What the PM did and didn't say to President Xi Jinping

ABC Listen, podcasts, radio, news, music, and more.

Hi, folks, I'm Erin Park, and I just wanted to tell you about my new podcast called Expanse, Nowhere Man.

If you've ever considered a digital detox, just how far would you really go to disconnect?

This season of the Expanse podcast is about a young American who in 1999 set off alone into one of Australia's biggest, deadliest deserts.

And what happened out in that desert made everyone involved think about life and death and who we are when everything easy is stripped away.

Subscribe to Expanse, Nowhere Man, on the ABC Listen app and all the usual places.

Chinese President Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese have officially sat down together in China, not once, but twice.

Friends and enemies across the world are eager to hear what's been said and what the results might be.

Sometimes we can't see them straight away, but what are they?

So did the Prime Minister walk the political tightropes successfully, raising our concerns, but getting good deals for our country?

At the same time, former Treasury boss Ken Henry, he's the guy that helped steer Australia through the global financial crisis.

Well, he spoke at the National Press Club, perfect timing following the FOI revelations earlier this week from Treasury's report to government on housing and tax and whether all of these big goals are reachable without major changes in direction.

Welcome to Politics Now.

Hi, I'm Patricia Carvelis.

And I'm David Spears.

And you're back.

I'm back, PK.

Yes, a bit of a break.

Thank you for filling in on Insiders and for everyone who's filled on on the podcast as well.

But it's great to be back.

I'm glad you're back and you have to be back because next week is the first sitting week since the election and that's a big deal

in the new parliament

exciting yeah no i'm not sure if we'll get to that today but um look yeah it'll be it's been a wait hasn't it how long it feels like a lifetime it has and there's been some criticism about that wait but look we've come to it and we'll come to some of the the optics around that because it is it is quite a big deal and it'll be a very different parliament but the pm spent this week in china and there's been some interesting diplomatic moments across the week he's met with president xi jinping that has been a key thing not only at that official meeting where of course he's flanked by advisors, and so is President Xi, and it's all very official and translated, and all of the way that that happens.

There was also a private lunch

we found out later.

Which not everyone gets?

Yeah, not everyone gets.

And then there was rock and roll as well, and

Australian songs.

I mean, Powderfinger was even sung to the Prime Minister, which kind of cracks me up.

So all of this happens.

China's ambition is to grow its influence in the Indo-Pacific.

We know that.

Taiwan has been a big issue.

How has the Prime Minister come out of this as we record middle of Wednesday?

Did he raise the thorny issues?

Has he got results?

Look, I think he's come out of this pretty well so far.

And look, the main course of the visit, I mean, it's still underway, but the main course has been done, and that were the meeting, the various meetings with the leadership, President Xi, Premier Li, and so on.

Look,

we'll come to Taiwan because there's some stuff about that that I found really interesting this week as well.

But my general thoughts on how this trip has gone for the Prime Minister.

I mean, the main takeout for me is just how

predictable, really, in a sea of global uncertainty right now, particularly coming out of Washington, whether it's the chopping and changing and daily threats on tariffs or the off-again, on again support for Ukraine

or indeed what we're hearing from the Pentagon about what Australia should and shouldn't do on defence spending and pre-committing to a hypothetical war over Taiwan and all of that chaos that we're daily trying to keep up with, all the surprises.

You look at this week in China for the Prime Minister and it's been nothing but predictable.

You know, yes, the disagreements and the agreements have been covered.

They've been covered fairly soberly.

And clearly this is deliberate on the part of Xi Jinping.

He sees U.S.

allies like Australia feeling very anxious right now about what Trump's doing on tariff and on security.

Xi Jinping is trying to capitalize on this moment.

He is courting countries like Australia, Japan, South Korea, these traditional US allies.

He is drawing them in.

I find it fascinating that he didn't raise in the two-hour meeting with Albanese, and nor did Premier Lee in his two-hour meeting with Albanese, they didn't raise China's obvious concerns about the government's pledge to strip the port of Darwin out of Chinese hands.

We know that's humiliating for China, but they didn't raise it.

