‘If only these Liberals knew their history': NSW Liberal Party proposed primaries slammed
'The push from a shell-shocked Liberal Party, to let anyone and everyone choose Liberal candidates, rather than the party itself,' Ms Credlin said.
'The Liberal Party should choose from a shortlist of candidates, and then all the members of the general public in that electorate get to choose … who will then become the endorsed Liberal candidate.
'No, it wouldn't because it would allow people who aren't committed enough to join the Liberal Party.
'If only these Liberals knew their history, they might actually get themselves out of opposition and into government.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
Dumped shadow minister Sarah Henderson set for clash with Opposition Leader Sussan Ley on HECS debt relief
Liberal Senator Sarah Henderson, who was dumped from shadow cabinet by Sussan Ley, is set to clash with the Opposition Leader over a proposed amendment to Labors HECS debt relief plan. The Australian reports Senator Henderson will publicly canvass support to amend Labor's 20 per cent student debt reduction proposal by indexing loans with inflation to prevent major jumps in future. Ms Ley has already flagged she will move to let the legislation pass both Houses unchallenged. Catch up with all of the day's breaking news and live interviews from politicians and experts with a Streaming Subscription.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Labor and Liberals facing internal fault lines over Gaza, net zero, and Welcomes to Country
It's one of the most enduring political rules — never fight the last election at the next one. But the Liberals are already showing signs of missing this important memo in the new political term. Over the weekend, the WA Liberal Party supported a motion to abandon a target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, heaping more pressure on federal Opposition Leader Sussan Ley to dump the policy. Delegates at the WA Liberal State Council also approved a motion to get rid of the Indigenous and Torres Strait Islands flags behind the prime minister at press conferences and cut back on Welcome to Country ceremonies. It is understood that both motions were carried with an overwhelming show of support when they were read out and without needing to go to a ballot. The behind-closed-doors meeting was held at a hotel in federal MP Andrew Hastie's electorate of Canning, and Hastie, a future leadership contender and rival to current leader Sussan Ley, said the motion was about sending a "clear signal" to Australians. But what is that clear signal? The most obvious signal is that the "sensible centre" Liberal Party that Ley seeks to lead and portray exists as nothing more than an illusion. While Ley sat on the fence on net zero when asked where she stood last week — a dangerous place for any leader to sit — she was positive about the importance of the Welcome to Country ceremony opening the parliament. It puts her at odds with many in her party who want to continue the culture war that derailed the last week of Peter Dutton's campaign. I say derailed because voters were looking for a clear economic narrative and vision from the opposition leader. Instead, they got served more of the same. The fact that these two issues — net zero and Welcome to Country — are becoming the defining fault lines inside the Liberal Party is all the evidence you need that the wars of the past are being fought again, instead of the party engaging with the issues that are defining the future. Labor, for its part, will tackle its level of commitment to Indigenous issues of treaty and truth, and criminal justice when its First Nations caucus meets this week in Canberra. There's a strong feeling in the party that they must not squander the thumping majority they have been delivered, with many believing that advancing Aboriginal rights issues needs to be revisited. A sign of Labor confidence after week one of the 48th parliament is a debate going on about whether the five Labor MPs who have been seated on the opposition benches because the party's numbers are too big have got the rough end of the deal or a sweet blessing. One told me it provides a "fresh perspective" on the house. They are now working on a name for their group of five Labor members. Latest contenders are "the Happy Bench" or "the CrossReds." Either way, it's a good problem to have. The issue many Labor MPs are thinking of as we enter week two of the first sitting fortnight is what more Australia should be doing to denounce the humanitarian horror unfolding in Gaza. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese released a strong statement about the worsening humanitarian crisis, calling on Israel to end its blockade of aid and immediately comply with its obligations under international law. The opposition said the statement was "one-sided" and ignored Hamas's role in blocking aid. But France's plan to recognise Palestinian statehood is changing the direction many think the government needs to take. Former foreign minister Bob Carr and Labor backbencher Ed Husic think it's time to change course. These prominent Labor figures are urging Albanese's government to join French President Emmanuel Macron in recognising a Palestinian state at a United Nations summit in September, in a bid to create momentum for a two-state solution. Yesterday, on Insiders, the PM poured cold water on the prospect of following France. But Labor insiders still hold hope that this position could shift if there is movement from like-minded countries, like the UK, before that September meeting. Albanese told Insiders a decision by the Israeli government to allow some aid into Gaza was "just a start" and more needs to be done. Albanese pointed to images of a starving one-year-old boy, saying, "It breaks your heart". "A one-year-old boy is not a Hamas fighter. The civilian casualties and deaths in Gaza is completely unacceptable. It's completely indefensible. My government has been very consistent in calling for a ceasefire," he said. "We have been consistent in calling out the terrorists in Hamas and saying that the hostages should be released. But we have rules of engagement, and they are there for a reason. They are to stop innocent lives being lost, and that is what we have seen." Albanese said he had been moved by the images of this "innocent young boy". "For anyone with any sense of humanity, you have to be moved by that. And you have to acknowledge that every innocent life matters — whether they be Israeli or Palestinian." The PM said, "we need to move to a longer-term" solution and he called for a two-state solution. Albanese previously said he had spoken to Israeli President Isaac Herzog to tell him Israel was losing support. "What I have said [to him] is that what sometimes friends have to say to their other friends when they are losing support," he said. "Israel is, I think, when you look at internationally, the statements that have been made by, including this week, more than two dozen nations combining to call out the lack of aid being allowed into Gaza, is that they need to recognise — they need to operate within international law. The message is clear: Israel is on notice from its traditional friends. The images of starving children in Gaza have crossed the Rubicon. Australians will not accept this. Patricia Karvelas is host of ABC News Afternoon Briefing at 4pm weekdays on ABC News Channel, co-host of the weekly Party Room podcast with Fran Kelly, and host of politics and news podcast Politics Now.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
The US and China will go head-to-head in the battle to bring about artificial general intelligence
Artificial intelligence is no longer just a race among a group of over-valued American tech companies and over-yachted billionaires. It's still that, but it's now also part of the great contest between the US and China. That means it's less about profits and return on investment, and more about geopolitics — national machismo, security and defence. It also means the coming transition from AI to AGI or artificial general intelligence — where machines theoretically surpass human intelligence — will be brought forward and will be much more significant for the world. It will be as momentous as the discovery of nuclear fission in 1938, which led to the development of nuclear weapons and the United States's first atom bomb test in July 1945, followed a month later by the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and then four years later by the Soviet Union's first test, followed by 30 years of Cold War. It's not clear which of the US or China will get to AGI first, but the loser won't be four years behind and won't be relying on slow pre-Internet espionage as the Soviets had to. But it looks like the US is playing catch-up: last week China's Unitree Robotics began selling a humanoid robot with artificial intelligence, including voice and image recognition, for just US$5,900, the first in what's expected to be a flood of well-priced AI machines for both the home and workplace (this one doesn't look like it can do the dishes yet, but it won't be long). US President Donald Trump recently launched "AI Action Day". The plan that he presented started with these words: "The United States is in a race to achieve global dominance in artificial intelligence (AI)." Note: dominance, not leadership, and not US companies, but "the United States". Next sentence: "Whoever has the largest AI ecosystem will set global AI standards and reap broad economic and military benefits." Note: "military". Yes, AGI will transform warfare, as nuclear weapons did 80 years ago. The Chinese government had much the same idea as Trump exactly eight years ago. Its AI plan was released on July 20, 2017, with the following ambition: "By 2030, China's AI theories, technologies, and applications should achieve world-leading levels, making China the world's primary AI innovation centre". Meanwhile, in the US, a company called Nvidia had just discovered that the chips it was making for video games could work nicely for artificial intelligence. In