Gabriella Power:
Joining us now is Director of Research at the Institute of Public Affairs, Morgan Begg. Morgan Begg, thank you so much for joining us on Power Hour. It’s great to see you again. Let’s start with this meeting between Andy Burnham and Donald Trump. They have met for the first time during the UN General Assembly in New York.
Journalist:
Would you say they’re in now?
Donald Trump:
Well, they’re more in now than they were with your last prime minister, let me put it that way. Tremendous potential. I mean, I see some countries and I’m with the leaders and I’ll say it, but I don’t see a lot of potential that they’ve got a tough road to hoe. This is a country with great patriots. They love the country. The people love the country as much as any other country I can think of.
Andy Burnham:
You and I have established a good connection in our early discussions and we’ve taken that further today. And obviously you’ve got enough today to let us talk around some issues on trade, the Falklands that we mentioned, and you were going to have to listen to us on those issues amongst others. So it’s been great to be with you and the team.
Gabriella Power:
Well, Donald Trump is a bit of a showman, so a bit of praise there, but we know with Donald Trump, he’s not afraid to be pretty direct with leaders. He certainly was with Kia Starmer, who absolutely copped it from the Trump administration. What do you make of this meeting and the relationship between Donald Trump and Andy Burnham?
Morgan Begg:
Well, I definitely think it’s to the prime minister’s benefit that President Trump by his nature is fairly transactional with his relationship with foreign governments. And if you are willing to play ball with him, he’s willing to play ball with you. And I think you’re seeing a bit of that from Burnham right now with the decision recently to review the extraordinary Starmer era decision to unilaterally surrender the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. So we’re beginning to see, I think, a bit more of a conciliatory and cooperative note from the prime minister. Now, the fact that he hasn’t just abandoned the Chagos plan altogether suggests that there’s probably a bit more work to be done. And in Burnham’s statement that in his view, the relationship is as strong as it’s ever been is probably not quite true to the mark, but perhaps we’re on the way there.
Gabriella Power:
Perhaps an improvement maybe. But in terms of Andy Burnham’s performance as the new UK prime minister, he’s still being viewed as Starmer 2.0 and he’s being criticised for not really getting it when it comes to migration. Last week on the show, we covered the small UK village, which voted to leave the UK over the migration crisis, that was Pittington. Now a second village is considering staging this Pittington style independence referendum. Are we going to see even more villages do the same thing?
Morgan Begg:
It’s extraordinary that this was the number one issue that brought down the Starmer premiership, was the failure of the British government to control its borders. And it’s extraordinary that Burnham has really just continued on the same trajectory. We’re still seeing a complete failure to control the border, the importation and placement of refugees and asylum seekers in rural communities where they actually outnumber the local population, which is obviously causing extraordinary distress. And this whole issue with local referendums is the clearest sign yet of England’s disintegration. We’re used to the government leaders in Scotland and Wales being led by separatists, but now we’re seeing separatism within England itself. And that is all a function and consequence of the British political class’s apparent preference for people outside the country than those within.
Gabriella Power:
Yeah, sending a strong message. Absolutely. It’s interesting, the Trump administration has criticised Australia’s, well, proposed social media reforms, which is being called the digital duty of care reforms warning that facilitating, or this is facilitating rather censorship. In a formal submission to Australia’s public consultation process, the US embassy in Canberra said it had serious concerns about the proposed law’s goal of mandating how platforms will be managing content and user feed. So the statement said that the US government would likely consider such a measure as facilitating censorship. Do you agree with that?
Morgan Begg:
Absolutely. I agree with that. And I think we should also be not at all surprised that the US administration has made this intervention. We have to remember that the Albanese government has spoken about the digital duty of care as being a reckoning for big tech, which is almost exclusively a reference to US-based companies. And they’ve also called the digital duty of care a world leading reform, which means that they envisage this to be exported to other parts of the planet. And then you tie in the fact that this scheme will be overseen and administered by the eSafety commissioner, who has in the past attempted to force X to remove links from its global servers, which highlights the risk of extraterritorial effect. So it’s not surprising at all that the US has said this, but what’s really interesting is, as you said, they’re not just concerned about this on mere commercial grounds, but they’re highlighting the deeper flaws, which is that it will give the government extraordinary power to control what Australians see and can say on the internet.
So I think it’s good that they’ve said what they’ve said, not only about how it would affect them, but also in reiterating IPA research and analysis about how the digital duty of care represents a censorship threat to Australians.
Gabriella Power:
Yep, absolutely. Yet the labour government presents it as something they’re doing for the children. Yet, I think there are some concerns there around censorship. Absolutely. Trump has also slammed Anthony Albanese’s tech agenda by opposing AI regulation. This is fascinating as Australia joined 19 other nations and the European Commission in demanding sweeping safeguards to AI. But Donald Trump’s kind of been essentially saying that we don’t need to worry about it so much. Can I get your assessment of this?