They kept things very calm.

Yes, you know, Albanese raised his concerns about the live-fire exercises and the naval ships doing the lap around Australia, but know, not that China's about to change its position on this.

Well, let's go to that because the Prime Minister did raise it and then in the press conference made it clear that he'd raised it.

But there's no commitment that's come out of it, which is we'll give you the heads up, don't worry.

Yeah, but I don't find that surprising.

Like, I don't think China's going to, oh, yeah, look, sorry about that.

We won't do one of those again.

I mean, of course, they were always going to say we're entitled to do this stuff in international waters.

And look, sure, it'd be nice to get, we should have got prior notice of it.

And

Albanese asked for that.

But I don't think it's surprising that China's

giving too many guarantees on this in the future, nor did it give any assurances about the fate of Young Heng Jun.

Albanese raised that case again.

My point is, I just think we're in a fairly predictable pattern now with China.

And this is,

you know, where we were some years ago when we're in the freezer and it was all chaos.

They were using economic coercion.

Let's like, okay, you're right to observe that Xi Jinping is framing himself as the economically reliable reliable one on this front.

Right,

the safe pair of hands.

They weren't, though.

They coerced us economically.

They slapped tariffs on our biggest exports.

They were not reliable economic partners.

And it didn't work for them.

It didn't work for them.

And I think that's been widely accepted, even though Xi Jinping's not about to acknowledge this.

It was a mistake.

It cost them.

internationally in terms of their reputation.

It didn't help.

It didn't really shift Australia's position at all.

But we're now in a period where both leaders want greater stability, as they keep saying.

We're getting sick of hearing the mantra from Albanese about agree where we can, disagree where we must.

But that's kind of where we're at right now.

These differences that we have over the Chinese naval exercises and the live firing, over Young Heng Jun, over China's beef with Australia over foreign investment rules and particularly the port of Darwin, these things are always going to be there, but they're not derailing the relationship.

Neither leader wants this to derail the relationship.

Now, Taiwan, I put in a little bit of a different category, and perhaps

we should touch on that, because clearly,

we've got this form of words that we've had for successive governments.

Albanese pointed this out today while he was standing on the Great Wall of China.

Australia supports the One China policy, but

no change to the status quo.

It's kind of a polite way of saying don't make a move on Taiwan.

You know, we in theory support the One China policy.

We're not going to recognise Taiwan's independence, but we don't want anything to change.

And Albanese said, this has been a bipartisan position in Australia for a long, long time.

I think it holds until China does something.

And it's certainly been tested by Elbridge Colby and the Pentagon.

Big time, isn't it?

Yeah.

Urging Australia to give some sort of, well, reportedly urging somebody.

But the policy has always been strategic ambiguity.

Yes, from not giving away.

Not giving away how we would respond if something were to happen.

And so is there a shift anywhere there?

I don't think there is anything.

Not from Albanese, right?

So he's hoping to hold that line.

I think it will become more difficult to hold as China increases its military activity around Taiwan and ramps up its military buildup.

And Xi Jinping's made it repeatedly clear that he wants to, in his words, reunify.

I know that's a delicate word for some, but that's what he wants to do.

And

he's nominated, he wants the military ready to do that by 2027, which is approaching fast.

And for Australia's part two,

you see the operation the the the talisman sabre exercises you see Australia getting down the road of AUKUS getting long-range nuclear submarines and building up its northern bases and all of this clearly you know isn't divorced from what might happen over Taiwan but I think that the form of words we've got right now holds for now I do I did find it interesting this week though that Angus Taylor yes who's now the shadow defence minister so kind of newish in the defence national security space.

He was on 7.30 last night.

So what's that, Tuesday night?

And And he has offered a new position, in my view anyway.

He said that there needs to be a joint commitment between the United States and Australia to peace and deterrence,

peace through deterrence and strength, and that means working together very closely in the Taiwan Strait to the security of Taiwan.

Now, he said it about four times.

He said,

we need to have a joint commitment with the United States, regardless of who the President is, about the security of Taiwan.

He said, we should have a joint commitment to the security of Taiwan.

