Latest news with #KimBeazley
The Advertiser
09-05-2025
- Politics
- The Advertiser
Albanese's mask has slipped. Now he's at risk of showing some passion and defiance
Some of the most memorable best political speeches made in Australia are made by politicians going out of office. Kim Beazley gave a cracker when leaving Parliament, and fairly good ones conceding defeat by John Howard in 1988 and 2001. It was said that if he had been able to move and inspire people and rally troops during his political lifetime, he would not have been spending so much time acknowledging his and his party's failures. Victory speeches are usually a bit more humdrum, even if given before an excited and jubilant crowd. For starters those who craft them (the speechwriters usually prepare two, one for victory, one for defeat) feel obliged to include cliché phrases such as "great honour," "humbled and with a deep feeling of responsibility" ... "We will govern for all Australians", and "tomorrow we will hit the ground running". The credit and acknowledgements, win or lose, to campaign staff, party organisers, fallen comrades, and family, these days run longer than the credits on an Oscar-winning movie. Anthony Albanese's speech contained all of this, from a template borrowed, I think, from William Morris Hughes 110 years ago. Optimism, hope and substance are often the first things edited out. Even more from a leader, a government that has seemed timid about its social commitments and its moral duties. But a triumphant, if modest, Albanese unleashed the puppy. There was something in the middle that was worth notice. It reached no heights of oratory. Albanese doesn't do fluency or silken words - or read them well if someone else penned them. He has no great or fast wit, though he can see further through a brick wall than most and knows immediately if someone has stumbled. But his meanings are genuine enough. He usually believes in what he is saying. That is, if he is not merely going through the motions, as he is perhaps when reading some of the 10 speeches or statements he gives a day. His was not a speech brimming with statistics. He was not explaining why his aspirations for human betterment were low. He was not being defensive or resorting to redefinitions. Nor did he use the language of economics or rationing. He did not act as if the laws of economics decreed that an input of X here produced a Y somewhere else, self-evidently a good thing. Compared with some percentage of the gross domestic product there, which would have this effect on interest rates. Nor did he pander to ideas about lifting and leaning and the idea that half the population are not real citizens because they do not contribute. His words did not have to be parsed to be sure that they excised words of legal entitlement or subsumed previously made threats of disentitlement - the stuff of robodebt under a previous regime. Albo addressed citizens, not the forces of production, and in inclusive language. The speech was general and inclusive in its scope. It actually spoke to people. To individuals. To families and communities. Even to the whole nation. It did not seek to divide the population into them and us. It used the words "you" and "us". There was nothing particularly remarkable about what was said, other than it gave some hint of what government was all about. "When it comes to Australia's future, all of us have so much reason to be optimistic," Albanese said. "Because when we look at everything going on around the world today, when we consider the changes that will be the future of the world economy, when we think about our people and their smarts and truly there is nowhere else you would rather be than right here ... "This is a time of profound opportunity for our nation. We have everything we need to seize this moment and make it our own. And we must do it together, all of us. Because for Australia to realise our full potential, for our nation to be the very best, every Australian must have the opportunity to be their best. To serve Australian values, we must value every Australian. Every Australian who wants a fair go at work, fair wages for their work, and the right to disconnect when they are done with work. Every Australian who deserves the security of a roof over their head or who dreams of owning their own home. Every woman who wants her contribution to our economy and society to be valued equally. "Every parent who wants their child to get the best start in life, with cheaper childcare and with fair funding for every student in every school. Everyone who counts on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. "We will be a government for every Australian who wants to train or re-train for new skills and a good job at public TAFE. Every Australian who works hard for the life-changing opportunity of higher education ..." These are not, of themselves, new campaign commitments. But one would be entitled to assume that it implied that social expenditure, on health, education and social services, was at the top of the government's list of things to do. And not merely because a pollster or an economist had said that this was the main priority but because these were among the key reasons why we have government at all. Defence, law and order, industry policy and infrastructure provision are important, including in meeting the social commitments. They are words that Albanese has said before. But he has nicely put them forward in a bold manner, rather than, as he has sometimes seemed to do, apologised for the way these priority commitments fall into our cost of living. At least, one might say, he has repudiated the idea that the bag of money for health, welfare and education can be raided to meet our absurd defence commitments, salmon farms in Tasmania or new coal plants. Peter Dutton must have known he had lost long before his concession speech. But he was in a world of pain from the rejection he had received, firstly by his own electorate and from the whole nation. He showed some guts and some decency in accepting responsibility for the verdict on his campaign, and in praising the Labor candidate, Ali France, who now held his seat. But he eschewed any opportunity for any reflection on what the election result meant, or a defence of his philosophy or his party's philosophy. He gave no short account of what had brought him into politics, and why he thought he had been rejected by the silent Australians. He expressed no regrets for taking actions in his ministry which had seemed gratuitously cruel to people who had come to Australia for safety from persecution and war. Nor did he express any regret for some of his polarising statements which attacked disadvantaged Australians, including Indigenous Australians, refugees, immigrants and juvenile offenders. It may be that he has no regrets, though some of his supporters have always insisted that there is, behind that hard-man face, a man of decency, empathy and feeling for others. Perhaps he judged that this was not the occasion. He was certainly aware that his pollsters had told him that his very personality and character were campaign issues, and that many of those he had alienated feared or despised him. Of