logo
#

Latest news with #TheAustralian

Trump's negotiation position diminishes as Albo sits him out
Trump's negotiation position diminishes as Albo sits him out

The Advertiser

timea day ago

  • Business
  • The Advertiser

Trump's negotiation position diminishes as Albo sits him out

Anthony Albanese's visit to China has exceeded everyone's expectations, including mine, and arms him with extra weapons and arguments for when he meets President Donald Trump and United States officials, whenever that is to be. One can expect that Americans, and the advocates on The Australian, will accuse him of weakening perceptions that Australia is firmly in the Western camp. But he studiously said and did nothing that he has not said and done before, and one would have to parse each statement carefully to see evidence of any shift away from America, let alone movement towards the Chinese camp. Yet the visit has reminded Australians and the Chinese, and perhaps the region, that Australia is a very strong trading partner of China and that we are not proposing to weaken the partnership, or our economy, simply so as to oblige the US, whose interests and conflicts with China mostly involve their own economic national interests when they are in conflict with ours. Australia may be unequivocally in favour of America remaining engaged in Asia and sees itself as a close military ally. But at least as far as Albanese is concerned, Australia will no more automatically turn to help protect America's interests when they are threatened than America will automatically stand beside us when our economic interests are threatened. As it happens, the US could hardly have done more during the past five years in playing the fair-weather friend. The Morrison government foolishly but deliberately picked a fight with China over the origin of the COVID-19 bug. I imagine we did not do it at America's urging, because our foreign policy at the time consisted of anticipating what the US might want, and doing it of our own accord, even when no advantage accrued to Australia. (The origins of the bug are and were political currency in the US, particularly in the Trump camp, not least as they were trying to ratchet up claims that Chinese expansionism over trade disagreements would most likely lead to war). China did not show its annoyance by getting angry with both Australia and the US about the accusations. Instead, it picked Australia away from the US and began a hostile and expensive round of economic sanctions against us. Market access to select Australian exports was denied. American statesmen grumbled, as we might expect, that China was exercising just the sort of economic coercion it had warned the world about. Its tame propagandists in Australia repeated their cry. But any support for Australia from the US was purely rhetorical. American traders attempted to steal our markets and profit from China's anger at us, when all that we had done was to echo some American claims. The resolution of our trade disputes with China has been very hard work, and much more as a feature of quiet diplomacy under the Albanese government. It has had no clear support or assistance from our ally across the Pacific. No doubt the Chinese are taking advantage of a certain chaos in America's relationships with its allies. The chaos and uncertainty of Trump is a fit topic for discussions with China, as are tips undercutting his erratic style. So far as all the trade tension is concerned, China sees it as in its interests to draw neighbours and trading partners towards its side. If so, one might imagine that Australia would be low down on the list of any potential converts willing or likely to change sides. But China's pull for many of its neighbours has been made stronger by the erratic policies of the Trump Administration, real uncertainties about where the US is going, and the ever-changing demands on tariff levels, with seemingly arbitrary rate-fixing, sometimes determined by spite or a misunderstanding of the effect and impact of trade imbalances. Australia has had much the same experience, even as we seem to have fared much better than most. Trump is continuing to muse about punitive rates on pharmaceuticals, on steel production and on meat imports. Trump has now been in power for six months. It has not been Australia's fault, nor Albanese's, that there has been no meeting with Trump. Nor has it been clear that there has been anything to gain from a face-to-face meeting at which points of trade or military alliance differences will be "sorted out". Has Canada, or Mexico, or Japan, or for that matter nations in the European Economic Community or India, comfortably settled their differences with Trump? Some of the few nations that have done a "deal" with Trump are rationalising and attempting to justify their surrender, but very few are happy about it. At some time one can be sure that the agreements will ultimately be repudiated with the same lack of regard for a "rules-based order", a "gentleman's handshake" or international law as Trump has demonstrated throughout the process. No doubt it will occur at a time when it is the US, not the coerced nation, which has the disadvantage. Many of those subject either to "deals" or to arbitrary settings are not planning to respond by simply buckling down to the bully. This includes Australia, with or without passive support from China. And the European Community, and Japan, Korea and India. They will try to find substitute markets, deciding doing business with the US is simply too risky, too subject to arbitrary whim, dodgy science and bigotry, and too unreliable. Perhaps also too authoritarian, too little subject to a recognisable rule of law or principles of fair dealing. RELATED: PM confident of Australian jobs boost after China visit China is not the only big trading nation considering alternatives to being dependent on the US for too much of its trade and economic growth. It may not want to refuse to supply the US, but it may operate a two-tier trade scheme in which it maintains its ordinary prices while passively allowing American consumers to pay a lot more (after tariffs) for its products. Trump is reckoning that his tariff walls will inevitably bring manufacturing centres back to the US. It may well be, instead, that the US cannot reverse the process by which rich industrialists, such as Trump, exported American jobs and American factories. Over the past six months, China has approached several neighbouring economies, including Japan and Australia, with talk of a multilateral free-trade pact, one that strikes a deal with the European Community. The EC has likewise discussed a free-trade pact with Australia. One can be sure that Albanese, and Australian trade officials swapped economic intelligence with China, including views about the best way of negotiating with Trump, and their fresh experiences of his negotiating style (including what's been coined his famous "TACO" - Trump Always Chickens Out) in terms of discussions between China and the US. In one sense, it might seem a bit disloyal for Australia to be swapping experiences and insights about its closest ally with its bitterest enemy. On the other hand, if there is anything that six months of Trump has demonstrated, American military interests differ from its economic ones, and it does not hesitate to treat anyone as its economic enemy. Australia is quite capable of looking after its economic interests with China without divulging national security secrets. Indeed, if Australia did blab, there would be any number of Australian officials, regarding themselves as having a loyalty to the alliance over and above their loyalty to Australia, who would leak about it. Australia is by no means the only nation that faces further difficult negotiations about the terms under which it buys and sells pharmaceuticals. China and India are in the same position. Their dominance of international manufacturing markets is not a result of failure to adhere to international intellectual property laws or to play by the established rules. Australia and many other nations have special interests in preserving the shape of the trade as it is because it forms the basis of public health schemes providing life-saving drugs to their populations at much cheaper prices than in the US public health system, such as it is. Trump may proclaim that schemes outside the US are socialist, or sometimes communist, but the argument is hardly persuasive to most of the rest of the world. Winding the schemes back would lead to major civil unrest, whether here or in Britain, Europe or even China. Perhaps Trump has a big sense of grievance about how some nations, including China (and in narrow respects, Australia), have come to dominate metals markets, including steel. Americans may fondly remember when American steelworks and foundries dominated world production. But its loss of that field, and the export of the jobs, skills and capital that this involved, is not primarily a consequence of the conscious exporting of American jobs and the stealing of American secrets. It is a consequence of economic growth by which developing countries, including China, consciously moved into steel production to feed new appetites for housing, manufacturing plant and cars. Nor can the story of steel be reduced to a two-dimensional story about some sort of economic raid upon the US. The mere fact that Trump, or American steelworkers, resents the loss of a once-critical industry may make Trump's efforts a heroic feat from an American's point of view. Outsiders, even neighbours or allies, hardly see it the same way. What this suggests is that Trump's program is receiving more and more pushback as it continues. Trump's rich backers are used both to making direct demands for tariff protection and to being mulcted by the Trump organisation if he succeeds on their behalf. The personal negotiating style of Trump may have its attractions, but to many it appears corrupt. It also appears to lack an organising principle, by which outsiders can see that like is treated as like, or the services of disinterested parties, such as adjudicators or judges, able to consider and determine claims made upon the system. Indeed, the intimate style, which includes public bullying and bluster, the appearance of demanding quids pro quo, and individualised determinations changing by the day smack of arbitrary government running to personal advantage, not a system of government under law. Increasingly, however, the US Supreme Court is stripping lower courts of the capacity to scrutinise such schemes. At this point, one of the worst possible ways in which Albanese could tackle negotiations would involve going to Washington with a determination to dicker and negotiate each Trump agenda item, based on giving up something here in the hope of keeping the status quo elsewhere. In any such negotiation, Trump, as the standover man in chief, has completely the open hand, able to walk out threatening retaliations or interim fees, able to introduce new considerations and denying Australia any real capacity to have its arguments determined by any independent or fair system. The Canadian negotiations provide a good example of what should be best avoided, the more so when one considers that Albanese is not a particularly good negotiator. But it may well suit Albanese's interests to keep various disputes, such as the future of AUKUS, what is promised under