He kept saying it.

Now,

that's not something, as far as I can recall, Peter Dutton, Scott Morrison, wherever suggesting we should give a security commitment.

I interviewed the other day on afternoon briefing Andrew Hastie and pressed him on these questions.

He had a very different view.

Andrew Hastie's, just to give people the background, he was in that defence space, known as a China hawk

and also a conservative, just like Angus Taylor, probably a leadership contender in the future.

He says Australia is not obligated to disclose whether we should or would support

Taiwan, that this is an unreasonable question from the US.

We're not obligated to clarify.

That's the same position from James Patterson.

Yes, John C.

Just this week, he said that

Australia should never publicly pre-commit to a particular course of action and particular conflict.

Now, Patterson and Andrew Hastie have been in this national security space, I would argue, their whole lifetime, really, but certainly in a portfolio sense, you know, for several years.

Angus Taylor's formulation here, I should point out in fairness that he's also saying

that this doesn't necessarily mean we can codify every scenario.

So, not saying in as many words that yes, we should commit to go to war over Taiwan against China, but he is saying we should give some sort of security commitment along with the United States, a security commitment for Taiwan.

What does that mean?

It's a new position.

Well, it's a new position that I, from my conversations,

there was no discussion.

That's not a new position that they've all agreed to, David.

And it's not, I haven't heard Donald Trump give any sort of security guarantee for Taiwan either.

I mean, we all remember Joe Biden, what was it, four or five times, said that yes, he would come to the aid militarily of Taiwan.

The White House would then walk it back as if it was,

you know, a blunder by the president.

But he kept saying it.

It all looked like quite a deliberate

message to China that Biden kept saying that.

Anyway, Trump has not, Trump has never said,

as far as I've seen, that he will support Taiwan militarily in the event that China makes a move.

I've just read the really interesting quarterly essay from Professor Hugh White,

where he argues that

under Biden and now increasingly accelerated under Trump, we're seeing a move towards this multipolar world that he's he's talked about for years and years, that they're not going to get involved, that, you know, certainly weren't going to get militarily involved in Ukraine.

Sure, send them weapons, but not putting boots on the ground, nor, he thinks, will they do so in relation to Taiwan either.

Look, that's his view.

But it is true that Trump has not gone as far as Biden did in saying we'll militarily back Taiwan against China.

But now you've got...

Angus Taylor suggesting that we should give some sort of security commitment when it comes to Taiwan.

That's not the position of...

This was was put to Albanese today as he stood on the Great Wall and he said it was beyond his pay grade to work out what Angus Taylor was doing.

Well, I do think Angus Taylor is freelancing.

He's freelancing.

It looks not when you yeah, when you point out what Hastie said, what James Patterson said, I went through all of the Susan Lee transcripts and she certainly hasn't said that.

So that's what it looks like.

Yeah, it does.

And so that is pretty,

you'd have to even describe it as a pretty radical position, right?

I don't see it as nuanced.

It's a pretty radically different position for our country to take.

It'd be interesting to see if he wins that argument internally or if it quietly changes.

You know how that happens sometimes?

It quietly goes back to the default position.

Watch that space, my friends.

But back to the Prime Minister's trip, what he's got out of it.

Yeah, you mentioned that this issue of the port of Darwin didn't come up in conversation with President Xi Jinping.

It did, though, come up.

It has come up

just at another level, right?

So it has been raised with us, but it seems also back to your no one wants to derail the relationship that the Chinese don't like it.

They're not sort of into it, but they accept some of these things as the new normal and that Albanese won't change these positions.

I mean, of course they don't like it.

It's embarrassing for them when across this region they're trying to do this stuff to have you know, a government in the Albanese government, and you know, it is a bipartisan position here.

They should not own the Port of Darwin or have a long-term lease on the Port of of darwin and that should be even by force if required uh by which i mean using the corporations act or whatever mechanism is used uh to disown them of the port of darwin that's that's you know clearly a position they don't like at all yes it was you know there was criticism in the state-run media but for this not to be raised at the leadership level by either the president or the premier um according to albanese after his you know meetings with both of them i just find that interesting that this was not on the formal agenda yeah and look the the opposition's already sort of quietly off the record, sort of critiquing this trip, saying what's he really got out of it?