course, it is true that few men or women leave politics of their own choosing. Ask some of the Greens, about whose fate Albanese jeered even as he was calling for respect for the demolished Dutton. Albanese, obviously, has a thing against the Greens, even as he hopes and expects that they will support Labor legislation in the Senate, and even as he has relied on Green preferences to create his majority government. He must differentiate the Labor product from the Green, but the lack of proportion in the way that he does so ought to serve as a reminder that he has yet to stamp his place in history, even as the Greens have ensured their own. For the moment, however, observers should notice, and applaud some hint of passion, boldness, defiance and unwillingness to give an inch on core values. Previously, he had a tiny majority. Now he has a big one that ought to foreshadow a new resolution. Perhaps a transformation of the sort delivered by the Great Oz to the lion, the scarecrow and the woodman. We need more of the passion that admirers said was worn on his sleeves. Perhaps that is evident to his colleagues and friends, but it has not been obvious to ordinary Australians. We need more courage, more common sense and more heart. But we also need a new communication between the prime minister and the electorate. We need him thinking aloud. We need him being open to discussion about the merits and demerits of policies, rather than holding everything to his chest. We need him talking aloud, explaining what he is doing and why. And why he is not doing other things on the agenda. The government ought to be in a continuous dialogue with the governed. If the prime minister is shy, secretive and distrustful of the electorate, more junior and open ministers cannot substitute. Or dare to. Most politicians go into politics because they want to make a difference to people's lives. Whatever side one is on, it is not usually about power or the mechanical ways of making others conform to your will or seeing your logic. Nor is it to provide the opportunity for graft and corruption. The attraction is that many of the things in politics matter. MORE JACK WATERFORD: Individuals, parties and the political process can make a difference, can change lives and outcomes. It is because politics involves choice and the division of the pie, and because there is never enough pie for everyone. It's why able and ambitious politicians put up with the bastardries, the public disdain of their profession and their kind, and the suspicion of their motives and their honesty. Why they elbow their colleagues aside in quests for power and engage in character assassination. Why they engage in fake debates, pretending sometimes that relatively innocuous statements outrage public decency. It's the heart in politics which speaks to character. Some politicians are very wary of displaying any heart or any emotion. That may lead to empathy and draw people to you. But it may drive others away or be seen to represent weakness and vulnerability. The risk-averse will cower. Fundamental character, heart, and passion, and motivating force can be just the ingredient worth looking for. In the modern day, there is often a vacuum at the surface. Many decisions do not come from deep conviction or ideology, but experience, relatively sensible management of people and things. It may soon be done by AI. The vision stuff, the philosophy stuff, and the priority stuff, are not mere baggage. They are usually the only things that make politicians human. For the humans on whose goodwill politicians depend, affection will depend on humanity they display, not their technical skill, their managerialist mantras or the demands that we should trust them. Some of the most memorable best political speeches made in Australia are made by politicians going out of office. Kim Beazley gave a cracker when leaving Parliament, and fairly good ones conceding defeat by John Howard in 1988 and 2001. It was said that if he had been able to move and inspire people and rally troops during his political lifetime, he would not have been spending so much time acknowledging his and his party's failures. Victory speeches are usually a bit more humdrum, even if given before an excited and jubilant crowd. For starters those who craft them (the speechwriters usually prepare two, one for victory, one for defeat) feel obliged to include cliché phrases such as "great honour," "humbled and with a deep feeling of responsibility" ... "We will govern for all Australians", and "tomorrow we will hit the ground running". The credit and acknowledgements, win or lose, to campaign staff, party organisers, fallen comrades, and family, these days run longer than the credits on an Oscar-winning movie. Anthony Albanese's speech contained all of this, from a template borrowed, I think, from William Morris Hughes 110 years ago. Optimism, hope and substance are often the first things edited out. Even more from a leader, a government that has seemed timid about its social commitments and its moral duties. But a triumphant, if modest, Albanese unleashed the puppy. There was something in the middle that was worth notice. It reached no heights of oratory. Albanese doesn't do fluency or silken words - or read them well if someone else penned them. He has no great or fast wit, though he can see further through a brick wall than most and knows immediately if someone has stumbled. But his meanings are genuine enough. He usually believes in what he is saying. That is, if he is not merely going through the motions, as he is perhaps when reading some of the 10 speeches or statements he gives a day. His was not a speech brimming with statistics. He was not explaining why his aspirations for human betterment were low. He was not being defensive or resorting to redefinitions. Nor did he use the language of economics or rationing. He did not act as if the laws of economics decreed that an input of X here produced a Y somewhere else, self-evidently a good thing. Compared with some percentage of the gross domestic product there, which would have this effect on interest rates. Nor did he pander to ideas about lifting and leaning and the idea that half the population are not real citizens because they do not contribute. His words did not have to be parsed to be sure that they excised words of legal entitlement or subsumed previously made threats of disentitlement - the stuff of robodebt under a previous regime. Albo addressed citizens, not the forces of production, and in inclusive language. The speech was general and inclusive in its scope. It actually spoke to people. To individuals. To families and communities. Even to the whole nation. It did not seek to divide the population into them and us. It used the words "you" and "us". There was nothing particularly remarkable about what was said, other than it gave some hint of what government was all about. "When it comes to Australia's future, all of us have so much reason to be optimistic," Albanese said. "Because when we look at everything going on around the world today, when we consider the changes that will be the future of the world economy, when we think about our people and their smarts and