it, how much Australia ought to be paying for its defence, and the trade negotiations running simultaneously. Australia is not quite in the position of NATO countries, which Trump has bullied into promising a virtual doubling of defence expenditure. Albanese's argument, that he will spend whatever seems necessary, but not an arbitrary sum, nor enter contracts to buy American equipment Australia does not want or need, is popular politically. The opposition - and even more the Murdoch advocates - are flailing in arguing that either a formula is needed, or that Australian defence can use or manage a much bigger armoury. MORE JACK WATERFORD: But even more, arguments about AUKUS, and what it can or should deliver, are developing in a way that suggests a wind-back will be necessary. Even if the US could ramp up its production of submarines - doubtful in the short term - there will be powerful American interests reluctant to see them leave American control. Even more doubtful, whether from the US or the UK, are supposed deadlines about delivery of useful working ships within 15 years of the timetable promised. In a three-horse race for which nation has the least efficient, competent and viable defence acquisition system, it would be impossible to scratch any contender, even with the lamentable Australian procurement record in mind. A month or so ago, I wrote here about American pressure descending on Australia to pre-commit itself to using its nuclear submarines (if handed over) in a war with China over Taiwan. It was no mistake that it surfaced publicly in the past week, in a manner designed to embarrass and compromise Albanese during his visit to China. If it was designed to bamboozle, I expect it backfired. First, the US itself has never made an explicit commitment to what it would do if, say, the Chinese crossed the Taiwan Strait. Nor has it ever made any sort of explicit pre-commitment about how it sees its ANZUS obligations. (On the one occasion, in conflict with Indonesia over Malaysia in 1963, US president John Kennedy told Robert Menzies that far from flying to Australia's aid, it would support Indonesia if it came to war). The American military would be foolish to get involved in a war over Taiwan. Even their own research and war-gaming tells it that its intervention would involve comprehensive defeat. Admittedly, that is something the Yanks do nearly as well as we do, but we ought to have enough experience by now in opting out of something we have never indicated we would do. It's primarily a matter of logistics, not manpower (though we don't have enough) and weapons systems (ditto). These are deficits unlikely to be addressed before the year 2300. It might be US policy (though I do not think it is) to expend money and treasure on noble but futile quests, but it should not be Australia's. And that's assuming that China has any immediate plan to launch an invasion. It may be only a splendid tease to keep everyone on their toes, too distracted to do anything much about more fundamental issues involving China's development as a world power. Anthony Albanese's visit to China has exceeded everyone's expectations, including mine, and arms him with extra weapons and arguments for when he meets President Donald Trump and United States officials, whenever that is to be. One can expect that Americans, and the advocates on The Australian, will accuse him of weakening perceptions that Australia is firmly in the Western camp. But he studiously said and did nothing that he has not said and done before, and one would have to parse each statement carefully to see evidence of any shift away from America, let alone movement towards the Chinese camp. Yet the visit has reminded Australians and the Chinese, and perhaps the region, that Australia is a very strong trading partner of China and that we are not proposing to weaken the partnership, or our economy, simply so as to oblige the US, whose interests and conflicts with China mostly involve their own economic national interests when they are in conflict with ours. Australia may be unequivocally in favour of America remaining engaged in Asia and sees itself as a close military ally. But at least as far as Albanese is concerned, Australia will no more automatically turn to help protect America's interests when they are threatened than America will automatically stand beside us when our economic interests are threatened. As it happens, the US could hardly have done more during the past five years in playing the fair-weather friend. The Morrison government foolishly but deliberately picked a fight with China over the origin of the COVID-19 bug. I imagine we did not do it at America's urging, because our foreign policy at the time consisted of anticipating what the US might want, and doing it of our own accord, even when no advantage accrued to Australia. (The origins of the bug are and were political currency in the US, particularly in the Trump camp, not least as they were trying to ratchet up claims that Chinese expansionism over trade disagreements would most likely lead to war). China did not show its annoyance by getting angry with both Australia and the US about the accusations. Instead, it picked Australia away from the US and began a hostile and expensive round of economic sanctions against us. Market access to select Australian exports was denied. American statesmen grumbled, as we might expect, that China was exercising just the sort of economic coercion it had warned the world about. Its tame propagandists in Australia repeated their cry. But any support for Australia from the US was purely rhetorical. American traders attempted to steal our markets and profit from China's anger at us, when all that we had done was to echo some American claims. The resolution of our trade disputes with China has been very hard work, and much more as a feature of quiet diplomacy under the Albanese government. It has had no clear support or assistance from our ally across the Pacific. No doubt the Chinese are taking advantage of a certain chaos in America's relationships with its allies. The chaos and uncertainty of Trump is a fit topic for discussions with China, as are tips undercutting his erratic style. So far as all the trade tension is concerned, China sees it as in its interests to draw neighbours and trading partners towards its side. If so, one might imagine that Australia would be low down on the list of any potential converts willing or likely to change sides. But China's pull for many of its neighbours has been made stronger by the erratic policies of the Trump Administration, real uncertainties about where the US is going, and the ever-changing demands on tariff levels, with seemingly arbitrary rate-fixing, sometimes determined by spite or a misunderstanding of the effect and impact of trade imbalances. Australia has had much the same experience, even as we seem to have fared much better than most. Trump is continuing to muse about punitive rates on pharmaceuticals, on steel production and on meat imports. Trump has now been in power for six months. It has not been Australia's fault, nor Albanese's, that there has been no meeting with Trump. Nor has it been clear that there has been anything to gain from a face-to-face meeting at which points of trade or military alliance differences will be "sorted out". Has Canada, or Mexico, or Japan, or for that matter nations in the European Economic Community or India, comfortably settled their differences with Trump? Some of the few nations that have done a "deal" with Trump are rationalising and attempting to justify their surrender, but very few are happy about it. At some time one can be sure that the agreements will ultimately be repudiated with the same lack of regard for a "rules-based order", a "gentleman's handshake" or international law as Trump has demonstrated throughout the process. No doubt it will occur at a time when it is the US, not the coerced nation, which has the disadvantage. Many of those subject either to "deals" or to arbitrary settings are not planning to respond by simply buckling down to the bully. This includes Australia, with or without passive support from China. And the European Community, and Japan, Korea and India. They will try to find substitute markets, deciding doing business with the US is simply too risky, too subject to arbitrary whim, dodgy science and bigotry, and too unreliable. Perhaps also too authoritarian, too little subject to a recognisable rule of law or principles of fair dealing. RELATED: PM confident of Australian jobs boost after China visit China is not the only big trading nation considering alternatives to being dependent on the US for too much of its trade and economic growth. It may not want to refuse to supply the US, but it may operate a two-tier trade scheme in which it maintains its ordinary prices while passively allowing American consumers to pay a lot more (after tariffs) for its products. Trump is reckoning that his tariff walls will inevitably bring manufacturing centres back to the US. It may well be, instead, that the US cannot reverse the process by which rich industrialists, such as Trump, exported American jobs and American factories. Over the past six months, China has approached several neighbouring economies, including Japan and Australia, with talk of a multilateral free-trade pact, one that strikes a deal with the European Community. The EC has likewise discussed a free-trade pact with Australia. One can be sure that Albanese, and Australian trade officials swapped economic intelligence with China, including views about the best way of negotiating with Trump, and their fresh experiences of his negotiating style (including what's been coined his famous "TACO" - Trump Always Chickens Out) in terms of discussions between China and the US. In one sense, it might seem a bit disloyal for Australia to be swapping experiences and insights about its closest ally with its bitterest enemy. On the other hand, if there is anything that six months of Trump has demonstrated, American military interests differ from its economic ones, and it does not hesitate to treat anyone as its economic enemy. Australia is quite capable of looking after its economic interests with China without divulging national security secrets. Indeed, if Australia did blab, there would be any number of Australian officials, regarding themselves as having a loyalty to the alliance over and above their loyalty to Australia, who would leak about it. Australia is by no means the only nation that faces further difficult negotiations about the terms under which it buys and sells pharmaceuticals. China and India are in the same position. Their dominance of international manufacturing markets is not a result of failure to adhere to international intellectual property laws or to play by the established rules. Australia and many other nations have special interests in preserving the shape of the trade as it is because it forms the basis of public health schemes providing life-saving drugs to their populations at much cheaper prices than in the US public health system, such as it is. Trump may proclaim that schemes outside the US are socialist, or sometimes communist, but the argument is hardly persuasive to most of the rest of the world. Winding the schemes back would lead to major civil unrest, whether here or in Britain, Europe or even China. Perhaps Trump has a big sense of grievance about