July 13, 2025 • 49 mins
As the PM kicks off his China trip the US demands clarity on Australia’s stance in a Taiwan conflict, key Australian sites flagged as crucial in a US-China war spark defence questions. Plus, Barnaby Joyce renews push to scrap net zero by 2050.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hi von Skynese Australia.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
This is Danika and James.
Speaker 3 (00:05):
Hello and welcome to the show tonight.
Speaker 4 (00:07):
As the Prime Minister begins his China trip, the United
States wants to know where we stand in the event
of war with Taiwan.
Speaker 3 (00:14):
Pauline Hanson will weigh in shortly.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
Several Australian sites have been named as locations that will
play a critical role in a US war with China,
But could we defend them? Michael Schubridge joins.
Speaker 4 (00:25):
Us and Barnaby Joyce will tell us why he is
wasting no time pushing for Net zero twenty fifty to
be dumped.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
But first, as war drums beat between China and the US,
Anthony Albanezi is in Shanghai looking to strengthen our ties
with China. The PM arrived in China today for the
start of a six day trip, his second official visit
to the Chinese nation, where he received a red carpet welcome.
Speaker 5 (00:51):
It's a great honor to represent Australia in international forums
and this is an important engagement that we will have.
In the fact that I am leading a very large
business delegation speaks to the importance of the economic relationship
between Australia and China.
Speaker 4 (01:10):
Yeah, Anthony Arbanese's agenda today boosting Chinese tourism.
Speaker 3 (01:14):
He launched the Come.
Speaker 4 (01:15):
Sagoday campaign aimed at increasing the number of Chinese visitors
to Australia, which are currently eight point five percent below
twenty nineteen pre pandemic numbers.
Speaker 1 (01:26):
There are so many ironies with this, yes, right, But
before we get to the ironies, maybe we should just
show a little part of the Sagaday campaign that Anthony
Albanesi is launching. Have a look at this.
Speaker 3 (01:39):
Gooday, Jill got to play badaha pleading Coryda.
Speaker 1 (01:46):
Okay. So we're saying to the Chinese, come say today,
at the very same time they are via their military
conducting surveillance of our northern shores while military games are
being conducted. Which brings me to the second irony this trip.
Albanesi is in Shanghai seeking closer ties at the very
time we are hosting wargames off Darwin with nineteen other
(02:09):
nations practicing for the event that China invade Taiwan and
we go to war with China. He's looking to strengthen
relationships with China while the US wonders allowed whether or
not we would join with them in a war against China,
which brings me to the final thing. He's got a
six day trip with China when he can't organize a
(02:32):
single phone call with our major ally, Donald Trump. So
I understand the importance of a trade mission. China are
clearly a very important trade partner, but the optics of
this are not good at all, and you start to wonder,
you know, whether ALBINESI is deliberately using strategic confusion. My
concern is that there's nothing strategic about it. The government
(02:54):
is just confused as to where their allegiances ultimately lie.
Speaker 3 (02:57):
I completely agree.
Speaker 4 (02:59):
A g I've got to say, when you look at
the pictures like this, the handsome boy from Australia, he's
really laying it on thick and fast. Over there is
and he James, he's loving it right now. Why because
he's at ease, He's comfortable. This is where he feels
most comfortable, Not of course, in the United States, not
in the White House, where he risks being publicly humiliated
(03:19):
or questioned on the world stage. No, no, he's happy
he's over there. The funniest part about all of this
was that the Prime minister actually held a press conference
in China today and this is what he said. I
just want to give you a quote. He said, quote
people to people relations are very important. Those people to
people relations help build understanding.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
Well, blow blow me down.
Speaker 4 (03:42):
Gee, wouldn't it be fantastic if our Prime minister actually
took on what advice he's dishing out, that people to
people relations are really important. What a shame our Prime
minister can't get that people.
Speaker 3 (03:54):
People to relation with Donald Trump.
Speaker 4 (03:57):
But it's his unwillingness to stand up to China that's
the real problem out of all this. I mean, if
it was only a couple of months ago that China
was conducting those live fire drills jays off the coast
of Australia, and thank goodness for those pilots from Virgin
Australia were actually able to notify, hey, something's wrong here.
But it's not just that, I mean, this goes way
before that. It's the tariff's of Australian goods. It is
(04:19):
the near missus, the military near misses. And on each occasion,
Anthony Albernzi has been so weak he refuses to stand
up to China, refuses to stand up for our values,
refuses to stand up for our security. Yet when he's
over there, he's smiling, he's shaking hands, he's all happy.
And I mean, look at the friendly speech he gave it,
the John Curtin arration. We can't forget about that.
Speaker 1 (04:41):
It's interesting you said that Albinizi is over there laying
it on thick. You're right. But more pertinent is China
are laying it on thick for Anthony Elbanzi because China
knows that if they can divide the Albanzi government from
the Trump administration, it advantages China's expansion plans in this
area of the world. And you just wonder whether Anthony
(05:03):
Alberanzi thinks he can outsmart Jijingping, whether he thinks he's
wiser and he's able to maneuver, and history would prove
that would not be the case. So it's quite confusing
as to what Anthony Albanesi actually believes, let alone how
he's trying to position Australia.
Speaker 4 (05:18):
I don't think he knows even what he believes to
be honest.