truly there is nowhere else you would rather be than right here ... "This is a time of profound opportunity for our nation. We have everything we need to seize this moment and make it our own. And we must do it together, all of us. Because for Australia to realise our full potential, for our nation to be the very best, every Australian must have the opportunity to be their best. To serve Australian values, we must value every Australian. Every Australian who wants a fair go at work, fair wages for their work, and the right to disconnect when they are done with work. Every Australian who deserves the security of a roof over their head or who dreams of owning their own home. Every woman who wants her contribution to our economy and society to be valued equally. "Every parent who wants their child to get the best start in life, with cheaper childcare and with fair funding for every student in every school. Everyone who counts on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. "We will be a government for every Australian who wants to train or re-train for new skills and a good job at public TAFE. Every Australian who works hard for the life-changing opportunity of higher education ..." These are not, of themselves, new campaign commitments. But one would be entitled to assume that it implied that social expenditure, on health, education and social services, was at the top of the government's list of things to do. And not merely because a pollster or an economist had said that this was the main priority but because these were among the key reasons why we have government at all. Defence, law and order, industry policy and infrastructure provision are important, including in meeting the social commitments. They are words that Albanese has said before. But he has nicely put them forward in a bold manner, rather than, as he has sometimes seemed to do, apologised for the way these priority commitments fall into our cost of living. At least, one might say, he has repudiated the idea that the bag of money for health, welfare and education can be raided to meet our absurd defence commitments, salmon farms in Tasmania or new coal plants. Peter Dutton must have known he had lost long before his concession speech. But he was in a world of pain from the rejection he had received, firstly by his own electorate and from the whole nation. He showed some guts and some decency in accepting responsibility for the verdict on his campaign, and in praising the Labor candidate, Ali France, who now held his seat. But he eschewed any opportunity for any reflection on what the election result meant, or a defence of his philosophy or his party's philosophy. He gave no short account of what had brought him into politics, and why he thought he had been rejected by the silent Australians. He expressed no regrets for taking actions in his ministry which had seemed gratuitously cruel to people who had come to Australia for safety from persecution and war. Nor did he express any regret for some of his polarising statements which attacked disadvantaged Australians, including Indigenous Australians, refugees, immigrants and juvenile offenders. It may be that he has no regrets, though some of his supporters have always insisted that there is, behind that hard-man face, a man of decency, empathy and feeling for others. Perhaps he judged that this was not the occasion. He was certainly aware that his pollsters had told him that his very personality and character were campaign issues, and that many of those he had alienated feared or despised him. Of course, it is true that few men or women leave politics of their own choosing. Ask some of the Greens, about whose fate Albanese jeered even as he was calling for respect for the demolished Dutton. Albanese, obviously, has a thing against the Greens, even as he hopes and expects that they will support Labor legislation in the Senate, and even as he has relied on Green preferences to create his majority government. He must differentiate the Labor product from the Green, but the lack of proportion in the way that he does so ought to serve as a reminder that he has yet to stamp his place in history, even as the Greens have ensured their own. For the moment, however, observers should notice, and applaud some hint of passion, boldness, defiance and unwillingness to give an inch on core values. Previously, he had a tiny majority. Now he has a big one that ought to foreshadow a new resolution. Perhaps a transformation of the sort delivered by the Great Oz to the lion, the scarecrow and the woodman. We need more of the passion that admirers said was worn on his sleeves. Perhaps that is evident to his colleagues and friends, but it has not been obvious to ordinary Australians. We need more courage, more common sense and more heart. But we also need a new communication between the prime minister and the electorate. We need him thinking aloud. We need him being open to discussion about the merits and demerits of policies, rather than holding everything to his chest. We need him talking aloud, explaining what he is doing and why. And why he is not doing other things on the agenda. The government ought to be in a continuous dialogue with the governed. If the prime minister is shy, secretive and distrustful of the electorate, more junior and open ministers cannot substitute. Or dare to. Most politicians go into politics because they want to make a difference to people's lives. Whatever side one is on, it is not usually about power or the mechanical ways of making others conform to your will or seeing your logic. Nor is it to provide the opportunity for graft and corruption. The attraction is that many of the things in politics matter. MORE JACK WATERFORD: Individuals, parties and the political process can make a difference, can change lives and outcomes. It is because politics involves choice and the division of the pie, and because there is never enough pie for everyone. It's why able and ambitious politicians put up with the bastardries, the public disdain of their profession and their kind, and the suspicion of their motives and their honesty. Why they elbow their colleagues aside in quests for power and engage in character assassination. Why they engage in fake debates, pretending sometimes that relatively innocuous statements outrage public decency. It's the heart in politics which speaks to character. Some politicians are very wary of displaying any heart or any emotion. That may lead to empathy and draw people to you. But it may drive others away or be seen to represent weakness and vulnerability. The risk-averse will cower. Fundamental character, heart, and passion, and motivating force can be just the ingredient worth looking for. In the modern day, there is often a vacuum at the surface. Many decisions do not come from deep conviction or ideology, but experience, relatively sensible management of people and things. It may soon be done by AI. The vision stuff, the philosophy stuff, and the priority stuff, are not mere baggage. They are usually the only things that make politicians human. For the humans on whose goodwill politicians depend, affection will depend on humanity they display, not their