Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is due to make his first ever speech to the United Nations on Friday afternoon, 26 September. The timing could yet change, but at present it is notably later than the headline act of Donald Trump, according to the latest schedule made public for “leaders’ week”, the annual gathering of national leaders at the UN General Assembly in New York. The US President is expected to speak on the Tuesday morning, meaning if Albanese and Trump are to meet, it might take place elsewhere.
Not every Australian prime minister makes time for this annual global jamboree – and certainly not every year. The speech is often delegated to foreign ministers or ambassadors. But every Australian PM since at least John Howard has stood at the green marbled rostrum at least once during their time in office. And it’s not too unkind to say that none of those speeches have proved particularly memorable.
In fact, it’s a sign of the UN’s declining relevance that most national statements are regularly delivered to a half-empty hall. Australia treats its contributions as safe affairs. No banging of shoes or hours long sermons. Instead, having ticked off a regular roster of themes, it’s time for the next leader to take the stage. Albanese seems set to do the same.
At a time of global disruption, replaying the greatest hits appears more nostalgic than realistic.
Foreign Minister Penny Wong has delivered Australia’s “national statement” each year since 2022. Looking across those three speeches, repeated phrases offer a good guide to what Albanese is likely to say.
For example, an emphasis on collective action is a safe bet. Wong declared “We can only solve our biggest problems together” in both 2022 and 2023, and last year settled on “we can find collective solutions to our toughest problems”.
It is no surprise that climate change and nuclear threats have consistently featured in Wong’s statements as examples of problems that no nation can solve alone. The UN is the heart of the multilateral system, after all. But Wong’s past praise for “predictable rules” in trade and foreign relations is likely to jar with whatever Trump says.
A call for a world where “no country dominates, and no country is dominated” is another favoured phrase that Wong has used each year. That sentiment has been mostly tied to Ukraine, although the South China Sea dispute has been mentioned in the last two statements. Warnings about military build-ups in the “Indo-Pacific” appears to be code for US-China rivalry. Taiwan is never named, a reflection of China’s sensitivities over its participation in international forums.
A reference to First Nations culture has been another touchstone in Wong’s speeches. Australia’s multicultural identity and its contributions to the UN system, whether historically via Herbert “Doc” Evatt in 1945 or the campaign for a Security Council seat in 2029–30, are also evident themes. Australia makes a perennial call for UN reform.
Last year, Wong spent considerable time setting out Australia’s position on the October 2023 Hamas attack against Israel and the subsequent Gaza conflict, emphasising historical UN resolutions for a two-state solution and the need to protect humanitarian workers in conflict zones. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict did not feature in either preceding speech. Albanese has flagged his intention for Australia to now recognise a Palestinian state, following France, the United Kingdom and Canada, making it a likely theme again.
Wong has also used the speech as a way of linking Australia to Pacific Islands countries. “We understand our duty to amplify the collective Pacific voice”, as she put it in 2023. The contributions Australia makes to development aid get a section, and typically so do ties to Southeast Asia.
If Albanese follows a similar script and delivers an omnibus speech listing a series of Australian interests, that would be expected. But at a time of global disruption, replaying the greatest hits appears more nostalgic than realistic. Australia’s carefully calibrated multilateral messaging hardly cuts through. Perhaps the UN is not the venue for Australia to set out a compelling vision for international affairs or a new ambition to shape a response to a problem. Then again, the captive audience might benefit from hearing what Australia really thinks.