how some nations, including China (and in narrow respects, Australia), have come to dominate metals markets, including steel. Americans may fondly remember when American steelworks and foundries dominated world production. But its loss of that field, and the export of the jobs, skills and capital that this involved, is not primarily a consequence of the conscious exporting of American jobs and the stealing of American secrets. It is a consequence of economic growth by which developing countries, including China, consciously moved into steel production to feed new appetites for housing, manufacturing plant and cars. Nor can the story of steel be reduced to a two-dimensional story about some sort of economic raid upon the US. The mere fact that Trump, or American steelworkers, resents the loss of a once-critical industry may make Trump's efforts a heroic feat from an American's point of view. Outsiders, even neighbours or allies, hardly see it the same way. What this suggests is that Trump's program is receiving more and more pushback as it continues. Trump's rich backers are used both to making direct demands for tariff protection and to being mulcted by the Trump organisation if he succeeds on their behalf. The personal negotiating style of Trump may have its attractions, but to many it appears corrupt. It also appears to lack an organising principle, by which outsiders can see that like is treated as like, or the services of disinterested parties, such as adjudicators or judges, able to consider and determine claims made upon the system. Indeed, the intimate style, which includes public bullying and bluster, the appearance of demanding quids pro quo, and individualised determinations changing by the day smack of arbitrary government running to personal advantage, not a system of government under law. Increasingly, however, the US Supreme Court is stripping lower courts of the capacity to scrutinise such schemes. At this point, one of the worst possible ways in which Albanese could tackle negotiations would involve going to Washington with a determination to dicker and negotiate each Trump agenda item, based on giving up something here in the hope of keeping the status quo elsewhere. In any such negotiation, Trump, as the standover man in chief, has completely the open hand, able to walk out threatening retaliations or interim fees, able to introduce new considerations and denying Australia any real capacity to have its arguments determined by any independent or fair system. The Canadian negotiations provide a good example of what should be best avoided, the more so when one considers that Albanese is not a particularly good negotiator. But it may well suit Albanese's interests to keep various disputes, such as the future of AUKUS, what is promised under it, how much Australia ought to be paying for its defence, and the trade negotiations running simultaneously. Australia is not quite in the position of NATO countries, which Trump has bullied into promising a virtual doubling of defence expenditure. Albanese's argument, that he will spend whatever seems necessary, but not an arbitrary sum, nor enter contracts to buy American equipment Australia does not want or need, is popular politically. The opposition - and even more the Murdoch advocates - are flailing in arguing that either a formula is needed, or that Australian defence can use or manage a much bigger armoury. MORE JACK WATERFORD: But even more, arguments about AUKUS, and what it can or should deliver, are developing in a way that suggests a wind-back will be necessary. Even if the US could ramp up its production of submarines - doubtful in the short term - there will be powerful American interests reluctant to see them leave American control. Even more doubtful, whether from the US or the UK, are supposed deadlines about delivery of useful working ships within 15 years of the timetable promised. In a three-horse race for which nation has the least efficient, competent and viable defence acquisition system, it would be impossible to scratch any contender, even with the lamentable Australian procurement record in mind. A month or so ago, I wrote here about American pressure descending on Australia to pre-commit itself to using its nuclear submarines (if handed over) in a war with China over Taiwan. It was no mistake that it surfaced publicly in the past week, in a manner designed to embarrass and compromise Albanese during his visit to China. If it was designed to bamboozle, I expect it backfired. First, the US itself has never made an explicit commitment to what it would do if, say, the Chinese crossed the Taiwan Strait. Nor has it ever made any sort of explicit pre-commitment about how it sees its ANZUS obligations. (On the one occasion, in conflict with Indonesia over Malaysia in 1963, US president John Kennedy told Robert Menzies that far from flying to Australia's aid, it would support Indonesia if it came to war). The American military would be foolish to get involved in a war over Taiwan. Even their own research and war-gaming tells it that its intervention would involve comprehensive defeat. Admittedly, that is something the Yanks do nearly as well as we do, but we ought to have enough experience by now in opting out of something we have never indicated we would do. It's primarily a matter of logistics, not manpower (though we don't have enough) and weapons systems (ditto). These are deficits unlikely to be addressed before the year 2300. It might be US policy (though I do not think it is) to expend money and treasure on noble but futile quests, but it should not be Australia's. And that's assuming that China has any immediate plan to launch an invasion. It may be only a splendid tease to keep everyone on their toes, too distracted to do anything much about more fundamental issues involving China's development as a world power. Anthony Albanese's visit to China has exceeded everyone's expectations, including mine, and arms him with extra weapons and arguments for when he meets President Donald Trump and United States officials, whenever that is to be. One can expect that Americans, and the advocates on The Australian, will accuse him of weakening perceptions that Australia is firmly in the Western camp. But he studiously said and did nothing that he has not said and done before, and one would have to parse each statement carefully to see evidence of any shift away from America, let alone movement towards the Chinese camp. Yet the visit has reminded Australians and the Chinese, and perhaps the region, that Australia is a very strong trading partner of China and that we are not proposing to weaken the partnership, or our economy, simply so as to oblige the US, whose interests and conflicts with China mostly involve their own economic national interests when they are in conflict with ours. Australia may be unequivocally in favour of America remaining engaged in Asia and sees itself as a close military ally. But at least as far as Albanese is concerned, Australia will no more automatically turn to help protect America's interests when they are threatened than America will automatically stand beside us when our economic interests are threatened. As it happens, the US could hardly have done more during the past five years in playing the fair-weather friend. The Morrison government foolishly but deliberately picked a fight with China over the origin of the COVID-19 bug. I imagine we did not do it at America's urging, because our foreign policy at the time consisted of anticipating what the US might want, and doing it of our own accord, even when no advantage accrued to Australia. (The origins of the bug are and were political currency in the US, particularly in the Trump camp, not least as they were trying to ratchet up claims that Chinese expansionism over trade disagreements would most likely lead to war). China did not show its annoyance by getting angry with both Australia and the US about the accusations. Instead, it picked Australia away from the US and began a hostile and expensive round of economic sanctions against us. Market access to select Australian exports was denied. American statesmen grumbled, as we might expect, that China was exercising just the sort of economic coercion it had warned the world about. Its tame propagandists in Australia repeated their cry. But any support for Australia from the US was purely rhetorical. American traders attempted to steal our markets and profit from China's anger at us, when all that we had done was to echo some American claims. The resolution of our trade disputes with China has been very hard work, and much more as a feature of quiet diplomacy under the Albanese government. It has had no clear support or assistance from our ally across the Pacific. No doubt the Chinese are taking advantage of a certain chaos in America's relationships with its allies. The chaos and uncertainty of Trump is a fit topic for discussions with China, as are tips undercutting his erratic style. So far as all the trade tension is concerned, China sees it as in its interests to draw neighbours and trading partners towards its side. If so, one might imagine that Australia would be low down on the list of any potential converts willing or likely to change sides. But China's pull for many of its neighbours has been made stronger by the erratic policies of the Trump Administration, real uncertainties about where the US is going, and the ever-changing demands on tariff levels, with seemingly arbitrary rate-fixing, sometimes determined by spite or a misunderstanding of the effect and impact of trade imbalances. Australia has had much the same experience, even as we seem to have fared much better than most. Trump is continuing to muse about punitive rates on pharmaceuticals, on steel production and on meat imports. Trump has now been in power for six months. It has not been Australia's fault, nor Albanese's, that there has been no meeting with Trump. Nor has it been clear that there has been anything to gain from a face-to-face meeting at which points of trade or military alliance differences will be "sorted out". Has Canada, or Mexico, or Japan, or for that matter nations in the European Economic Community or India, comfortably settled their differences with Trump? Some of the few nations that have done a "deal" with Trump are rationalising and attempting to justify their surrender, but very few are happy about it. At some time one can be sure that the agreements will ultimately be repudiated with the same lack of regard for a "rules-based order", a "gentleman's handshake" or international law as Trump has demonstrated throughout the process. No doubt it will occur at a time when it is the US, not the coerced nation, which has the disadvantage. Many of those subject either to "deals" or to arbitrary settings are not planning to respond by simply buckling down to the bully. This includes Australia, with or without passive support from China. And the European Community, and Japan, Korea and India. They will try to find substitute markets, deciding doing business with the US is simply too risky, too subject to arbitrary whim, dodgy science and bigotry, and too unreliable. Perhaps also too authoritarian, too little subject to a recognisable rule of law or principles of fair dealing. RELATED: PM confident of Australian jobs boost after China visit China is not the only big trading nation considering alternatives to being