Latest news with #TheAustralian
Int'l Business Times
a day ago
- Business
- Int'l Business Times
Not Quite A Victory Lap: Rethinking The US–China Trade Agreement
The newly announced trade deal between the United States and China is being described as a breakthrough moment in what has been a rocky and prolonged economic standoff. Both sides are scaling back tariffs and promising a more stable trading relationship. But look a little deeper, and the picture becomes less about resolution—and more about damage control. This agreement isn't the end of a conflict. It's more like a timeout. Tariffs Rolled Back, But Still High One of the headline changes is that U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods are being lowered to 55%, while China has agreed to reduce its own import duties to around 10%. While these are improvements compared to the highs seen during the peak of the trade war, they're still steep by historical standards. As reported by CNBC, the long-term consequences of earlier tariff hikes—including supply chain disruption and sourcing shifts—have already reshaped how U.S. companies operate. Many manufacturers have moved operations to countries like Vietnam, Mexico or India. The latest deal doesn't undo that shift, and many industry analysts argue it likely won't. The Rare-Earth Factor: Strategic Access or Strategic Risk? A central pillar of the agreement is China's pledge to expand exports of rare-earth elements—critical materials used in electric vehicles, wind turbines, and most modern electronics. On the surface, this appears to be a major win for the U.S., which has been grappling with access to these minerals due to export restrictions and a lack of domestic processing capability. But the deal also underscores just how dependent the U.S. remains on China for these resources. According to a report by The Australian, China's decision to allow rare-earth exports comes with no long-term guarantees and no change in control over the global supply chain. In effect, the U.S. is securing short-term access without reducing its strategic vulnerability. No Real Fix for the Structural Divide What this agreement does not include is just as important as what it does: No binding framework on intellectual property protection No enforcement mechanism for subsidy transparency No tariff freeze beyond the next 90 days This lack of structural depth raises questions about the durability of the deal. As reported by Finance Magnates, many economists see the announcement as a political maneuver designed to calm markets ahead of further negotiations, rather than a resolution to long-standing economic tensions. What It Means for Businesses and Consumers For American consumers, this deal might bring a modest reprieve from price hikes on certain imported goods—especially electronics, tools, and industrial inputs. For businesses, the effects are more nuanced. Companies that rely on Chinese components could benefit from reduced tariffs, but the continued volatility and short time horizon (tariffs are up for reassessment in 90 days) mean long-term planning is still risky. Supply chain diversification efforts that began during the height of the trade conflict are unlikely to reverse. Instead, many firms may continue sourcing from alternative markets to hedge against future uncertainty. Final Word: A Deal, Yes—But Not a Resolution This deal represents a cooling-off period, not a cure. It de-escalates tensions and offers temporary relief, but leaves the deeper economic rifts between the U.S. and China unresolved. With additional trade discussions scheduled with India and the EU in July, and tariff reviews just weeks away, this agreement is best seen as a fragile pause—not a permanent peace.
The Guardian
a day ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Antoinette Lattouf judgment underlines role of News Corp's deadline in ABC management's ‘panic'
There was another source of pressure on the ABC content chief when he hastily removed Antoinette Lattouf from air, the federal court has found. Apart from a coordinated campaign by the pro-Israel lobby which had ABC management in a 'panic', there was the looming deadline of Rupert Murdoch's broadsheet, a newspaper which is consistently hostile to the ABC. The Australian was asking questions about Lattouf's social media commentary on Gaza and apparently knew Ita Buttrose had received multiple complaints, the judgment shows. 'The pressure on [Chris] Oliver-Taylor was also amplified by the email from Sophie Elsworth of The Australian forwarded to him at 12.42 pm, asking a series of questions and asking for a response by 1.30 pm,' Justice Darryl Rangiah wrote in his judgment, which revealed the internal workings of the public broadcaster's executive floor. 