What outcomes have we got out of it?

You answered this not in terms of the opposition, but when I sort of framed it as a broader question and you said too early to tell.

It kind of is, isn't it?

In the world of diplomacy, it's a bit rich for them to be jumping too quickly.

You see a lot of the benefits down the track a bit, don't you, David, when you have these meetings?

Yeah, I mean, look, the one dream, I suppose, is this green metals industry emerges to to one day, you know, keep our iron ore industry going, where we would process the iron ore using renewable energy into iron or even into steel.

So set up all this sort of manufacturing here in Australia, up in the Pilbara, to do all this stuff.

And presumably, it would, you know, require a fair bit of Chinese investment to make it happen.

There are a lot of, this has been talked about for a long time.

It does make a lot of sense

in one way, but there's a lot of complexity involved in this too, and investment required in this too.

So look, that is one thing that'll take a very long time to see if it pays off but you know yes the two countries are committed to doing more on this so we'll see what happens there the tourism stuff

that could be beneficial too very much uh you know that that could that could pay off for australia as well but yeah these things do you know take a while to see what the dividend is um but i think the prime minister would be pretty happy with how the you know you looked at him today on the on the gray well he had the rabbito's cap on he had the polo shirt what did you think about stylizing i looked at him with the cap and i thought it's a bit scott morrison what are you doing with the cap well yeah Look, my reaction, whenever I see that rabbitos cap, you know he's in a good mood.

Yeah, I agree.

It's a signal, isn't it?

Yeah, yeah, Jodie by his side.

They did a little walk up and down the Great Wall.

He was, you know, following in the footsteps of the Labour great Golf Whitlam.

So he was looking very chuffed with where he was at, I thought.

Some stuff happening on the home front.

Ken Henry, who I described at the start as sort of, you know,

the Mandarin, the wonk that got us through the global financial crisis, tax review he's famously still quoted for, even though so many recommendations never happened under the Rudd government.

He spoke at the National Press Club today.

You were there,

David, and timing of his speaking was very well timed.

We've had, you know, these treasury leaks this week that we've talked about on the pod.

You've heard it if you listen every day.

If you haven't, go back and listen because they've been

conversations.

I've listened.

Well, yeah, yeah.

David, you have out there.

You go back to the back backlog.

Ken Henry.

He's known for all of this, but he's a bit passionate about the environment too.

What did he have to say today?

Yeah, so he's now chair of the Australian Climate and Biodiversity Foundation.

And the point of the speech today, and it was a really interesting speech, was really to frame the need for finally landing these environmental law reforms that the Albanese government couldn't land under Tanya Flubisek in their first term.

And now Murray Watt is tasked as environment minister with trying to get it done this term.

Ken Henry has long argued

this is long overdue, right?

The Graham-Samuel report that recommended all these changes goes back back to the previous coalition government, and it's got to be done.

And he frames it in an economic sense.

This, he says, is the answer, the easiest answer to our productivity problem when it comes to reform in Australia.

His words, to put it bluntly, there's no chance of Australia meeting stated targets for net zero, for renewable energy, for critical minerals development, for housing and transport infrastructure, unless we get this done.

He's saying unless we can have clear rules that speed up either a yes or no answer for all this stuff, whether it's a wind farm, solar farm, housing development, critical minerals project.

It's our environmental laws that are holding back all this stuff.

Fix that and you're going to get us going with productivity.

So I thought it was a really interesting framing of why this is so urgent in his view.

He's such a powerful figure in terms of the impact he has on debates, isn't he?

Like he has such a reputation for being one of the most senior thinkers in the country when it comes to public policy that when he speaks I think people do listen and so you know him laying out this urgent overhaul of the environment laws saying that that this has to happen like this this does carry weight

but you know the government says they want to do this in the next term they've said it before though David I mean Are they listening to Ken Henry?

Or is he like an irritant?

I do believe the government wants to get this done this term.