dependent on the US for too much of its trade and economic growth. It may not want to refuse to supply the US, but it may operate a two-tier trade scheme in which it maintains its ordinary prices while passively allowing American consumers to pay a lot more (after tariffs) for its products. Trump is reckoning that his tariff walls will inevitably bring manufacturing centres back to the US. It may well be, instead, that the US cannot reverse the process by which rich industrialists, such as Trump, exported American jobs and American factories. Over the past six months, China has approached several neighbouring economies, including Japan and Australia, with talk of a multilateral free-trade pact, one that strikes a deal with the European Community. The EC has likewise discussed a free-trade pact with Australia. One can be sure that Albanese, and Australian trade officials swapped economic intelligence with China, including views about the best way of negotiating with Trump, and their fresh experiences of his negotiating style (including what's been coined his famous "TACO" - Trump Always Chickens Out) in terms of discussions between China and the US. In one sense, it might seem a bit disloyal for Australia to be swapping experiences and insights about its closest ally with its bitterest enemy. On the other hand, if there is anything that six months of Trump has demonstrated, American military interests differ from its economic ones, and it does not hesitate to treat anyone as its economic enemy. Australia is quite capable of looking after its economic interests with China without divulging national security secrets. Indeed, if Australia did blab, there would be any number of Australian officials, regarding themselves as having a loyalty to the alliance over and above their loyalty to Australia, who would leak about it. Australia is by no means the only nation that faces further difficult negotiations about the terms under which it buys and sells pharmaceuticals. China and India are in the same position. Their dominance of international manufacturing markets is not a result of failure to adhere to international intellectual property laws or to play by the established rules. Australia and many other nations have special interests in preserving the shape of the trade as it is because it forms the basis of public health schemes providing life-saving drugs to their populations at much cheaper prices than in the US public health system, such as it is. Trump may proclaim that schemes outside the US are socialist, or sometimes communist, but the argument is hardly persuasive to most of the rest of the world. Winding the schemes back would lead to major civil unrest, whether here or in Britain, Europe or even China. Perhaps Trump has a big sense of grievance about how some nations, including China (and in narrow respects, Australia), have come to dominate metals markets, including steel. Americans may fondly remember when American steelworks and foundries dominated world production. But its loss of that field, and the export of the jobs, skills and capital that this involved, is not primarily a consequence of the conscious exporting of American jobs and the stealing of American secrets. It is a consequence of economic growth by which developing countries, including China, consciously moved into steel production to feed new appetites for housing, manufacturing plant and cars. Nor can the story of steel be reduced to a two-dimensional story about some sort of economic raid upon the US. The mere fact that Trump, or American steelworkers, resents the loss of a once-critical industry may make Trump's efforts a heroic feat from an American's point of view. Outsiders, even neighbours or allies, hardly see it the same way. What this suggests is that Trump's program is receiving more and more pushback as it continues. Trump's rich backers are used both to making direct demands for tariff protection and to being mulcted by the Trump organisation if he succeeds on their behalf. The personal negotiating style of Trump may have its attractions, but to many it appears corrupt. It also appears to lack an organising principle, by which outsiders can see that like is treated as like, or the services of disinterested parties, such as adjudicators or judges, able to consider and determine claims made upon the system. Indeed, the intimate style, which includes public bullying and bluster, the appearance of demanding quids pro quo, and individualised determinations changing by the day smack of arbitrary government running to personal advantage, not a system of government under law. Increasingly, however, the US Supreme Court is stripping lower courts of the capacity to scrutinise such schemes. At this point, one of the worst possible ways in which Albanese could tackle negotiations would involve going to Washington with a determination to dicker and negotiate each Trump agenda item, based on giving up something here in the hope of keeping the status quo elsewhere. In any such negotiation, Trump, as the standover man in chief, has completely the open hand, able to walk out threatening retaliations or interim fees, able to introduce new considerations and denying Australia any real capacity to have its arguments determined by any independent or fair system. The Canadian negotiations provide a good example of what should be best avoided, the more so when one considers that Albanese is not a particularly good negotiator. But it may well suit Albanese's interests to keep various disputes, such as the future of AUKUS, what is promised under it, how much Australia ought to be paying for its defence, and the trade negotiations running simultaneously. Australia is not quite in the position of NATO countries, which Trump has bullied into promising a virtual doubling of defence expenditure. Albanese's argument, that he will spend whatever seems necessary, but not an arbitrary sum, nor enter contracts to buy American equipment Australia does not want or need, is popular politically. The opposition - and even more the Murdoch advocates - are flailing in arguing that either a formula is needed, or that Australian defence can use or manage a much bigger armoury. MORE JACK WATERFORD: But even more, arguments about AUKUS, and what it can or should deliver, are developing in a way that suggests a wind-back will be necessary. Even if the US could ramp up its production of submarines - doubtful in the short term - there will be powerful American interests reluctant to see them leave American control. Even more doubtful, whether from the US or the UK, are supposed deadlines about delivery of useful working ships within 15 years of the timetable promised. In a three-horse race for which nation has the least efficient, competent and viable defence acquisition system, it would be impossible to scratch any contender, even with the lamentable Australian procurement record in mind. A month or so ago, I wrote here about American pressure descending on Australia to pre-commit itself to using its nuclear submarines (if handed over) in a war with China over Taiwan. It was no mistake that it surfaced publicly in the past week, in a manner designed to embarrass and compromise Albanese during his visit to China. If it was designed to bamboozle, I expect it backfired. First, the US itself has never made an explicit commitment to what it would do if, say, the Chinese crossed the Taiwan Strait. Nor has it ever made any sort of explicit pre-commitment about how it sees its ANZUS obligations. (On the one occasion, in conflict with Indonesia over Malaysia in 1963, US president John Kennedy told Robert Menzies that far from flying to Australia's aid, it would support Indonesia if it came to war). The American military would be foolish to get involved in a war over Taiwan. Even their own research and war-gaming tells it that its intervention would involve comprehensive defeat. Admittedly, that is something the Yanks do nearly as well as we do, but we ought to have enough experience by now in opting out of something we have never indicated we would do. It's primarily a matter of logistics, not manpower (though we don't have enough) and weapons systems (ditto). These are deficits unlikely to be addressed before the year 2300. It might be US policy (though I do not think it is) to expend money and treasure on noble but futile quests, but it should not be Australia's. And that's assuming that China has any immediate plan to launch an invasion. It may be only a splendid tease to keep everyone on their toes, too distracted to do anything much about more fundamental issues involving China's development as a world power. Anthony Albanese's visit to China has exceeded everyone's expectations, including mine, and arms him with extra weapons and arguments for when he meets President Donald Trump and United States officials, whenever that is to be. One can expect that Americans, and the advocates on The Australian, will accuse him of weakening perceptions that Australia is firmly in the Western camp. But he studiously said and did nothing that he has not said and done before, and one would have to parse each statement carefully to see evidence of any shift away from America, let alone movement towards the Chinese camp. Yet the visit has reminded Australians and the Chinese, and perhaps the region, that Australia is a very strong trading partner of China and that we are not proposing to weaken the partnership, or our economy, simply so as to oblige the US, whose interests and conflicts with China mostly involve their own economic national interests when they are in conflict with ours. Australia may be unequivocally in favour of America remaining engaged in Asia and sees itself as a close military ally. But at least as far as Albanese is concerned, Australia will no more automatically turn to help protect America's interests when they are threatened than America will automatically stand beside us when our economic interests are threatened. As it happens, the US could hardly have done more during the past five years in playing the fair-weather friend. The Morrison government foolishly but deliberately picked a fight with China over the origin of the COVID-19 bug. I imagine we did not do it at America's urging, because our foreign policy at the time consisted of anticipating what the US might want, and doing it of our own accord, even when no advantage accrued to Australia. (The origins of the bug are and were political currency in the US, particularly in the Trump camp, not least as they were trying to ratchet up claims that Chinese expansionism over trade disagreements would most likely lead to war). China did not show its annoyance by getting angry with both Australia and the US about the accusations. Instead, it picked Australia away from the US and began a hostile and expensive round of economic sanctions against us. Market access to select Australian exports was denied. American statesmen grumbled, as we might expect, that China was exercising just the sort of economic coercion it had warned the world about. Its tame propagandists in Australia repeated their cry. But any support for Australia from the US was purely rhetorical. American traders attempted to steal our markets and profit from China's anger at us, when all that we had done was to echo some American claims. The resolution of our trade disputes with China has been very hard work, and much more as a feature of quiet