technical skill, their managerialist mantras or the demands that we should trust them. Some of the most memorable best political speeches made in Australia are made by politicians going out of office. Kim Beazley gave a cracker when leaving Parliament, and fairly good ones conceding defeat by John Howard in 1988 and 2001. It was said that if he had been able to move and inspire people and rally troops during his political lifetime, he would not have been spending so much time acknowledging his and his party's failures. Victory speeches are usually a bit more humdrum, even if given before an excited and jubilant crowd. For starters those who craft them (the speechwriters usually prepare two, one for victory, one for defeat) feel obliged to include cliché phrases such as "great honour," "humbled and with a deep feeling of responsibility" ... "We will govern for all Australians", and "tomorrow we will hit the ground running". The credit and acknowledgements, win or lose, to campaign staff, party organisers, fallen comrades, and family, these days run longer than the credits on an Oscar-winning movie. Anthony Albanese's speech contained all of this, from a template borrowed, I think, from William Morris Hughes 110 years ago. Optimism, hope and substance are often the first things edited out. Even more from a leader, a government that has seemed timid about its social commitments and its moral duties. But a triumphant, if modest, Albanese unleashed the puppy. There was something in the middle that was worth notice. It reached no heights of oratory. Albanese doesn't do fluency or silken words - or read them well if someone else penned them. He has no great or fast wit, though he can see further through a brick wall than most and knows immediately if someone has stumbled. But his meanings are genuine enough. He usually believes in what he is saying. That is, if he is not merely going through the motions, as he is perhaps when reading some of the 10 speeches or statements he gives a day. His was not a speech brimming with statistics. He was not explaining why his aspirations for human betterment were low. He was not being defensive or resorting to redefinitions. Nor did he use the language of economics or rationing. He did not act as if the laws of economics decreed that an input of X here produced a Y somewhere else, self-evidently a good thing. Compared with some percentage of the gross domestic product there, which would have this effect on interest rates. Nor did he pander to ideas about lifting and leaning and the idea that half the population are not real citizens because they do not contribute. His words did not have to be parsed to be sure that they excised words of legal entitlement or subsumed previously made threats of disentitlement - the stuff of robodebt under a previous regime. Albo addressed citizens, not the forces of production, and in inclusive language. The speech was general and inclusive in its scope. It actually spoke to people. To individuals. To families and communities. Even to the whole nation. It did not seek to divide the population into them and us. It used the words "you" and "us". There was nothing particularly remarkable about what was said, other than it gave some hint of what government was all about. "When it comes to Australia's future, all of us have so much reason to be optimistic," Albanese said. "Because when we look at everything going on around the world today, when we consider the changes that will be the future of the world economy, when we think about our people and their smarts and truly there is nowhere else you would rather be than right here ... "This is a time of profound opportunity for our nation. We have everything we need to seize this moment and make it our own. And we must do it together, all of us. Because for Australia to realise our full potential, for our nation to be the very best, every Australian must have the opportunity to be their best. To serve Australian values, we must value every Australian. Every Australian who wants a fair go at work, fair wages for their work, and the right to disconnect when they are done with work. Every Australian who deserves the security of a roof over their head or who dreams of owning their own home. Every woman who wants her contribution to our economy and society to be valued equally. "Every parent who wants their child to get the best start in life, with cheaper childcare and with fair funding for every student in every school. Everyone who counts on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. "We will be a government for every Australian who wants to train or re-train for new skills and a good job at public TAFE. Every Australian who works hard for the life-changing opportunity of higher education ..." These are not, of themselves, new campaign commitments. But one would be entitled to assume that it implied that social expenditure, on health, education and social services, was at the top of the government's list of things to do. And not merely because a pollster or an economist had said that this was the main priority but because these were among the key reasons why we have government at all. Defence, law and order, industry policy and infrastructure provision are important, including in meeting the social commitments. They are words that Albanese has said before. But he has nicely put them forward in a bold manner, rather than, as he has sometimes seemed to do, apologised for the way these priority commitments fall into our cost of living. At least, one might say, he has repudiated the idea that the bag of money for health, welfare and education can be raided to meet our absurd defence commitments, salmon farms in Tasmania or new coal plants. Peter Dutton must have known he had lost long before his concession speech. But he was in a world of pain from the rejection he had received, firstly by his own electorate and from the whole nation. He showed some guts and some decency in accepting responsibility for the verdict on his campaign, and in praising the Labor candidate, Ali France, who now held his seat. But he eschewed any opportunity for any reflection on what the election result meant, or a defence of his philosophy or his party's philosophy. He gave no short account of what had brought him into politics, and why he thought he had been rejected by the silent Australians. He expressed no regrets for taking actions in his ministry which had seemed gratuitously cruel to people who had come to Australia for safety from persecution and war. Nor did he express any regret for some of his polarising statements which attacked disadvantaged Australians, including Indigenous Australians, refugees, immigrants and juvenile offenders. It may be that he has no regrets, though some of his supporters have always insisted that there is, behind that hard-man face, a man of decency, empathy and feeling for others. Perhaps he judged that this was not the occasion. He was certainly aware that his pollsters had told him that his very personality and character were campaign issues, and that many of those he had alienated feared or despised him. Of course, it is true that few men or women leave politics of their own choosing. Ask