'It was apparent The Australian intended to publish a story about the complaints regarding Ms Lattouf's social media posts and her ongoing employment with the ABC.' If Lattouf had to be stood down, Oliver-Taylor told his managing director, David Anderson, who was out to lunch with Buttrose, it should be done before the story ran. His text message said: 'Aus are going to run a yarn. I'm going to action this now and try and beat'. Shortly after Lattouf was sacked, an ABC spokesman responded to The Australian at 2.05pm: 'ABC Sydney casual presenter Antoinette Lattouf will not be back on air for her remaining two shifts this week.' Half an hour later, an online story read: 'A fill-in host for one of the ABC's most coveted radio spots has been sacked for a slew of anti-Israel posts after an influx of complaints from the Jewish community reached the public broadcaster's chairwoman Ita Buttrose'. Lattouf told the court during the trial how shocked she was that the story was published before she made it home from work. Lattouf was awarded $70,000 in compensation for non-economic loss but will not have her legal costs paid by the ABC. When it comes to Fair Work cases in the federal court, there is generally a 'no costs' principle, meaning each party pays its own legal costs. The ABC managing director, Hugh Marks, said the legal cost incurred was perhaps as high as $2m, which 'is not a good use of taxpayer funds'. Speaking to ABC Radio Melbourne, Marks said costs would go above the $1.1m detailed at Senate estimates because 'it sounds like there's still more work to do'. 'It would have been better if it settled, it would have been better if it hadn't happened at all,' he said. There is a further, not insubstantial, potential cost the ABC is facing: a fine for breaching the ABC's enterprise agreement and the Fair Work Act. Rangiah said he will hold a hearing on whether a pecuniary penalty ought to be imposed on the ABC for the breaches. Lattouf's lawyer, Josh Bornstein, told Weekly Beast the penalties for breaching the act may add up to as much as $460,000. Pecuniary penalties can be paid to the commonwealth, an organisation or an individual, the act says. Another legacy of the high-profile court case will be another change to the ABC's social media guidelines. In 2021 Anderson warned staff they faced disciplinary action, including termination, if they breached tough new social media guidelines. The warning came after two of the ABC's most experienced journalists, Laura Tingle and former Four Corners executive producer Sally Neighbour, breached the guidelines with posts on Twitter. More tightening is now on the horizon. Marks told ABC staff after the judgment: 'Due to confusion expressed about the Personal Use of Social Media guidelines, which was canvassed during the case, these have been reviewed and will be replaced with new Public Comment guidelines. We will talk more about this in coming weeks.' Reading the judgment, we'd have to say much of the confusion appeared to be coming from the multiple layers of management, rather than staff. The Daily Telegraph has done it again. The News Corp tabloid sent an email to subscribers claiming an exclusive on the international news that the US had bombed Iran. 'EXCLUSIVE: 'Very successful attack': Trump says US targeted three nuclear sites in Iran,' the email said at the same time as global media was reporting the same. 'The United States has bombed Iran, with Donald Trump announcing the bombing of three nuclear sites at Natanz, Fordow and Esfahan. Follow updates.' A couple of days after it was revealed News Corp's global chief executive, Robert Thomson, had become the highest-paid CEO of an Australian-listed company, with a $42m pay packet, the Murdoch empire handed the former reporter a five-year extension of his contract. The Victorian-born Thomson is responsible for multiple assets including the Wall Street Journal, the UK Sun and the Times, News Corp Australia and book publisher HarperCollins. News Corp is primarily traded on the US market, while retaining a secondary listing on the ASX. His 'exceptional' record, which includes the sale of pay TV network Foxtel to sports streaming service DAZN and a deal with artificial intelligence firm OpenAI, ensured he would remain in charge, the company told investors. The News Corp chair, Lachlan Murdoch, said: 'Robert has been instrumental in News Corp's growth and transformation, and his vision and leadership are extremely important as the company continues to navigate this era of rapid change.' The media regulator has knocked back a bid by free-to-air broadcasters to change the rules to allow more alcohol ads to be shown during children's television viewing hours. The Australian Communications and Media Authority (Acma) refused to register a new Free TV code which proposed extending M or mature programming slots, during which alcohol ads are allowed. The authority also urged the industry to 'proactively review the existing gambling advertising rules ahead of any potential government reforms' after it was made aware of 'significant community concern regarding gambling advertising on commercial TV'. Free-to-air broadcasters had lobbied the Acma to change classification rules as part of a new code of practice. Free TV wanted to allow an additional 800 hours of alcohol ads every year despite one in three children already being exposed to liquor commercials on television.