diplomacy under the Albanese government. It has had no clear support or assistance from our ally across the Pacific. No doubt the Chinese are taking advantage of a certain chaos in America's relationships with its allies. The chaos and uncertainty of Trump is a fit topic for discussions with China, as are tips undercutting his erratic style. So far as all the trade tension is concerned, China sees it as in its interests to draw neighbours and trading partners towards its side. If so, one might imagine that Australia would be low down on the list of any potential converts willing or likely to change sides. But China's pull for many of its neighbours has been made stronger by the erratic policies of the Trump Administration, real uncertainties about where the US is going, and the ever-changing demands on tariff levels, with seemingly arbitrary rate-fixing, sometimes determined by spite or a misunderstanding of the effect and impact of trade imbalances. Australia has had much the same experience, even as we seem to have fared much better than most. Trump is continuing to muse about punitive rates on pharmaceuticals, on steel production and on meat imports. Trump has now been in power for six months. It has not been Australia's fault, nor Albanese's, that there has been no meeting with Trump. Nor has it been clear that there has been anything to gain from a face-to-face meeting at which points of trade or military alliance differences will be "sorted out". Has Canada, or Mexico, or Japan, or for that matter nations in the European Economic Community or India, comfortably settled their differences with Trump? Some of the few nations that have done a "deal" with Trump are rationalising and attempting to justify their surrender, but very few are happy about it. At some time one can be sure that the agreements will ultimately be repudiated with the same lack of regard for a "rules-based order", a "gentleman's handshake" or international law as Trump has demonstrated throughout the process. No doubt it will occur at a time when it is the US, not the coerced nation, which has the disadvantage. Many of those subject either to "deals" or to arbitrary settings are not planning to respond by simply buckling down to the bully. This includes Australia, with or without passive support from China. And the European Community, and Japan, Korea and India. They will try to find substitute markets, deciding doing business with the US is simply too risky, too subject to arbitrary whim, dodgy science and bigotry, and too unreliable. Perhaps also too authoritarian, too little subject to a recognisable rule of law or principles of fair dealing. RELATED: PM confident of Australian jobs boost after China visit China is not the only big trading nation considering alternatives to being dependent on the US for too much of its trade and economic growth. It may not want to refuse to supply the US, but it may operate a two-tier trade scheme in which it maintains its ordinary prices while passively allowing American consumers to pay a lot more (after tariffs) for its products. Trump is reckoning that his tariff walls will inevitably bring manufacturing centres back to the US. It may well be, instead, that the US cannot reverse the process by which rich industrialists, such as Trump, exported American jobs and American factories. Over the past six months, China has approached several neighbouring economies, including Japan and Australia, with talk of a multilateral free-trade pact, one that strikes a deal with the European Community. The EC has likewise discussed a free-trade pact with Australia. One can be sure that Albanese, and Australian trade officials swapped economic intelligence with China, including views about the best way of negotiating with Trump, and their fresh experiences of his negotiating style (including what's been coined his famous "TACO" - Trump Always Chickens Out) in terms of discussions between China and the US. In one sense, it might seem a bit disloyal for Australia to be swapping experiences and insights about its closest ally with its bitterest enemy. On the other hand, if there is anything that six months of Trump has demonstrated, American military interests differ from its economic ones, and it does not hesitate to treat anyone as its economic enemy. Australia is quite capable of looking after its economic interests with China without divulging national security secrets. Indeed, if Australia did blab, there would be any number of Australian officials, regarding themselves as having a loyalty to the alliance over and above their loyalty to Australia, who would leak about it. Australia is by no means the only nation that faces further difficult negotiations about the terms under which it buys and sells pharmaceuticals. China and India are in the same position. Their dominance of international manufacturing markets is not a result of failure to adhere to international intellectual property laws or to play by the established rules. Australia and many other nations have special interests in preserving the shape of the trade as it is because it forms the basis of public health schemes providing life-saving drugs to their populations at much cheaper prices than in the US public health system, such as it is. Trump may proclaim that schemes outside the US are socialist, or sometimes communist, but the argument is hardly persuasive to most of the rest of the world. Winding the schemes back would lead to major civil unrest, whether here or in Britain, Europe or even China. Perhaps Trump has a big sense of grievance about how some nations, including China (and in narrow respects, Australia), have come to dominate metals markets, including steel. Americans may fondly remember when American steelworks and foundries dominated world production. But its loss of that field, and the export of the jobs, skills and capital that this involved, is not primarily a consequence of the conscious exporting of American jobs and the stealing of American secrets. It is a consequence of economic growth by which developing countries, including China, consciously moved into steel production to feed new appetites for housing, manufacturing plant and cars. Nor can the story of steel be reduced to a two-dimensional story about some sort of economic raid upon the US. The mere fact that Trump, or American steelworkers, resents the loss of a once-critical industry may make Trump's efforts a heroic feat from an American's point of view. Outsiders, even neighbours or allies, hardly see it the same way. What this suggests is that Trump's program is receiving more and more pushback as it continues. Trump's rich backers are used both to making direct demands for tariff protection and to being mulcted by the Trump organisation if he succeeds on their behalf. The personal negotiating style of Trump may have its attractions, but to many it appears corrupt. It also appears to lack an organising principle, by which outsiders can see that like is treated as like, or the services of disinterested parties, such as adjudicators or judges, able to consider and determine claims made upon the system. Indeed, the intimate style, which includes public bullying and bluster, the appearance of demanding quids pro quo, and individualised determinations changing by the day smack of arbitrary government running to personal advantage, not a system of government under law. Increasingly, however, the US Supreme Court is stripping lower courts of the capacity to scrutinise such schemes. At this point, one of the worst possible ways in which Albanese could tackle negotiations would involve going to Washington with a determination to dicker and negotiate each Trump agenda item, based on giving up something here in the hope of keeping the status quo elsewhere. In any such negotiation, Trump, as the standover man in chief, has completely the open hand, able to walk out threatening retaliations or interim fees, able to introduce new considerations and denying Australia any real capacity to have its arguments determined by any independent or fair system. The Canadian negotiations provide a good example of what should be best avoided, the more so when one considers that Albanese is not a particularly good negotiator. But it may well suit Albanese's interests to keep various disputes, such as the future of AUKUS, what is promised under it, how much Australia ought to be paying for its defence, and the trade negotiations running simultaneously. Australia is not quite in the position of NATO countries, which Trump has bullied into promising a virtual doubling of defence expenditure. Albanese's argument, that he will spend whatever seems necessary, but not an arbitrary sum, nor enter contracts to buy American equipment Australia does not want or need, is popular politically. The opposition - and even more the Murdoch advocates - are flailing in arguing that either a formula is needed, or that Australian defence can use or manage a much bigger armoury. MORE JACK WATERFORD: But even more, arguments about AUKUS, and what it can or should deliver, are developing in a way that suggests a wind-back will be necessary. Even if the US could ramp up its production of submarines - doubtful in the short term - there will be powerful American interests reluctant to see them leave American control. Even more doubtful, whether from the US or the UK, are supposed deadlines about delivery of useful working ships within 15 years of the timetable promised. In a three-horse race for which nation has the least efficient, competent and viable defence acquisition system, it would be impossible to scratch any contender, even with the lamentable Australian procurement record in mind. A month or so ago, I wrote here about American pressure descending on Australia to pre-commit itself to using its nuclear submarines (if handed over) in a war with China over Taiwan. It was no mistake that it surfaced publicly in the past week, in a manner designed to embarrass and compromise Albanese during his visit to China. If it was designed to bamboozle, I expect it backfired. First, the US itself has never made an explicit commitment to what it would do if, say, the Chinese crossed the Taiwan Strait. Nor has it ever made any sort of explicit pre-commitment about how it sees its ANZUS obligations. (On the one occasion, in conflict with Indonesia over Malaysia in 1963, US president John Kennedy told Robert Menzies that far from flying to Australia's aid, it would support Indonesia if it came to war). The American military would be foolish to get involved in a war over Taiwan. Even their own research and war-gaming tells it that its intervention would involve comprehensive defeat. Admittedly, that is something the Yanks do nearly as well as we do, but we ought to have enough experience by now in opting out of something we have never indicated we would do. It's primarily a matter of logistics, not manpower (though we don't have enough) and weapons systems (ditto). These are deficits unlikely to be addressed before the year 2300. It might be US policy (though I do not think it is) to expend money and treasure on noble but futile quests, but it should not be Australia's. And that's assuming that China has any immediate plan to launch an invasion. It may be only a splendid tease to keep everyone on their toes, too distracted to do anything much about more fundamental issues involving China's development as a world power.

