Anthony Albanese to champion 'Australian independence' within US alliance
The speech comes at a delicate moment in Australia's key strategic relationship, as the federal government grapples with an unpredictable White House, along with uncertainties over the Administration's tariffs, the AUKUS pact, and America's trajectory under Donald Trump.
On Saturday night the Prime Minister will deliver a speech at the John Curtin Research centre marking the 80th anniversary of the former Prime Minister, who is often called the 'father' of the Australia-US alliance.
Successive Labor Prime Ministers have claimed the Alliance as a signature achievement for ALP foreign policy, and have lavished praise on Curtin for turning to America in the wake of the United Kingdom's catastrophic defeat in Singapore in 1942.
While Mr Albanese will praise the Alliance as a 'pillar' of Australian foreign policy and the nation's 'most important defence and security partnership' he will also say that it was 'product' of Curtin's leadership and 'not the extent of it.'
"Curtin's famous statement that Australia 'looked to America' was much more than the idea of trading one strategic guarantor for another, or swapping an alliance with the old world for one with the new,' he's expected to say.
'It was a recognition that Australia's fate would be decided in our region."
The Prime Minister will also say that Curtin recognised that Australia realised that its security 'could not be outsourced to London, or trusted to vague assurances from Britain.'
'We needed an Australian foreign policy anchored in strategic reality, not bound by tradition,' he will say.
The Prime Minister will also praise Curtin for withstanding pressure from both Roosevelt and Churchill to send Australian troops returning from the Middle East to Burma, rather than back home to defend Australia.
He'll say if the US and UK had got their way 'hundreds if not thousands of Australians would have been killed, or taken prisoner' as Japanese forces took Burma, and John Curtin's assertion of sovereignty prevented 'a disaster every bit as crushing to national morale as the fall of Singapore.'
The Prime Minister will also seek to frame his government as the inheritor of Curtin's economic agenda, comparing the government's moves to bolster manufacturing to Curtin's wartime industrial program.
While the Albanese government has doubled down on the AUKUS pact and its ambitious plan to develop nuclear powered submarines with the United States, it has also expressed deep frustration over the Trump Administration's Liberation Day tariffs, pushed back against Washington's demand that Australia radically increase defence spending and fretted privately about the impact of the massive cuts to US aid programs.
And while Mr Albanese has had three phone calls with Donald Trump he is yet to have a face-to-face meeting with the US President after Mr Trump departed the G7 in Canada early ahead of US strikes on Iran.
Professor James Curran from the University of Sydney told the ABC the speech was 'easily the most significant' one Mr Albanese had delivered in office.
'It's significant not just for the way in which Albanese invokes the Curtin legend, but the time in which he is doing it – when Australia is again under significant pressure from a great power to adopt policy courses not necessarily in Australia's interests,' he said.
'He says Curtin's wartime leadership was fundamentally about the defence of Australian sovereignty, that it was about safeguarding Australia's security in the Pacific, and that Curtin, like other Australia leaders before him, was all too aware that great powers can play fast and loose with Australian interests. That it was simply not an option to rely on assurances from London or Washington as the basis for making Australian policy.'
Professor Curran said Mr Albanese was using the Curtin story to send a signal to both Washington and to Australians that 'being in a close alliance does not mean you cannot stand up for Australian self-respect and self-regard.'
'(Also) that leadership is as much about tending to the domestic hearth and what we have built here as it is in safeguarding the continent's security,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
an hour ago
- News.com.au
Who wins the property State of Origin?