some of the Greens, about whose fate Albanese jeered even as he was calling for respect for the demolished Dutton. Albanese, obviously, has a thing against the Greens, even as he hopes and expects that they will support Labor legislation in the Senate, and even as he has relied on Green preferences to create his majority government. He must differentiate the Labor product from the Green, but the lack of proportion in the way that he does so ought to serve as a reminder that he has yet to stamp his place in history, even as the Greens have ensured their own. For the moment, however, observers should notice, and applaud some hint of passion, boldness, defiance and unwillingness to give an inch on core values. Previously, he had a tiny majority. Now he has a big one that ought to foreshadow a new resolution. Perhaps a transformation of the sort delivered by the Great Oz to the lion, the scarecrow and the woodman. We need more of the passion that admirers said was worn on his sleeves. Perhaps that is evident to his colleagues and friends, but it has not been obvious to ordinary Australians. We need more courage, more common sense and more heart. But we also need a new communication between the prime minister and the electorate. We need him thinking aloud. We need him being open to discussion about the merits and demerits of policies, rather than holding everything to his chest. We need him talking aloud, explaining what he is doing and why. And why he is not doing other things on the agenda. The government ought to be in a continuous dialogue with the governed. If the prime minister is shy, secretive and distrustful of the electorate, more junior and open ministers cannot substitute. Or dare to. Most politicians go into politics because they want to make a difference to people's lives. Whatever side one is on, it is not usually about power or the mechanical ways of making others conform to your will or seeing your logic. Nor is it to provide the opportunity for graft and corruption. The attraction is that many of the things in politics matter. MORE JACK WATERFORD: Individuals, parties and the political process can make a difference, can change lives and outcomes. It is because politics involves choice and the division of the pie, and because there is never enough pie for everyone. It's why able and ambitious politicians put up with the bastardries, the public disdain of their profession and their kind, and the suspicion of their motives and their honesty. Why they elbow their colleagues aside in quests for power and engage in character assassination. Why they engage in fake debates, pretending sometimes that relatively innocuous statements outrage public decency. It's the heart in politics which speaks to character. Some politicians are very wary of displaying any heart or any emotion. That may lead to empathy and draw people to you. But it may drive others away or be seen to represent weakness and vulnerability. The risk-averse will cower. Fundamental character, heart, and passion, and motivating force can be just the ingredient worth looking for. In the modern day, there is often a vacuum at the surface. Many decisions do not come from deep conviction or ideology, but experience, relatively sensible management of people and things. It may soon be done by AI. The vision stuff, the philosophy stuff, and the priority stuff, are not mere baggage. They are usually the only things that make politicians human. For the humans on whose goodwill politicians depend, affection will depend on humanity they display, not their technical skill, their managerialist mantras or the demands that we should trust them. Some of the most memorable best political speeches made in Australia are made by politicians going out of office. Kim Beazley gave a cracker when leaving Parliament, and fairly good ones conceding defeat by John Howard in 1988 and 2001. It was said that if he had been able to move and inspire people and rally troops during his political lifetime, he would not have been spending so much time acknowledging his and his party's failures. Victory speeches are usually a bit more humdrum, even if given before an excited and jubilant crowd. For starters those who craft them (the speechwriters usually prepare two, one for victory, one for defeat) feel obliged to include cliché phrases such as "great honour," "humbled and with a deep feeling of responsibility" ... "We will govern for all Australians", and "tomorrow we will hit the ground running". The credit and acknowledgements, win or lose, to campaign staff, party organisers, fallen comrades, and family, these days run longer than the credits on an Oscar-winning movie. Anthony Albanese's speech contained all of this, from a template borrowed, I think, from William Morris Hughes 110 years ago. Optimism, hope and substance are often the first things edited out. Even more from a leader, a government that has seemed timid about its social commitments and its moral duties. But a triumphant, if modest, Albanese unleashed the puppy. There was something in the middle that was worth notice. It reached no heights of oratory. Albanese doesn't do fluency or silken words - or read them well if someone else penned them. He has no great or fast wit, though he can see further through a brick wall than most and knows immediately if someone has stumbled. But his meanings are genuine enough. He usually believes in what he is saying. That is, if he is not merely going through the motions, as he is perhaps when reading some of the 10 speeches or statements he gives a day. His was not a speech brimming with statistics. He was not explaining why his aspirations for human betterment were low. He was not being defensive or resorting to redefinitions. Nor did he use the language of economics or rationing. He did not act as if the laws of economics decreed that an input of X here produced a Y somewhere else, self-evidently a good thing. Compared with some percentage of the gross domestic product there, which would have this effect on interest rates. Nor did he pander to ideas about lifting and leaning and the idea that half the population are not real citizens because they do not contribute. His words did not have to be parsed to be sure that they excised words of legal entitlement or subsumed previously made threats of disentitlement - the stuff of robodebt under a previous regime. Albo addressed citizens, not the forces of production, and in inclusive language. The speech was general and inclusive in its scope. It actually spoke to people. To individuals. To families and communities. Even to the whole nation. It did not seek to divide the population into them and us. It used the words "you" and "us". There was nothing particularly remarkable about what was said, other than it gave some hint of what government was all about. "When it comes to Australia's future, all of us have so much reason to be optimistic," Albanese said. "Because when we look at everything going on around the world today, when we consider the changes that will be the future of the world economy, when we think about our people and their smarts and truly there is nowhere else you would rather be than right here ... "This is a time