echoed Labor's two-year tax cuts tax cuts, expanded 5 per cent housing deposit scheme, and a 20 per cent cut to HECS debt, and takes an early shot at the Coalition's chopping and changing of policies. 'During this campaign, we have put forward clear, decisive policies the opposition have chopped and changed. Australians deserve certainty,' he said. 'What we will deliver is just that. We will trust in our people. We will value our Australian values, and we'll build Australia's future.' Albo, Dutton face off in final leaders' debate Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton will face off in their final crucial leaders' debate on Sunday night, as the election campaign enters its final week. The Prime Minister and Opposition Leader earlier on Sunday both held support rallies, with the finish line for the May 3 election in sight. They will front up for the final of four debates – the Final Showdown – at 8pm on the Seven Network. Sunrise host Nat Barr will host the debate, to be moderated by 7NEWS political editor Mark Riley in Sydney. Mr Albanese was judged the winner of the first two debates – the Sky News/Daily Telegraph People's Forum in western Sydney officially, while commentators said the Prime Minister also took the second debate hosted by the ABC. Mr Dutton, however, was given the honours by a nose in the third debate on the Nine Network last week. Sunday night's debate is the last opportunity for voters to see the leaders go head to head with their vision for Australia with just six days to go. Opinion polls have Labor on a narrow track to win a second term, but Mr Dutton has said he can still will win Saturday's election. Nearly 2.4 million Australians have already cast their votes in just four days of early polling with another five to go. How Sunday's final leaders' debate will work Sunday's debate will run for one hour, with rounds of questioning divided into sections. Both Mr Albanese and Mr Dutton will be given one uninterrupted minute for opening and closing pitches, with a 30-second countdown clock to appear on screen to keep them accountable for the time. Each leader will face six key questions, with one minute each to answer. This will be followed by a rapid fire block of questioning, where both leaders will be instructed to respond with yes, no or a short answer. Mr Albanese and Mr Dutton will then be given four minutes to ask each other questions, moderated by Political Editor Mark Riley, before delivering their closing pitches. A group of 60 undecided voters watching along from a 'jury room' in the 7 studios will then decide a winner.