Preview: Odds stacked in Lions' favour for first Wallabies Test
Preview: Odds stacked in Lions' favour for first Wallabies Test

RTÉ News​

time2 days ago

  • Sport
  • RTÉ News​

Preview: Odds stacked in Lions' favour for first Wallabies Test

Times have been tough for the Wallabies in recent seasons, but they haven't lost their sense of humour. ' Wallabies lock in debutant, more Aussies than Welsh in Lions ' was the headline in The Australian on Thursday evening, as Melbourne-born Sione Tuipulotu got the call at inside centre for the British and Irish Lions, and the only Welsh representative, Jac Morgan, missed the cut. Perhaps they would be better advised to look into how Tuipulotu – Scottish-qualified since birth – fell through the cracks of the Australian system and ended up on the other side of the world, just as Finlay Bealham and Mack Hansen did too. Financially, the Australians stand to make a fortune off this tour, although the fear is that it could come at the cost of three chastening defeats. A Wallabies win in Saturday's first Test in Brisbane would give this series lift-off, but their injury list has had other ideas, with two of their most powerful forwards, Will Skelton and Rob Valetini, both ruled out due to calf issues, while Langi Gleeson, who covered for Valetini a fortnight ago in their scatty 21-18 win against Fiji, is also out with a dead leg. To fill that back row role, enter Nick Champion de Crespigny. The Western Force flanker may sound like the central character from a BBC period drama, but three seasons at French club Castres mean the 29-year-old plays the game like an MMA fighter. The other big call Joe Schmidt (above) has had to make has been at out-half, where 22-year-old Tom Lynagh is given the keys to the backline, ahead of Ben Donaldson and James O'Connor, and follows in the footsteps of his father, Wallabies great Michael, who also started against the Lions in the 1989 series. "I always felt that Michael had a real quiet control of games and a calmness about the way that he ran the game. And I do think there's a bit of that in Tom," Schmidt said, as he backed the Queensland Reds rookie. "It's always the same when you haven't seen someone at the level and they haven't been put under the pressure that's going to come, then you're not quite sure how things are going to work out. But I have real confidence in Tom and I'm sure Michael does as well. "So whatever does get thrown at Tom, I am confident that he'll cope and I'm very confident that he'll learn from the occasion. Meanwhile, the main talking point with the Lions this week has been around who Andy Farrell hasn't picked, rather than who he has. "As a tighthead, he gives you a point of difference" Johne Murphy on Tadhg Furlong getting back to his best ahead of the first #Lions2025 Test Full #RTERugby pod:🎧 — RTÉ Sport (@RTEsport) July 17, 2025 With Tom Curry starting over Jac Morgan and Josh van der Flier, and Tadhg Beirne getting selected ahead of Ollie Chessum, it's fair to suggest that elements of Farrell's first Test line-up were picked long before this tour even started. Credit in the bank is always a valuable currency for Farrell, and while Beirne and Curry have arguably been a level below their best so far on tour, both have proven themselves time and again as players who raise their game for the big occasion. The head coach was at pains to stress how close those back row suggestions were. Indeed, the picture below was his specific response to being asked about how close Morgan was to being selected. Loose offloads and carelessness in possession have been among the big defects in the Lions performances so far on this tour, but looking through the starting pack Farrell has selected, every player is a ball-carrying option and capable of playing a direct, confrontational game that could be devastating for a Wallabies side missing two of their most powerful forwards. The Lions have been just above average for large chunks of this tour, although they did look to have raised their intensity by a couple of gears in last weekend's final warm-up game against the AUNZ Invitational XV, even accounting for a dreadful display from their hosts. The absence of Henry Pollock for this first Test is a disappointment, if only to see how the Wallabies players would have gone after the 20-year-old, who bristled a few in the Australian media this week when he suggested the Lions would like to win this series 3-0. In reality, the perception of cockiness couldn't be further from the truth. There has been a paranoid siege-mentality in the Lions camp this week, with only a small number of media permitted to see the opening minutes of training. A couple of hours after the Wallabies held their captain's run, in front of dozens of cameras, reporters, commentators and even a handful of supporters, an announcement at Suncorp Stadium advised that the Lions would be holding a closed session, and even the stadium maintenance workers had to clear the pitch, much to the bemusement of the Australian press. The familiarity between Schmidt and almost all of the Lions coaching staff may have something to do with that trepidation. Farrell (above), Simon Easterby, Andrew Goodman, John Fogarty and Johnny Sexton have all crossed paths with the New Zealander, either at Leinster of Ireland, and even their head of analysis Vinny Hammond is a disciple of the former Ireland coach. "Obviously you think you know his traits," Farrell said of the familiarity between the coaches. "The flipside is Joe 100% thinks he knows my traits, or the traits of the players that he's coached. "But things move on all the time, there's no doubt Joe has been through a lot of great experiences since leaving Ireland. "There is no doubt he'll be a better coach now, from the experience he had in New Zealand. We saw that with the All Blacks as well. "You just know they are going to be thoroughly prepared and you know he'll give them an inner confidence that they'll be up for a series win as well." If the Lions have the edge in the pack, their main task in the backline will be taming the influence of centre Joseph-Aukuso Suaalii (above), the 21-year-old star being held up as the potential saviour of Australian rugby. Suaalii has credited this series with being the main reason he switched from rugby league to union last year, and Farrell will have November's meeting of Ireland and the Wallabies fresh in his mind, where the centre's ability under the high ball caused Ireland real difficulty as they ground out a 22-19 win. Hugo Keenan, James Lowe and Tommy Freeman will have to be at their best to keep Australia's kicking game in check, but an early injury to any of those three could leave the Lions vulnerable. Bundee Aki's selection on the bench will give the Lions a powerful punch in the second half, all things going to plan, but with Marcus Smith covering out-half and full-back, the Harlequins man has looked out of place at 15, both in the air and on defence. Twelve years ago at this ground in Brisbane, only the footwear of Kurtley Beale came between the Wallabies and a surprise win, as he slipped while taking a penalty kick with the final play of the game as the Lions held on for a 23-21 win. A similarly dramatic finale would spark this series into life. Verdict: Lions Australia: Tom Wright; Max Jorgensen, Joseph-Aukuso Suaalii, Len Ikitau, Harry Potter; Tom Lynagh, Jake Gordon; James Slipper, Matt Faessler, Alan Ala'alatoa; Nick Frost, Jeremy Williams; Nick Champion de Crespigny, Fraser McReight, Harry Wilson (capt). Replacements: Billy Pollard, Angus Bell, Tom Robertson, Tom Hooper, Carlo Tizzano, Tate McDermott, Ben Donaldson, Andrew Kellaway. British and Irish Lions: Hugo Keenan; Tommy Freeman, Huw Jones, Sione Tuipulotu, James Lowe; Finn Russell, Jamison Gibson-Park; Ellis Genge, Dan Sheehan, Tadhg Furlong; Maro Itoje, Joe McCarthy; Tadhg Beirne, Tom Curry, Jack Conan.

