Between Xi and Trump, can PM afford to be ‘relaxed and comfortable'?

The Age

2 days ago

If you listened to opposition defence spokesman Angus Taylor this week about it being 239 days since Trump was elected – and still no meeting! – you'd think not only was AUKUS toast but the ANZUS treaty, signed way back in 1951, along with it. Taylor has carried on since May 3 as if he is blissfully unaware of the fact that the election reduced the opposition to just 43 seats in the lower house – fewer than the 49 MPs Labor had after Howard's 1996 landslide.
Loading
When parliament finally resumes on July 22 and some Labor MPs have to sit on the opposition benches (because of the size of Albanese's majority), Taylor and some fellow travellers might finally take a breath and confront the scale of Australians' verdict.
Is there actually any doubt that a Trump meeting will happen at some point in the next few months? No. But Taylor and other members of the opposition, such as trade spokesman Kevin Hogan, are sounding the alarm because of AUKUS and tariffs. Hogan toughened his language this week on the urgency of a Trump meeting. Uncertainty over AUKUS is real, given the US administration's review of the deal, under which Australia would buy nuclear-powered submarines.
The imposition of 10 per cent tariffs on Australian exports, and the looming re-imposition (after a pause) of 50 per cent tariffs on Australian steel and aluminium exports, is a genuine concern. Though the tone and pitch may be wrong, it is reasonable for the opposition to question whether Albanese's current approach to Trump is sufficient.
Will the US administration be wowed by Albanese meeting Xi? Will it want to hear from Albanese, as the leader of a G20 power? Or will it view the Albanese-Xi meeting as a black mark, some sort of snub, a sign that the prime minister has his priorities wrong?
The likelihood is that Trump, who sees China as America's primary geopolitical and economic rival, will want to know what Albanese and Xi discussed. And he will want to glean from Albanese what he can about Xi's view of the world.
Loading
It's worth noting how Albanese's approach to the on-again-off-again meeting with the US president signposts how he plans to govern in the term ahead, with an expanded caucus, a potentially more pliable Senate, and at least as much personal authority as Howard had in 1996. This is a stubborn prime minister who does not want to be rushed.
Over and over again, he tells colleagues his approach this term, as it was last term, is to be calm, methodical and orderly. He will not be spooked by the 24-hour news cycle, he will be consistent, he will explain to the Australian people what he plans to do and then do it, but no more.
During the last term, Albanese's methodical approach meant that, at times, his government looked slow and reactive. Those hoping that a bold, reforming PM is about to emerge will be disappointed.
But Albanese's instinct to slow things down is better suited to his improved position in parliament. He will wear the inevitable, occasional outbreak of dissent, knowing that he governs from a position of strength, backed by a majority Left-faction caucus (for the first time in about five decades), and knowing he has no clear successor, only a coterie of jostling and ambitious ministers.
That majority Left faction in caucus will probably push Albanese to go further than his instincts might allow for, such as on pushing Australia to adopt a more ambitious 2035 emissions-reduction target, or on raising the rate of unemployment payments. And there are more than a few members of Albanese's own faction, and of the Right faction too, who are not exactly big fans of the US president and are quite fine with their man not rushing to embrace him.
But there is a difference between being chummy with the current occupant of the Oval Office and being a close ally of the United States, as the prime minister knows.
If the US review of the AUKUS deal suggests, for example, that the sale of Virginia-class subs to Australia should be delayed or cancelled, then all hell could break loose politically for Albanese and his 'all in due course' approach to Trump would be judged a failure. His decision not to head to the NATO meeting last week, for example, would be deemed a mistake, and the timing of his trip to Beijing would be questioned.