Morgan Begg:
Oh, just going back to Albanese, I just think it’s really interesting. I’m not a big proponent or have any great love for AI itself, but I certainly get very sceptical when political leaders from around the world all of a sudden converge on the view that they need more power to regulate and control something. And I think that’s exactly what’s happening about AI. And I think Trump is really, he’s standing at the gates speaking reason on this because at the end of the day, this statement that the world leaders have signed have said, “Oh, it’s about keeping AI under human control.” Actually, their concern is about which humans are in control. And in their view, they want government to be in control of AI, in control of how it functions and to function. And it’s not difficult to read that as a preference to see it function in a way that’s more comfortable or amenable to them.
Gabriella Power:
I want to talk to you about the BBC. The BBC has removed a video suggesting a Queensland river hosting the 2032 Olympic rowing events was crocodile infested. Now this comes after National’s leader Matt Canavan said that the broadcaster had misled viewers. The rowing event at the summer games will be held on the Fitzroy River in Rockhampton, but the BBC confused this waterway with another one in WA in their report last week. The BBC has announced that the content has been corrected, but it’s interesting. Matt Canavan really hit out at the BBC branding the reporters “overseas junk clickbait” and that has spread essentially lies about the Sunshine State. So Matt Canavan went on to say, “I want to assure the international media that the Fitzroy River, the Queensland one, is safe and also the perfect venue for the 2032 games.” Well done Matt Canavan for calling this out. What do you think’s happened here?
Morgan Begg:
It’s extraordinary just the kind of ignorance that people might have about what Australia is and what’s in Australia. But I thought it was very interesting because I was told that the BBC was a very trustworthy and trusted institution. And that’s why they started a few years ago BBC Verify to police misinformation that other outlets and people put out. And here they are talking about a river that’s 3,500 metres away from the actual river in question, suggesting that Olympians will be contesting with crocs at the 2032 Olympics, which may actually be a very interesting and fascinating addition to the Olympic schedule, but we’re very far afield from the truth.
Gabriella Power:
Yeah, trustworthy journalism. I mean, there’s been a few errors recently, hasn’t there? Let’s talk about the Royals. Prince Harry back in the UK now is reportedly in talks with friends and family of his mother, Princess Diana, as he prepares to make a documentary commemorating 30 years since her death in Paris. So reports are that Prince Harry said he wants to honour Diana’s legacy in the most meaningful way. That’s according to The Telegraph in the UK. But there have been rumours, I guess, for some time about Harry’s interest in making a documentary about his mother, the princess, the late Princess of Wales. They’ve been circulating for some time. Can I get your reaction to this about how do you feel about Prince Harry making a documentary? Another one.
Morgan Begg:
Yeah. I mean, it’s such a sad thing to see. I think people are reasonably cynical about this sort of news because unfortunately Harry has a fair track record now of trying to monetize and commercialise his status and his titles for his own gain. And also Lady Diana, her memory is often a focal point for this sort of rumour mill and innuendo, which really has, I think, tarnished her memory. I think we could talk about also Earl Spencer’s forthcoming book, which is doing the rounds in British media at the moment where the author has already had to apologise to Piers Morgan for a factual error suggesting that he was the editor of a newspaper which published unseemly photos of Lady Diana in the early 90’s, which was completely false.
But this sort of thing, it constantly keeps happening specifically about Lady Diana. And I think people are tired of it. They’re very cynical and sceptical about it. And I just think it’s a really bad look.
Gabriella Power:
I think so too. And you mentioned Earl Spencer’s book. It’s pretty extraordinary that on day one of the book launch, there are already major factual errors and he’s having to apologise to Piers Morgan over it. He’s also being criticised that he’s going to be profiting from this book, something he said he wouldn’t do.
Morgan Begg:
Yeah, that’s right. And they’re getting calls now to pulp the first edition of the book. The publishers think that they’re going to correct it in future editions, but how many corrections will there be? This keeps happening in publications, these kind of trashy cash grab publications about the royal family. And it’s quite frustrating because I’m a fan of the royal family and patriotic about the king. And often all of this traffic is often just one way, frankly, borderline defamatory publications about the king and those closest to his majesty. And I just wish that there was a way for there to be a more hard hitting response to actually hit back against these outlandish claims.
Gabriella Power:
Yeah, no, I think you’re absolutely right, especially hearing from Earl Spencer making some very serious accusations against the royal family on the BBC earlier this week. Morgan Begg, Director of Research at the Institute of Public Affairs. Thank you so much for joining us on Power Hour. Great to speak with you.
This transcript with Morgan Begg talking on Power Hour – News24 from 23 September 2026 has been edited for clarity.