Tech billionaire dragged into Mark Latham scandal
Tech billionaire dragged into Mark Latham scandal

Herald Sun

time2 days ago

  • Business
  • Herald Sun

Tech billionaire dragged into Mark Latham scandal

Don't miss out on the headlines from National. Followed categories will be added to My News. Former Labor leader Mark Latham joked with his ex-lover that billionaire Richard White owed her 'big money' and urged her to seek compensation for a non-disclosure agreement in new leaked texts. New messages exchanged between Mr Latham, 64, and his former fiancee Nathalie Matthews, 37, also reveal that the former Labor leader joked she should perform oral sex on Mr White. In the sordid text, he suggests she should do so to 'celebrate' after a series of board members quit the tech company in the wake of a sex scandal controversy. Mr White is not accused of any wrongdoing and does not suggest Ms Matthews and Mr White engaged in a sexual relationship, only that Mr Latham joked about his partner performing oral sex on the 70-year old billionaire. In new text messages published by The Australian, Mr Latham sent Ms Matthews a news article about the scandal engulfing the billionaire's company. 'He owes you big money,' Mr Latham wrote. Richard White, Nathalie Matthews and Mark Latham at a Cairns Conference in 2024. Picture: Supplied On October 24 – as Mr White prepared to resign as chief executive of WiseTech Global – Ms Matthews sent Mr Latham a screenshot purportedly of a message Mr White had sent her. 'Help,' Ms Matthews wrote to Mr Latham. Mr Latham replied: 'Get the compo NDA!!!' According to The Australian newspaper, Ms Matthews replied there were 'not really grounds'. 'I could kill my professional career,' she wrote. 'Remember I don't have a secure job.' The pair had a series of discussions about the billionaire with Mr Latham predicting Mr White 'coming back as CEO will make him a huge target'. On February 24, Mr Latham sent Ms Matthews a news article noting several WiseTech board members had quit. 'He will want you to suck his c**k to celebrate,' Mr Latham wrote. 'What an honour!!' He added a shocked face emoji. Mr Latham then suggested Mr White would soon be 'back as CEO' which would 'increase share price'. 'So buy 30k at 2pm today,' he wrote. 'Bargain.' When Ms Matthews jokingly questioned whether this was 'insider trading', Mr Latham replied: 'Insider f**king.' 'Haha,' he wrote. 'Not insider trading at all.' Nathalie May Matthews and Mark Latham. Picture: Instagram Ms Matthews sent Mr Latham a screenshot purportedly of a message Mr White had sent her and asked for 'Help'. Earlier today, the tech billionaire was dragged into the ugly split between Mr Latham and ex-lover Ms Matthews with a subpoena demanding both she and the Sydney businessman hand over any 'communications' that exist between them. Mr Latham's lawyer, Zali Burrows, who also acts for former Liberal staffer Bruce Lehrmann, has lodged a subpoena for 'communications' between the WiseTech co-founder and Ms Matthews in response to her domestic abuse allegations against the NSW independent MP. Ms Matthews has also been served with a subpoena for her communications with Mr White. Mr White is not accused of any wrongdoing. Mr Latham has emphatically denied his ex-girlfriend's abuse allegations, which include a claim he once defecated on her before sex, as 'comically false and ridiculous.' does not suggest these allegations are factual, only that they have been made against a serving NSW MP and a court will hear the application later this month. Mr White, Mr Latham, and Ms Matthews have been contacted for comment. Billionaire businessman Richard White. Picture: Supplied 'Invoices' for G-strings In a separate development, fresh claims have emerged that Mr Latham borrowed tens of thousands of dollars from Ms Matthews before complaining after the couple broke up and she requested the return of personal items that 'you bought those things when you lived in the house rent free.' There is no suggestion that Mr Latham did not return the money before the demise of the relationship. He has not been charged with any offence. In his only broadcast interview on the matter Mr Latham said that he was guilty of nothing more than being 'human' and 'male.' 'The big news is I had a private life. I had a sex life and I've got to say it was fantastic,'' Mr Latham said of the relationship. But the NSW MP has dismissed as an elaborate 'in-joke' other invoices he sent her that included references to G-strings and used the acronym for LETS ROOT. In Ms Matthew's AVO application she alleges Mr Latham borrowed $20,000 from her 'on four occasions without prompt repayment.' In one transaction Ms Matthews transferred $20,000 to Mr Latham on October 11 last year and it's also understood Ms Matthews also covered at least $15,000 worth of hotels and restaurants for the couple. Nathalie May Matthews The Daily Telegraph reported on Friday that that one email sent by Mr Latham in November 2023 to Ms Matthews titled: 'Latham Emergency Timely Storage Rental of Opportunists' Things', which serves as an acronym for 'LETS ROOT.' 'For: Services, Storage, Squatting, March-November 2023, itemised as follows…' the email from Mr Latham reads. '42 nights accommodation for Nathalie Matthews (naked), 29 mornings breakfast-inner and other personal services… @$50 per night = $2,100. 'Three months storage of: two large computer screens, keyboards and cords, 11 dresses, one 'It's a Latham Thing' sloppy joe, 6 boxes of shoes (non-shiny), 9 G-strings, assorted lingerie… assorted smalls and toiletries = $2,900' his email read. Mr Latham said there had to be payment 'within 21 days', otherwise stored materials would be 'thrown in the dam… or impounded permanently.' In September 2024 Ms Matthews wrote twice to Mr Latham requesting amounts totalling $9,000 be returned. But Mr Latham said on X on Friday that is was all an elaborate joke. 'Tele really have bottomed out with story today about Nathalie Matthews/Darrough/Abdullah/Bondi/Amber finances,'' he wrote. 'They are all of her aliases listed on this in-joke Invoice which, by the way, is numbered F*K0069.' 'Open relationship' claim Mr Latham has told The Daily Telegraph the couple were always in an 'open' sexual relationship and that she was having sex with other people during the entire two-year relationship that he has described a 'situationship.' 'It was never a monogamous relationship,'' Mr Latham said. Ms Matthews told friends last year that Mr Latham had proposed marriage and that the couple lived together in a de facto relationship. Nathalie May Matthews. Picture: Instagram 'Pig' attack Mr Latham was slammed as a 'pig' earlier this week after revelations he photographed female MPs at work and joked about having 'a threesome' with NSW Greens MP Abigail Boyd. In one Instagram message sent to his former partner, Mr Latham shared a photo of Ms Boyd in the parliamentary chamber, taken without her knowledge. He then shared a photo of Liberal MP Susan Carter taken from behind showing her full body and bottom, saying 'then it gets worse .... Grandma'. The disparaging comments, which were included in a trove of leaked text exchanges with his ex-lover, were condemned by colleagues on Thursday. 'Mark Latham is a pig,' Housing Minister Rose Jackson said at a press conference. She noted his previous attacks on campaigner Rosie Batty whose son was murdered in a domestic violence incident by his own father. 'This man has attacked Rosie Batty, telling her to grieve in private. This man is well known on the record, multiple times as a bigot – one of the biggest bigots in the state,' she said. 'It's extremely confronting for me to think that in a workplace there's someone who thinks it's acceptable to take photos of you and to share them with derogatory comments.' Mr Latham has not denied the text messages but insisted they were playful banter with his ex-partner. He has denied abusing Ms Matthews in any way, insisting all of their interactions were entirely consensual. She has lodged a legal application for an order to prohibit Mr Latham from contacting her claiming a sustained pattern of abuse and coercive control. Nathalie Matthews and Mark Latham. Picture: Instagram 'Pinched her bum' In another leaked text exchange, Mr Latham wrote that Liberal MP Eleni Petinos 'looked pregnant' and then claimed to have 'pinched her bum lightly'. But Ms Petinos told the Daily Telegraph that the incident never happened, and was 'an absolute fantasy'. 'That is not in the realms of possibility,' she said. 'Mark's attitude towards his colleagues is disgraceful - instead of showing respect he chooses to objectify and degrade. 'It's just grossly inappropriate - we don't walk around to be objectified everyday.' Mr Latham insisted that his message about pinching the bottom of Ms Petinos was an 'in-joke'. 'Freak off' claims Meanwhile, a Queensland sex worker claimed that Mr Latham and his then-girlfriend contacted her and even met with her at a ritzy event at Sydney's Randwick Racecourse. Carly Electric said she suspected she was contacted because the couple wanted to hire her for a threesome. In a message sent by Mr Latham to his now ex-girlfriend, he said Ms Electric was 'good rooter' and joked if she might want to be involved in a 'freak off' – the now infamous term used by Sean 'Diddy' Combs to describe threesomes where one person looks on. 'It was just implied … who comes to a sex worker and behaves this way?' Ms Electric said of the interactions. Mr Latham dismissed the discussions of freak offs as 'a prank joke.' 'Just as the Tele today ran cherry-picked messages between me and Nathalie Matthews, with no context, missing in-jokes and pranks, they are at it again,'' he said. 'Often enough between consenting adults there are 10-20 messages leading up to a prank joke. Haha.' Originally published as Mark Latham's leaked texts about billionaire Richard White