July 2017, at the same time as the Chinese government was launching its AI strategy, Nvidia and the Chinese equivalent of Google, Baidu, announced a partnership in which Baidu would use Nvidia's chips for AI, and the American company would get access to the Chinese market. On that day in 2017, Nvidia was worth a pretty handy $US100 billion ($152 billion); today it's worth $US4.2 trillion and is the world's most valuable company, after a three-year frenzy that has seen its share price increase 14-fold. The Nvidia-Baidu partnership doesn't seem to have been formally terminated, but it petered out a couple of years ago, around the same time as the US non-profit outfit OpenAI launched ChatGPT, kicking off the next era of AI. Since then, the US government under Joe Biden has been mainly concerned with regulating AI, partly prompted by the "Statement on AI Risk", published on May 30, 2023, by hundreds of AI experts, who declared: "Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war." But now, with Donald Trump, it's no more regulation — none (not that those worried AI experts in 2023 stopped what they were doing or even slowed the development of AI at breakneck speed, as if the need for regulations and the "risk of extinction" didn't exist). The first part of the Trump administration's AI plan involves "removing red tape and onerous regulation". The second part instructs the National Institute of Standards and Technology to "eliminate references to misinformation, diversity, equity, and inclusion, and climate change", and as he signed the executive order on stage at the Mellon Auditorium, Trump said they would be removing "woke Marxist lunacy in the AI models. Once and for all, we are getting rid of woke. OK?" You've got to get your priorities in the right order: deregulation comes before de-woking, but only just. What the US plan does NOT involve is government money, but there is plenty of that available in Silicon Valley and on Wall Street, so no need for the government to abandon tax cuts for the billionaires. Estimates of how much has been spent developing AI by the big US tech companies range from $US800 billion to $US1 trillion, and there is no sign of that slowing. If anything, it's speeding up as the companies approach the much more profitable (they think) singularity of AGI. The Chinese government, meanwhile, is estimated to have spent about $US150 billion developing its AI industry. It was done more cheaply because they were able to use open-source software from the US, a lot of it from OpenAI. No espionage required. Earlier this year, a Chinese company named DeepSeek galvanised the AI world and the US government by releasing an AI model called R1, which is as good as the American ones, much cheaper, and open source. Another Chinese company, Moonshot AI, has released another, better, open-source model called Kimi K2, capable of autonomously doing complex tasks, prompting some commentators to call it another DeepSeek moment, and a significant step towards AGI. But now, as standard AI starts to infiltrate every corner of life and become an explicit source of geopolitical competition between America and China, the question on the minds of everyone involved in the industry is, when will AGI happen? And when (not if) it does happen, what will that mean? For the first question, I asked ChatGPT. It replied: "My best evidence-based guess — based on current trends, expert forecasts, and technical bottlenecks — is that a true AGI tipping point could plausibly occur sometime between 2030 and 2040, but not before 2027, and quite possibly not until 2050 or later." So, between five and 15 years — not long. What will it mean? Plenty, both good and not good. Human-level cognition and autonomy in machines will be profoundly disruptive to humanity. The risks are obvious: the elimination of white-collar jobs leading to high levels of permanent unemployment, collapse of aggregate demand, along with inflation and interest rates, more effective cyber-attacks, autonomous weapons, more sophisticated propaganda and surveillance. And then there's that thing they were warning about in May 2023 — extinction. If the machines are smarter and better-informed than us, can we control them? What if they do to us what we did to the Neanderthals? The benefits are potentially enormous as well: better, more personalised healthcare, an exponential acceleration in science and research, improved productivity, less mundane work, and more leisure. That's why the Productivity Commission's overview for its "five pillars" report in preparation for the productivity roundtable in two weeks says its recommendations will "aim to give people and businesses the confidence and certainty they need to safely adopt powerful new AI tools," although it doesn't specifically talk about AGI. The 25 great and good at the roundtable will probably talk about that for half an hour before getting back to arguing about tax and human industrial relations. Alan Kohler is a finance presenter and columnist on ABC News, and he also writes for Intelligent Investor.