of profound opportunity for our nation. We have everything we need to seize this moment and make it our own. And we must do it together, all of us. Because for Australia to realise our full potential, for our nation to be the very best, every Australian must have the opportunity to be their best. To serve Australian values, we must value every Australian. Every Australian who wants a fair go at work, fair wages for their work, and the right to disconnect when they are done with work. Every Australian who deserves the security of a roof over their head or who dreams of owning their own home. Every woman who wants her contribution to our economy and society to be valued equally. "Every parent who wants their child to get the best start in life, with cheaper childcare and with fair funding for every student in every school. Everyone who counts on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. "We will be a government for every Australian who wants to train or re-train for new skills and a good job at public TAFE. Every Australian who works hard for the life-changing opportunity of higher education ..." These are not, of themselves, new campaign commitments. But one would be entitled to assume that it implied that social expenditure, on health, education and social services, was at the top of the government's list of things to do. And not merely because a pollster or an economist had said that this was the main priority but because these were among the key reasons why we have government at all. Defence, law and order, industry policy and infrastructure provision are important, including in meeting the social commitments. They are words that Albanese has said before. But he has nicely put them forward in a bold manner, rather than, as he has sometimes seemed to do, apologised for the way these priority commitments fall into our cost of living. At least, one might say, he has repudiated the idea that the bag of money for health, welfare and education can be raided to meet our absurd defence commitments, salmon farms in Tasmania or new coal plants. Peter Dutton must have known he had lost long before his concession speech. But he was in a world of pain from the rejection he had received, firstly by his own electorate and from the whole nation. He showed some guts and some decency in accepting responsibility for the verdict on his campaign, and in praising the Labor candidate, Ali France, who now held his seat. But he eschewed any opportunity for any reflection on what the election result meant, or a defence of his philosophy or his party's philosophy. He gave no short account of what had brought him into politics, and why he thought he had been rejected by the silent Australians. He expressed no regrets for taking actions in his ministry which had seemed gratuitously cruel to people who had come to Australia for safety from persecution and war. Nor did he express any regret for some of his polarising statements which attacked disadvantaged Australians, including Indigenous Australians, refugees, immigrants and juvenile offenders. It may be that he has no regrets, though some of his supporters have always insisted that there is, behind that hard-man face, a man of decency, empathy and feeling for others. Perhaps he judged that this was not the occasion. He was certainly aware that his pollsters had told him that his very personality and character were campaign issues, and that many of those he had alienated feared or despised him. Of course, it is true that few men or women leave politics of their own choosing. Ask some of the Greens, about whose fate Albanese jeered even as he was calling for respect for the demolished Dutton. Albanese, obviously, has a thing against the Greens, even as he hopes and expects that they will support Labor legislation in the Senate, and even as he has relied on Green preferences to create his majority government. He must differentiate the Labor product from the Green, but the lack of proportion in the way that he does so ought to serve as a reminder that he has yet to stamp his place in history, even as the Greens have ensured their own. For the moment, however, observers should notice, and applaud some hint of passion, boldness, defiance and unwillingness to give an inch on core values. Previously, he had a tiny majority. Now he has a big one that ought to foreshadow a new resolution. Perhaps a transformation of the sort delivered by the Great Oz to the lion, the scarecrow and the woodman. We need more of the passion that admirers said was worn on his sleeves. Perhaps that is evident to his colleagues and friends, but it has not been obvious to ordinary Australians. We need more courage, more common sense and more heart. But we also need a new communication between the prime minister and the electorate. We need him thinking aloud. We need him being open to discussion about the merits and demerits of policies, rather than holding everything to his chest. We need him talking aloud, explaining what he is doing and why. And why he is not doing other things on the agenda. The government ought to be in a continuous dialogue with the governed. If the prime minister is shy, secretive and distrustful of the electorate, more junior and open ministers cannot substitute. Or dare to. Most politicians go into politics because they want to make a difference to people's lives. Whatever side one is on, it is not usually about power or the mechanical ways of making others conform to your will or seeing your logic. Nor is it to provide the opportunity for graft and corruption. The attraction is that many of the things in politics matter. MORE JACK WATERFORD: Individuals, parties and the political process can make a difference, can change lives and outcomes. It is because politics involves choice and the division of the pie, and because there is never enough pie for everyone. It's why able and ambitious politicians put up with the bastardries, the public disdain of their profession and their kind, and the suspicion of their motives and their honesty. Why they elbow their colleagues aside in quests for power and engage in character assassination. Why they engage in fake debates, pretending sometimes that relatively innocuous statements outrage public decency. It's the heart in politics which speaks to character. Some politicians are very wary of displaying any heart or any emotion. That may lead to empathy and draw people to you. But it may drive others away or be seen to represent weakness and vulnerability. The risk-averse will cower. Fundamental character, heart, and passion, and motivating force can be just the ingredient worth looking for. In the modern day, there is often a vacuum at the surface. Many decisions do not come from deep conviction or ideology, but experience, relatively sensible management of people and things. It may soon be done by AI. The vision stuff, the philosophy stuff, and the priority stuff, are not mere baggage. They are usually the only things that make politicians human. For the humans on whose goodwill politicians depend, affection will depend on humanity they display, not their technical skill, their managerialist mantras or the demands that we should trust them.