Media Watch refuses to investigate allegations ABC covered up involvement of presenter Myf Warhurst in violent altercation between neighbours
Media Watch refuses to investigate allegations ABC covered up involvement of presenter Myf Warhurst in violent altercation between neighbours

Sky News AU

time2 days ago

  • Sky News AU

Media Watch refuses to investigate allegations ABC covered up involvement of presenter Myf Warhurst in violent altercation between neighbours

A woman who became embroiled in a neighbourhood feud with Myf Warhurst has taken aim at Media Watch after it ignored calls to investigate the ABC's alleged cover-up of the TV presenter's involvement in the confrontation. The incident occurred in December 2022 when popular Spicks and Specks presenter and her then-partner, architect Brian Steendyk, raised concerns about a concrete wall being built along their shared boundary with neighbour Karla Martinez. The couple claimed part of the structure crossed into their property. Tensions boiled over on December 28, when Mr Steendyk used "a chainsaw and grinder" to cut through approximately 26 metres of the newly constructed fence, according to The Australian. Ms Martinez alleged the incident quickly descended into chaos. Warhurst claimed to the police she and her partner had been assaulted "by the neighbour". A story, which has since been taken down, was published on the ABC's website in May 2024 and targeted the actions of Ms Martinez but didn't even name Warhurst for her role in the disagreement. Ms Martinez reached out to Media Watch over the article in an attempt to expose "conflicts of interest, journalistic deceit, misrepresentation, manipulation and plagiarism" in an act "out of desperation" late last year, but was met with a message saying it was "not interested" in exploring the claims. The mother of three is now prepared to sure the ABC for damages, following the effects the article has had on her life and career. 'I've faced a lot of tough things in my life – I came to Australia as a refugee from El Salvador in 1990 and had to work hard for everything I've got,' she told The Australian. 'But what I've gone through with the ABC is worse than anything else I have experienced – they've ruined my life while protecting their own employee, and they're refusing to take any responsibility for it whatsoever. 'I called and spoke to a producer at Media Watch about my treatment at the hands of the ABC and everything I had been through last December. But they said they weren't interested in having a look at it. I was very surprised.' Ms Martinez reportedly spoke to Media Watch when the show was in between hosts after long-serving presenter Paul Barry left and before Linton Besser joined the program. During the heated feud in 2022, police from nearby Eltham station attended the scene and separated the parties. Mr Steendyk made a formal complaint, leading to Ms Martinez being charged with assault- a charge that was later dropped. The conflict escalated in the weeks that followed, with both sides taking out interim intervention orders (IVOs) against each other. An ongoing dispute over a new concrete wall Ms Martinez was building sparked the ABC's article about the woman but in the story, Warhurst wasn't named and was only referred to as an "ABC contractor" despite the fact her partner's police statement was quoted in it. However Mr Steendyk was also not identified by name, but only as a "neighbour". Ms Martinez has called for Warhurst to be suspended without pay but the presenter has denied knowing about the story until after it was published. In a statement to the ABC said: "The ABC is assured it acted appropriately in this matter. "Myf Warhurst had no involvement in publishing the story. Myf is highly valued by the ABC." has also approached Ms Warhurst for comment.

‘Very nasty': ABC personality's fiery fence dispute with neighbour sparks ‘cover up' accusation
‘Very nasty': ABC personality's fiery fence dispute with neighbour sparks ‘cover up' accusation

Courier-Mail

time3 days ago

  • Courier-Mail

‘Very nasty': ABC personality's fiery fence dispute with neighbour sparks ‘cover up' accusation

Don't miss out on the headlines from TV. Followed categories will be added to My News. A fiery dispute over a fence between ABC personality Myf Warhurst and her neighbour has sparked accusations of a 'cover up' by the public broadcaster. Karla Martinez, a prize-winning Melbourne architect, was initially charged with assaulting Warhurst's then partner, Brian Steendyk, in an explosive row in late December 2022 captured on police bodycam and mobile phone footage. You can watch some of it in the video player above. The charges were later dropped, but Ms Martinez has now accused the ABC of running a 'one-sided hit job' with an article on its website and social media last May about the incident, without disclosing that the Spicks and Specks presenter was a central player in the bitter feud, The Australian reports. The mother-of-three claims the ABC breached its editorial guidelines and displayed flagrant bias after picturing and naming her in the article, while not naming Warhurst and her then boyfriend. Cesar Funez and Karla Martinez are interviewed by police. Picture: The Australian It stated only that Ms Martinez has been accused of 'unlawfully assaulting a neighbour, who lives with an ABC contractor'. The article has since been removed from the ABC's website, and the broadcaster has not responded to questions about the source of the story and the reasons it was eventually taken down. 'That article destroyed my job, life, career and harmed my family while protecting the source of the story,' Ms Martinez told The Australian. 'It was essentially about a civil dispute which escalated to numerous criminal charges against me — which have all been struck out by the courts. The ABC doesn't even name Myf or her partner in the story — why not? Because they're trying to protect their own. My lawyers have repeatedly asked the ABC to reveal the source of the story but they are refusing to say. They're trying to cover it up.' Brian Steendyk and Myf Warhurst. Picture: The Australian Warhurst vehemently denied playing any role in the ABC story. Her agent told The Australian she was unaware of the May 2024 article's existence 'until a friend brought it to her attention after it was published' and that she had 'no involvement in its publication and has wished at all times for this matter to remain private'. The wild dispute at their North Warrandyte home in Melbourne's outskirts broke out in late December 2022, when Mr Steendyk started tearing down a 26-metre stretch of disputed fence using a 'chainsaw and grinder'. Tensions between the neighbours had been brewing over a concrete wall Ms Martinez intended to construct along the property line. Myf Warhurst and Tony Armstrong. Picture: ABC Ms Martinez told The Australian 'everything started out friendly enough' when Warhurst moved into the home in early 2022, but 'all hell broke loose as soon as they found out we were going to start constructing a concrete wall along the property line'. 'She hated it — the wall, design, everything,' she said. She alleged the couple decided to take matters into their own hands on December 28, 2022, and began ripping down the contested section of the fence. 'So I go out and started screaming and it all becomes very nasty, and I asked my kids to call triple-0 and get the police to come,' Ms Martinez said. Warhurst also called triple-0, telling police Mr Steendyk had been 'hit on the head with a pipe' by Ms Martinez 'as he was trying to cut down the fence'. Officers from Eltham police station arrived and tried to defuse the situation. Karla Martinez says the ABC article 'destroyed' her life. Picture: Supplied The blow-up led to years of back-and-forth legal salvos between the neighbours, including competing intervention orders. The ABC's article was published as Ms Martinez was waiting to face court on the yet-to-be-dismissed assault charge, as well as seven 'criminal charges' over the construction of the wall, which carried a $200,000 fine. Ms Martinez said all those charges had since been dropped. She sent an email to ABC chairman Kim Williams accusing the broadcaster of deliberately 'humiliating and defaming me through malicious content which Myf [allegedly] orchestrated' and demanding the presenter be stood down. A lawyer for the ABC responded, telling Ms Martinez her 'assumptions and assertions … are inaccurate', according to The Australian. 'On this basis, the ABC does not agree to comply with your request,' he wrote. 'In any event, we note (without admission) the article in question has been removed from websites controlled by the ABC.' The ABC did not comment on potential legal action when contacted by but a spokesperson said, 'The ABC is assured it acted appropriately in this matter.' 'Myf Warhurst had no involvement in publishing the story,' they added. 'Myf is highly valued by the ABC.' Originally published as 'Very nasty': ABC personality's fiery fence dispute with neighbour sparks 'cover up' accusation

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store