The battleground has spilt over from the footy field to the housing market as the Maroons and Blues prepare to face off in this week's series decider. The 2025 property State of Origin is just as tightly contested, with experts divided on whether Queensland's sizzling short-term gains trump New South Wales' long-haul game. Property adviser Darragh Heard, of Tallpopie, said the real estate rule of play looked vastly different for each of the two states. 'It's a thriller. NSW is leading in supply, but Queensland tactics are sharp,' Ms Heard said. She said NSW dominated for infill development and in the apartment market, while Queensland had more greenfield sites fuelling a wave of new house-and-land packages. 'Queensland pulls some hat tricks,' she said — not unlike the Maroons' nailbiting 26-24 Game 2 on-field victory. 'Between Brisbane and the Gold Coast, the state provides buyers with such contrast of lifestyle choice (urban or coast) larger land, and much more affordable than NSW.' NSW may have more infrastructure on the board, but the Sunshine State is scoring points in converting opportunity faster, Ms Heard said. 'Queensland is kicking 40/20s and getting repeat sets to attack, whereas NSW is stuck in their own 20m line.' She said Queensland's more streamlined development process also put it ahead in the housing game. 'The tangible opportunity and speed to market is supported by a model where developers need to just 'adhere', but in NSW developers have to 'seek permission'. The coaches and union are their worst enemy.' But Queensland's pace isn't just for show — it's racking up points on the scoreboard too, according to mortgage broker Brett Sutton, of Two Red Shoes. 'Queensland is sprinting ahead in 2025, with Brisbane's median house price now topping $1.17m and units up a staggering 18.5 per cent year-on-year,' Mr Sutton said. Affordability, lifestyle migration, and heavy infrastructure spending were the state's big drivers. 'Suburbs like Deeragun, Crestmead, and Kingston are still under $500,000 yet delivering 20-36 per cent annual growth,' Mr Sutton said. 'Regional stars like Toowoomba, Gladstone, and Mackay are thriving.' But Mr Sutton isn't handing Queensland the trophy just yet. 'Queensland takes the win on short-term performance as its growth metrics are hard to ignore. 'But if we're talking fundamentals, NSW edges ahead,' he said. While Sydney's price growth has been more modest — 4 per cent for houses and 1.8 per cent for units — it's anchored by deeper infrastructure investment, international demand, and global city status. Regional lifestyle hubs including Orange and Mayfield were also streaking ahead, Mr Sutton said. 'For owner-occupiers and long-term investors, NSW's fundamentals, stamp duty relief, higher land tax thresholds, and lower property management costs make it a more strategic play.' 'Queensland may be scoring the flashy tried in 2025, while NSW is quietly building a dynasty. And in property, that's the game that counts.' So, while footy pundits draw statelines for this week's thrilling Origin clash, who wins the investor version comes down to game plan. If it's pace, price growth and affordability hitting goals, Queensland is storming down the sideline. But if you're playing for stability, policy certainty, and long-term capital gain, NSW could take home the perpetual property cup.
AU Financial Review
an hour ago
- AU Financial Review
Artificial intelligence cold war heats up for Australia
If there were any doubts about the gravity of the global battle for technological supremacy between China and the United States, then read the Chinese ambassador's opinion piece in The Australian Financial Review. With Prime Minister Anthony Albanese just days away from visiting Beijing, China's envoy, Xiao Qian, lays out his country's economic objectives and how they might shape the relationship with Australia.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Australia's focus on housing supply isn't enough to solve this crisis
The deputy chair of the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council, and principal with SGS Economics and Planning, Marcus Spiller, says that to meet the government's housing target there will need to be nearly 34 square kilometres of infill land made available for new dwellings every year. He said this at a conference of housing industry people last week and later explained the sums to me. The Housing Accord target is 1.2 million dwellings over five years, or 240,000 per year. Seventy per cent of those are to be in established suburbs to save on the infrastructure needed in new greenfield suburbs. That's 168,000 per year. The average density for dwellings in established areas (houses, units and apartments) is 50 per hectare. Divide 168,000 by that and you get 3,360 hectares, or 33.6 square kilometres. That's 26 times the size of Melbourne's CBD … every year (across Australia). I was on the panel at the conference, and it was Chatham House Rule, so no quoting those present. But I can quote myself and Marcus Spiller because I cleared it with him later. When they went along the panel at the end and asked everyone for their solutions to the housing crisis I said: "If that figure of 34 square kilometres is true, and it obviously is, and affordability is a crisis as everybody says it is, then surely that means radical measures are needed." I went on: "Maybe communities and local councils can't get to decide anymore what happens in their suburbs; planning decisions should be taken over by a national body focused on housing supply rather than how each suburb looks — say, the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council." At this point the chair of the NHSAC, Susan Lloyd-Hurwitz, was vigorously shaking her head, a bit horrified. "And do we really need all those