News.com.au
02-05-2025
- Business
- News.com.au
Monsters of Rock: Critical minerals stockpiles could herald golden age for rare metals (or just big warehouses)
Western governments are ramping up calls to stockpile critical minerals to compete with China But what impact will it actually have on market prices? Lithium leader Albemarle tips more pain for producers As Australia heads to the polls tomorrow, one policy from the Albanese government has caught the eye. Its $1.2 billion critical minerals stockpile, accompanied by another $1bn for the now $5bn critical minerals facility, is its flagship attempt to twist Trump's arm on tariffs and beat China at its own game in rare earths. The idea, which could put a floor under prices for new producers of things like rare earths, feels eerily similar to the hawkish tones of Labor stalwart Kim Beazley's rambling Diggers and Dealers address last year. Only, it seems the one company that should be consulted on something like this – the only one in Australia actually producing commercial quantities of rare earths – wasn't. "I have to say that I am at a loss to understand the policy,' Lynas (ASX:LYC) boss Amanda Lacaze said on the company's quarterly call this week. 'It's not going to suddenly make uneconomic projects economic. There is only $1.2bn in this fund. Even if you put half of that towards rare earths, well, that doesn't even cover Lynas' full year production. 'I cannot see how the government buying oxide is going to do anything except have the government needing to build a big warehouse.' But Australia is not the only company aiming to stockpile critical minerals, and analysts from ANZ think similar moves afoot in Canada and South Korea could dramatically reshape how markets like rare earths and copper are structured. The long game China has been stockpiling minerals strategically "for some time", ANZ's Daniel Hynes and Soni Kumari said. "Other countries now appear to be making similar moves. The US has, in recent years, moved to revitalise its national defence stockpile," they said in a note. "Australia has also raised the possibility of a critical mineral reserve, while Canada and South Korea have said they will stockpile rare earth minerals from new projects. "Although Europe does not have a formal strategic reserve of critical minerals, it has established the Critical Raw Materials Act to ensure access to a secure and sustainable supply. "The emergence of strategic reserves could sustain a period of stronger demand. This should put a floor under prices for critical minerals such as copper, lithium and cobalt. The faster governments add to stockpiles, the greater the risk of volatility and market destabilisation. However, the risks of not doing anything could be greater over the longer term." According to ANZ, WoodMac, Bloomberg and Macrobond data, inventory build has become a massive component of lithium, copper, aluminium and cobalt demand in China over to past six years. Copper runs close to 65%, while lithium hovers around 40% (though many lithium chemicals spoil and need to be used within a tight timeframe). The background for this is an increasingly staunch trade war between the US and China. China dominates the supply of critical minerals, including well over 80% of the rare earths supply chain and over 50% of lithium refining. Because it is the main consumer for raw and intermediate materials, it can use levers that set prices at levels the West can't compete at. Stockpiling can be one of those measures. Equally stockpiling by countries outside China could shield them against future export restrictions, like those China has placed on gallium, germanium, antimony and heavy rare earths. The US this week nailed its critical minerals deal with Ukraine, which reputedly holds Europe's largest (though as yet undeveloped) lithium reserves. At the same time, Hynes and Kumari say China's stockpiling practices could actually mitigate downside to commodity demand. "And this stockpiling appears to be a trend, not an aberration. Despite the accumulation, however, China's inventories do not appear to be excessive relative to its storage capacity," they said. "So we think imports will continue at a high level, which will go some way to mitigating the downside impact of a slowing global economy on commodity demand." Dislocations could result, though. Stockpiles are useful for governments because when prices are low they can soak up supply. But they then become an alternative source, which can cause volatility when those metals are released into the market. "A race to secure and control critical minerals has the potential to exacerbate geopolitical tensions, with trade disputes, resource nationalism and export restrictions leading to global supply-chain disruption and threats to national security," Hynes and Kumari said. "Current low prices offer an opportunity for governments to build national stockpiles, but that may be short-lived. Demand is expected to exceed supply across a range of markets by the end of the decade. That urgency will have to be managed, as the faster governments add to stockpiles, the greater the risk of volatility in prices and market destabilisation." Lithium struggles continue Overnight, the largest lithium producer in the world, America's Albemarle, delivered another downbeat take on the state of the sector. Boss J. Kent Masters estimates 40% of the market is losing money right now, with a third of those lossmaking operations now out of circulation. Lithium carbonate prices are hovering at their lowest ebb in the current down cycle at US$8700/t. In late 2022 they briefly surged to above US$80,000/t before a flood of supply from places like Africa, China and expansions in Australia came online. Cost-cutting measures helped Albemarle address last year's pain, with its first quarter net income up over 1600% to US$41.3m. Also continuing to stall a planned US$1.3bn lithium refinery in South Carolina – having also dramatically scaled back construction of a refinery in WA's Kemerton industrial precinct in 2024 – Masters said more producers will need to come out of the market in the short-term. That could exacerbate supply shortages with demand continuing to rise at more than 20% a year. "Prices well above current levels are required to support the necessary investment,' Masters said. The ASX 300 Metals and Mining index fell 0.36% over the past week.