Sydney Morning Herald
3 days ago
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
Antoinette Lattouf has won $70,000, but her case has cost the ABC so much more
At the heart of the issue was whether Lattouf was sacked at all (yes, according to the FWC and Rangiah), whether she was sacked for holding and/or expressing political views (yes, says Rangiah), and whether her race (Lebanese Christian) played a part (no, Rangiah found). The ABC did itself no favours in attempting to argue that racism could not have been a factor in its treatment of Lattouf because she had failed to prove the very existence of a Middle-Eastern or Arab race. It later withdrew that argument after a fierce public backlash. Complaints about Lattouf, who has been an outspoken critic of Israel's military campaign in Gaza, began flooding into the ABC immediately after she finished her first shift, though nothing she had said on air was deemed controversial. It soon became clear, Rangiah wrote, 'that the complaints were an orchestrated campaign by pro-Israel lobbyists'. But Buttrose insisted on sharing them with Anderson and Oliver-Taylor nonetheless. Three days into her five-day hosting stint, management became aware of a post shared on Instagram by Lattouf they believed constituted a breach of the ABC's social media policy. Rangiah found in his 177-page judgment that following this discovery, 'the consternation of senior managers of the ABC turned into what can be described as a state of panic'. Within the hour, Rangiah said, 'a decision was made that Ms Lattouf would be taken off air. The policies she was alleged to have breached were not identified, nor was she given any opportunity to defend herself against the allegations.' Loading The judge found pressure from pro-Israeli activists and an imminent story in The Australia n stoked that sense of panic. He also found Anderson had misconstrued a 'sarcastic' social media post as expressing support for a Hamas campaign of 'ethnic cleansing' (it did not). 'While Mr Anderson was mistaken in his interpretation of the post, it does demonstrate that he attributed to Ms Lattouf hateful anti-Semitic opinions,' Rangiah wrote. The decision to terminate Lattouf's engagement at the ABC was made by Oliver-Taylor alone, though in response to concerns shared at the top of the organisation. 'I find that Mr Oliver-Taylor's reasons for his decision included his desire to mitigate further complaints about the ABC employing someone attributed with holding a political opinion opposing the Israeli military campaign in Gaza,' said Rangiah. Holding or expressing a political opinion is not, Rangiah found, a valid reason for terminating someone's employment, even at the national broadcaster. Rangiah found 'protection for employees … against termination of employment for reasons including 'political opinion' encompasses not only the holding of a political opinion but also the expression of a political opinion'. The ramifications of all this for the ABC and other media organisations are potentially profound. Loading In his statement to staff following Wednesday's ruling, Marks stressed 'the fundamental obligations the ABC and its employees have to be independent and impartial in our work to ensure we continue to earn the trust of all Australians. Those obligations don't change as a result of this decision.' But he also acknowledged that there was confusion about the organisation's guidelines around use of social media and promised 'we will talk more about this in coming weeks'. It has arguably never been more important that Australians should be able to trust in the national broadcaster to report fairly and accurately without caving to external pressure.