golf courses? How about someone studies how many people play golf, how often, and therefore how many courses are needed for them?" I asked. "And what about all the parks? Can we cut back on parks?" By now I had lost the room, and the pitying consensus was that Kohler had gone mad. Someone in the planning business came up afterwards to tell me that taking planning decisions off local councils would be a very bad idea indeed. OK, fair enough, and I doubt that any state premier will want to deal with men in plus-fours and flat caps lying in front of bulldozers about to level bunkers and greens. But the challenge remains. Where will 34 square kilometres of empty land in Australia's suburbs come from every year? Marcus Spiller thinks there may have to be compulsory acquisition by governments of privately owned houses so large areas can be assembled for developers. And that assumes that the construction industry is capable of building 240,000 dwellings a year, and that they will be "affordable" rather than the luxury apartments that are mostly going up at the moment. Bulldozing golf courses is pointless if there's no-one to build houses on them. ANZ chief economist Richard Yetsenga wrote in a report last year that between 1945 and 1950, housing construction accounted for 84 per cent of all new building activity. In the March quarter this year housing construction was 62 per cent of total building activity of $39 billion, but on top of that there was $35.4 billion worth of engineering construction — roads, tunnels, bridges and renewable energy. So housing is down to just 33 per cent of total construction: engineering work is crowding out housing. The number of dwellings completed in 2024 was 177,000, against a Housing Accord target of 240,000 per year. In its State of the Housing System 2025 report, the NHSAC estimated demand in 2024 at 223,000 dwellings, 46,000 more than supply. Housing approvals have increased a bit lately but are still nowhere near enough. In May approvals totalled 15,212 which is an annual rate of 182,544. So the rate of housing construction needs to increase by 30 per cent, quickly, while the same number of roads, tunnels and solar and wind farms continue to get built because they are needed as well. In its report, the NHSAC wrote that the main barriers to supply are "structural constraints". "These include an inadequate pipeline of skilled workers; scarce, fragmented and costly land suitable for development; low rates of productivity and innovation in the construction sector; restrictive and complex land use and planning approval systems in some jurisdictions; market frictions and financial incentives that limit the optimal use of the existing housing stock; and a fragmented housing policy and regulatory ecosystem that adds to costs, timeframes and risks." The NHSAC also said there was a strong case for tax reform to encourage more housing. As I pointed out at the conference last week, taxation of housing is at the level that applies to things the government wants to discourage, like smoking and gambling. Usually when the government wants to encourage something, like R&D, it gives it a tax break. Housing has two tax breaks as well as all the taxes on new construction — the capital gains tax discount and negative gearing, but they apply to existing as well as new dwellings, so no extra encouragement for new housing. If negative gearing and the CGT discount can't be removed or lowered on existing houses because Labor lost the 2016 and 2019 elections with that as policy, then perhaps they should just increase the tax breaks for new housing — that is, make them CGT-free on the next sale. Richard Yetsenga points out that there are 11 million dwellings in Australia, for 26.6 million people, which is theoretically enough. That suggests, he says, that the problem is misallocation rather than a genuine shortage. Yes, but is the government going to force people to sell their holiday homes? And in any case, they are nowhere near employment or public transport so only useful as holiday homes. The other problem with achieving more supply is capital. The current plan is that it must be private capital because governments haven't got the money, because priorities have changed since the days of plentiful public housing. But if affordability is to be improved, housing can't be a good investment. To keep the current level of (un)affordability — that is, with house prices at nine to 10 times incomes, residential real estate has to be a poor investment, providing a return of no more than 3-4 per cent per annum, including rent, so incomes can keep pace. To return to the affordability of 25 years ago — a house price to income ratio of four times, it would have to be an absolutely rubbish investment for 20 years with zero return. That means private capital can't do it — only the government can. The Labor government is trying to make up for the lack of investment return with the $10 billion in the Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF) to be given to community housing groups that mobilise capital from super funds with subsidies, which is a good policy but about one-10th of the size it needs to be. The target for the HAFF is 40,000 homes over five years, or 8,000 per year. The NHSAC says the housing shortfall will be 79,000, ten times the target. All of which suggests that the current focus of policy on supply won't cut it. Demand, that is the level of immigration, must be brought down as well — a lot. Unless, of course, golf is entirely banned. There are 1,584 golf courses in Australia taking up 71.3 square kilometres of land, or a bit more than two years' worth of what's needed. Then they can move on to the parks. Alan Kohler is finance presenter and columnist on ABC News and he also writes for Intelligent Investor.