ABC News
23-04-2025
- Business
- ABC News
Defence strategies in Australia's north in the spotlight after China's military build-up, reported Russian aircraft interest in Indonesia
Western Australia's expansive and largely barren north is often in the headlines as the "engine room of the nation's economy". But that value, combined with its proximity to the Indo-Pacific, also makes it significant to Australia's defence interests. It's why the Defence Strategic Review (DSR), a generational assessment of Australia's defence forces, called for bases in northern Australia to be "The bases to the north are important because it's our first line of defence," University of Western Australia Defence and Security Institute research fellow Troy Lee-Brown said. Dr Lee-Brown says bases like Curtin and Learmonth are highly important. ( Supplied: UWA ) The need for that defence has grown, Dr Lee-Brown said, because of "changes in the security structure" of our region, led by China's military build-up. Recent reports of A Defence spokesperson said its latest Integrated Investment Program included between $14 and $18 billion over the next decade for "a logistically connected and resilient set of bases, ports and barracks across Australia's north". A plane on the tarmac at RAAF Base Learmonth, more than 1,200km north of Perth. ( ABC News: Rebecca Parish ) "The government has already approved more than $1 billion in north Western Australia infrastructure upgrades over the forward estimates, including over $700 million for airfield upgrades at RAAF Base Learmonth, to widen and strengthen the runway and taxiway," the spokesperson said. "Construction will commence shortly and [is] expected to be completed in 2027." Dr Lee-Brown said works were "overall … tracking in the right direction". "Whether it's quick enough is another matter entirely," he said. Priorities need to shift Chair of the US-Asia Centre Kim Beazley has a firm answer to that question of timing. "We're not completely unprepared but we don't have yet enough, and the government is undertaking to ensure that we start to get enough," the former Labor defence minister and ambassador to the US said. "We are going to have to, over the next few years, shift priorities to get there. Kim Beazley says defence policy is in the right area, but resourcing will be key. ( Four Corners ) "It does cost money and it does take people and all has to be provided in order to be able to do it. "I think we're now much better focused on the defence of our northern approaches, at least policy-wise, than we have been for quite some time. " The plans are there. The question is to get the resources in to do it and starts have been made. " Defence spending pledges Part of that could come from the Coalition's pledge yesterday to increase defence spending from 2.04 per cent of Australia's gross domestic product, where it sits now, That is more ambitious than Labor's plan to lift spending to 2.3 per cent of GDP by 2033. "This announcement today, which is a record announcement into defence of $21 billion, is not only going to get us to 2.5 per cent of GDP … it's going to allow us to invest in our defences across the north," Mr Dutton said in Perth on Wednesday. Peter Dutton spoke alongside Shadow Defence Minister Andrew Hastie (left) at a defence manufacturing facility in Perth. ( ABC News: Ian Cutmore ) Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said Labor had "put in $57 billion additional funding over 10 years" and would "make budget decisions every year". It's unclear though how much either party will invest in strengthening defences in northern WA, or the rest of northern Australia. 'Glaring hole' in defence One area where one of the people who worked on the DSR hopes future funding is directed is a "glaring hole" in Australia's integrated air and missile defence. Photo shows Woodisde's Scarborough gas project includes expanding the current Pluto facility on the Burrup Peninsula Australia's first major defence force review in a generation says the nation's geographical benefits are "radically reduced", with WA's north now a "primary area of military interest". "Fundamentally, to protect the northern part of Australia, and particular parts of the northern parts of Western Australia where we have key military bases … we need ground-based air defence," the director of foreign policy and defence at the University of Sydney's US Studies Centres, Peter Dean, told ABC Radio Perth. "At the moment there is a sort of a commitment that we identified in the Defence Strategic Review that there should be a medium-range surface-to-air missile capability. "But there's yet to be any dedicating funding towards this and there's yet to be a clear program of how we're going to deliver this quickly and that is an urgently needed area." Professor Dean estimated that project would cost between $6 and 8 billion. Northern bases at minimal staffing Another issue to grapple with is the staffing of bases in northern WA. Currently, both Learmonth and Curtin are considered "bare bases" with minimal regular staffing but the ability to handle an influx of troops at short notice. RAAF Base Learmonth is one of the bases that needs to be running at a higher capacity, according to Dr Lee-Brown. ( ABC News: Alistair Bates ) "As the region becomes more fractious and strategic warning time has evaporated … it's strategically important for Australia to have its northern bases running at a greater capacity than they currently are," Dr Lee-Brown said. But neither major party would commit to that. Asked if bases in northern WA should be permanently staffed, the opposition leader said he would "look at the advice from Defence at the time". The US Air Force and RAAF run joint training exercises over Curtin airbase. ( Supplied: U.S. Air Force Tech. Sgt. Dylan Nuckolls ) "But I've been very strongly supportive of us increasing our fuel reserves and making sure that our capabilities are as strong as they can be in our northern and our north-western approaches," Mr Dutton said. " So we should look more closely with the United States and see what further investment can be made by the US in the top-end. " That was despite his shadow defence minister later that day saying Staffing levels considered When asked, Defence Minister Richard Marles agreed the bases were important but would not say what Labor was committing to. "We need a defence force that can project, because the location of Australia's national security is not the coastline of our continent, in fact [it] lies much further out," he said in Perth on Tuesday. Richard Marles says Australia's defence strategy needs to be considered past the coastline. ( ABC News: Courtney Withers ) "And in order to be able to project it is really important that we have a strong line of northern bases, including the northern part of WA. That is literally the platform from where we project. "Upgrading those bases is a really important part of what we are doing in terms of restructuring our defence force and building a defence force which can project." Prime Minister Anthony Albanese indicated staffing was being considered. Photo shows A missile being fired in the desert. The federal government announces a major shift in Defence's posture as the world enters the "missile age", warning Australia's natural defences have been radically reduced. "One of the things that the Defence Strategic Review indicated was the need for our posture, our defence force posture, to be located towards the north," he said in WA on Wednesday. "That's a program that's being worked out through the Department of Defence with the Defence Minister, Richard Marles." WA Premier, Roger Cook, suggested he was content with current levels. "Every Western Australian premier would say we'd want a bigger military presence in the north-west," he told ABC Radio Perth. Premier Cook says significant work has been done to relocate defence assets into WA. ( ABC News: Ian Cutmore ) "We believe that there's a lot of strategic economic assets there. We believe that it is a point of vulnerability because it's such a vast coastline. "I do believe that the Albanese Labor government, through the Defence Strategic Review, has done some significant work to relocate a lot of defence assets into Western Australia and that's a very pleasing development." Loading