They want to get lots of things done no i think they're serious about this and they do have of course much stronger hand politically than they did in that first term so they should be able to get this done and it's a little unclear where the coalition might land and we've got to see where the government is going to land what they're going to put forward you know with things like um

uh greenhouse triggers or you know the the powers of the new um environment protection agency that would be set up and all of this detail will matter in the end but you're right ken henry's authority is strong in this area and economic reform generally.

I mean, the Henry tax review, the Rudd government still stands as the most recent and comprehensive tax review, most of which has not been enacted.

But his role in the GST reforms under the Howard Costello government, I mean, this guy has reformed cred.

There's no question about that.

So what he's saying on the need for environmental law reform as an economic productivity measure, I just thought was a really interesting framing of this today to give everyone a bit of a kick up the bum as to why this needs to happen soon.

Yeah, it was a kick up the bum.

Such a good point.

Look, just final point I want to make on another story that is watch this space.

We've talked a lot on this pod about the anti-Semitism report and governments obviously considering those recommendations.

A lot of critique of Gillian Siegel, which we also discussed yesterday.

But Ed Husick, who's a former industry minister, he was dumped famously from the cabinet, but he's a pretty outspoken voice.

He joined Radio National.

He spoke to Steve Canaan this morning and I thought really interesting interview where he raised some of his concerns about perhaps overreach in relation to this report.

And then a little later, Jason Clare, who is the Education Minister, was also asked about this and he said, you know, that he would wait until the

Islamophobia envoy also reported.

Now, remember, there are two envoys, not just one.

I just found that interesting.

I think the government, you're getting a strong sense.

Obviously, Ed Husick's on the back bench, but Jason Clare's not on the backbench.

He's a frontbencher.

but David it feels like there's a bit of cold water on some of these proposals as some of this is uh being discussed yeah it I think you're right about that um I mean I was on a on a break but I was watching you know as you do and I thought when the idea of a break yeah but you're the same when the anti-semitism envoys report was released and Albanese and Tony Burke stood on either side of her

I thought the impression was yeah this is stuff that we're going to get cracking on you know not not saying we'll do it all but it was pretty positive, you know, sort of framing.

And you're right.

I think a week or so on, some of the voices raising concerns about this or that, you know, the way it would treat public broadcasters and universities,

the use of the definition of anti-Semitism, just this little bit of pushback.

And now you're hearing these voices like Ed Husick and Jason Clare

and the idea that now they're actually going to wait for the Islamophobia envoys report, which I think is not until next month in August.

Yeah, it does does sound like there is a little bit of cold water being poured here.

I think it's also another marker on Ed Husick's role now in the government too, that's just worth noting there as well.

Of course, he'd still love to be on the front bench if it wasn't for those, as he calls them, factional assassins, he would be.

But the role he's playing on the back bench is not insignificant here as well.

David, I'm so glad you're back.

I have missed you, but now I am longing no longer.

It's so good to hear.

Vique, it is great to be back.

Now, tomorrow, of course, it's the party room, and you can send your questions to not Fran and I.

I think it's the first time in history.

I think we've done this podcast for like eight years.

And in that time, there's always been one of us co-hosting.

Now, as it turns out, we've got the same days off.

I have to go and see my children.

I was filling in for David, so I haven't seen them for a bit, and I'm going to go find them.

And then they're going to drop me off in Canberra, actually, David, where my first daughter was born.

And so she's very excited.

She's like going back to the motherland, she said.

So we are, I'll be there for sitting week.

But that means that Brett Worthington and Jade McMillan will be hosting and Laura Tingle live from China will be the guests.

So you and I will both listen to that podcast.

We will not be in that podcast.

And then David, you've got Insiders on Background on Saturday.

Any idea what you'll be doing?

Yes.

Richard McGregor from the Lowy Institute, he's a terrific China analyst.

He's going to be joining us for a look at the trip and look at how China's positioning itself in this sea of Trump instability.

A sea is the only way to describe it, a large sea full of pollutants.

David, see you next week in the big house.

See ya.

Bring your jumper.

I certainly will.

Bye.

See ya.