The Age
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Age
Antoinette Lattouf has won $70,000, but her case has cost the ABC so much more
At the heart of the issue was whether Lattouf was sacked at all (yes, according to the FWC and Rangiah), whether she was sacked for holding and/or expressing political views (yes, says Rangiah), and whether her race (Lebanese Christian) played a part (no, Rangiah found). The ABC did itself no favours in attempting to argue that racism could not have been a factor in its treatment of Lattouf because she had failed to prove the very existence of a Middle-Eastern or Arab race. It later withdrew that argument after a fierce public backlash. Complaints about Lattouf, who has been an outspoken critic of Israel's military campaign in Gaza, began flooding into the ABC immediately after she finished her first shift, though nothing she had said on air was deemed controversial. It soon became clear, Rangiah wrote, 'that the complaints were an orchestrated campaign by pro-Israel lobbyists'. But Buttrose insisted on sharing them with Anderson and Oliver-Taylor nonetheless. Three days into her five-day hosting stint, management became aware of a post shared on Instagram by Lattouf they believed constituted a breach of the ABC's social media policy. Rangiah found in his 177-page judgment that following this discovery, 'the consternation of senior managers of the ABC turned into what can be described as a state of panic'. Within the hour, Rangiah said, 'a decision was made that Ms Lattouf would be taken off air. The policies she was alleged to have breached were not identified, nor was she given any opportunity to defend herself against the allegations.' Loading The judge found pressure from pro-Israeli activists and an imminent story in The Australia n stoked that sense of panic. He also found Anderson had misconstrued a 'sarcastic' social media post as expressing support for a Hamas campaign of 'ethnic cleansing' (it did not). 'While Mr Anderson was mistaken in his interpretation of the post, it does demonstrate that he attributed to Ms Lattouf hateful anti-Semitic opinions,' Rangiah wrote. The decision to terminate Lattouf's engagement at the ABC was made by Oliver-Taylor alone, though in response to concerns shared at the top of the organisation. 'I find that Mr Oliver-Taylor's reasons for his decision included his desire to mitigate further complaints about the ABC employing someone attributed with holding a political opinion opposing the Israeli military campaign in Gaza,' said Rangiah. Holding or expressing a political opinion is not, Rangiah found, a valid reason for terminating someone's employment, even at the national broadcaster. Rangiah found 'protection for employees … against termination of employment for reasons including 'political opinion' encompasses not only the holding of a political opinion but also the expression of a political opinion'. The ramifications of all this for the ABC and other media organisations are potentially profound. Loading In his statement to staff following Wednesday's ruling, Marks stressed 'the fundamental obligations the ABC and its employees have to be independent and impartial in our work to ensure we continue to earn the trust of all Australians. Those obligations don't change as a result of this decision.' But he also acknowledged that there was confusion about the organisation's guidelines around use of social media and promised 'we will talk more about this in coming weeks'. It has arguably never been more important that Australians should be able to trust in the national broadcaster to report fairly and accurately without caving to external pressure.
Sky News AU
4 days ago
- Politics
- Sky News AU
Peta Credlin says Prime Minister Anthony Albanese becoming ‘more diminished by the day' as govt defends response to US strikes on Iran
Sky News host Peta Credlin has taken aim at Prime Minister Anthony Albanese for going into defence mode after it took more than a day for the government to back a United States move to hit Iranian nuclear targets. The government initially responded to the US strike via a spokesperson-issued statement which did not overtly support the move, before Mr Albanese later backed the action directly. Credlin blasted the Prime Minister following his interview with Sky News on Tuesday, where Mr Albanese denied his stance taken was 'flat-footed' and claimed he ran a 'considered, orderly government'. '(Mr Albanese's) becoming more and more diminished as the days go on and world events swirl around him, and he's left looking like he's trying to lasso a column of smoke,' Credlin said. Mr Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong have both claimed Australia is not 'central player' in the Middle East crisis, leading Credlin to question stances taken by the government toward world events. 'Not central (Mr Albanese) says, despite the fact that our largest military ally is, and many Australians ,too, are currently stuck in the region,' Credlin said. 'It is bizarre isn't it that when it relates to Israel, this isn't our sphere of influence, that the Middle East isn't anywhere or somewhere that Australia gets involved in. 'Yet, if that's the case, explain to me why the government took 3,000 people out of Gaza when no other Muslim neighbour in the region took anyone and we are still funding UNRWA?' The Australian's Foreign Editor Greg Sheridan Greg Sheridan has also criticised the Albanese government for its stance towards the Israel and Iran conflict, labelling its latest position 'bizarre' and 'implausible'. 'If (the Albanese government) backs the US action, why did it not back identical Israeli actions against identical targets?' Mr Sheridan asked when he spoke to Sky News on Tuesday. 'If it backs the US action it has to say 'the US action is legal'. Otherwise, logically, the government is backing an illegal action and therefore the government no longer thinks international law has any consequence.' Meanwhile, Centre for Independent Studies executive director Tom Switzer said he does not think Canberra's stance on the US strikes will negatively impact Australia's image. 'Many Americans from left to right, Democrats and Republicans, are highly anxious that this could drag the United States once again into a forever war,' Mr Switzer told Credlin on Tuesday. 'So I don't think that Canberra's stance really damages Australian credibility or isolates us in the world, especially if, and it is still an if, if there is a ceasefire,' Mr Switzer told Credlin on Tuesday.