Speaker 3 (05:21):
At this point, and plus you alluded to this before.
Speaker 4 (05:24):
There's a whole other issue at stake here. While Anthony
Aarberanesi is in China. Our US allies are pressuring his
government for clarity around whose side we would take in
the event of a conflict between the world's two superpowers.
Speaker 1 (05:37):
The Sydney Morning Herald has quoted an anonymous senior US
defense official saying, and I quote, there's a conversation this
is between the US and Australia about command structure, about
alignment of assets. We would want in any scenario, a
clear sense of what we can expect from Australia. Well,
despite our alliance with the US, the Prime Minister refused
(05:59):
to say which he would be on. Take a look, what.
Speaker 4 (06:03):
Role would Australia play if the US and China went
to war over Taiwan.
Speaker 5 (06:09):
Look, our aim of investing in our capability and as
well investing in our relationships is about advancing peace and
security in our region. That's our objective and that is
why we'll invest in our region.
Speaker 4 (06:29):
Meanwhile, Defense Industry Minister Pat Conroy was even more on
the fence.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
The sole power to commit Australia to war or to
allow our territory to be used for a conflict is
the elected government of the day. That is our position.
Sovereignty will always be prioritized and that will continue to
be our position.
Speaker 6 (06:48):
That's not the question that's being asked. It's not about sovereignty.
It's how we would react if that scenario was established.
Are we giving a clear answer behind closed doors too?
Speaker 2 (06:59):
We don't engage in high patheticals.
Speaker 1 (07:00):
I discuss hypotheticals.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
But secondly, the decision to commit Australian troops to a
conflict will be made by the government of the day,
not in advance.
Speaker 4 (07:11):
What's very clear is Labor seems to be needing some
gentle reminding of what an alliance is.
Speaker 3 (07:17):
Don't forget we're actually part of ASAS.
Speaker 4 (07:20):
Okay, we have an obligation under the Anzas Treaty.
Speaker 3 (07:23):
We've made this commitment.
Speaker 4 (07:24):
We are still part of ASAS, believe it or not,
and as such, if we're not going to then.
Speaker 3 (07:29):
You may as well just tear up the agreement.
Speaker 4 (07:31):
But right now it's clear that Anthony Abanezi cannot give
an answer each way.
Speaker 3 (07:35):
I don't think it's an.
Speaker 4 (07:36):
Unreasonable question or an unreasonable ask right now. The reality
is that Taiwan is indeed facing constant military threats and
intimidation from China.
Speaker 3 (07:46):
It was only a.
Speaker 4 (07:47):
Few weeks ago that the US Secretary of Defense Pete
Hegseth even reiterated just how severe the situation is.
Speaker 3 (07:53):
Right now.
Speaker 4 (07:54):
I read a very interesting article by Aspy. The author
was Jennifer Parker, who is a long time war Fair officer.
She wrote about how even if China was to take
on Taiwan by force, it's not just going to be
a straightforward island conflict in Taiwan. It is going to spread,
more specifically into an Indo Pacific conflict. So naturally, what
(08:14):
does that mean. It means that Australia would be at risk.
There would be strategic implications for Australia. Yet our Prime
minister's asked about it and he just seemingly doesn't have
a position.
Speaker 3 (08:25):
James, he doesn't know.
Speaker 4 (08:26):
I mean, nobody wants war, but why is he unable
to articulate it.
Speaker 3 (08:31):
We have an alliance with the United States.
Speaker 1 (08:34):
The problem is that he can't articulate it because he's
standing in Shanghai. That's not the place you articulate that policy.
It should have been clear before he went to China,
so he's put himself in this position. The other thing
that's interesting is the assistant Defense Industry Minister, saying he
won't speak about hypotheticals. Well, China's designs on Taiwan are
hardly hypothetical. Our own defense has said that they expect
(09:00):
some sort of invasion by about twenty twenty seven, which
is in the very near future. So this is a
live question. It's not some airy, fairy hypothetical people should know.
The other thing about this is the Trump administration believes
in peace through strength. There was a story the other
day about Donald Trump warning Vladimir Putin, if you do
too much in Ukraine, we will bomb the hell out
(09:21):
of you. He's apparently said the same thing to Xijingping.
He said the same thing to the ayatolers. So that's
why America wants a public commitment from Australia. If China
move on Taiwan, Australia would stand with the US. That's
a deterrent to China acting because they know that there
are strong nations who would stand up to them. But
failing to get that plays into China's hands, where they're
(09:42):
starting to calculate, well, maybe we could do this and
we wouldn't face as much opposition as we might. So
it makes sense for America to want a commitment from Australia.
And in addition, of course, the US are making quite
an investment in terms of nuclear technology, in terms of
prioritizing subs for Australi over subs for themselves. America want
(10:03):
a return on investment. They want a guarantee up front
that we will be a strong ally and they're just
not getting that from our government.
Speaker 7 (10:12):
Right.
Speaker 3 (10:12):
But they're not getting a lot from our government.
Speaker 8 (10:13):
Now.
Speaker 3 (10:13):
They've asked us to lift our dispense spending. We're not
doing that. Now.
Speaker 4 (10:17):
We hear a pause that the Pentagon is considering making
Australia pay more under the orcer. Still, we don't even
know if there is going to be an orcer.
Speaker 3 (10:24):
Still.
Speaker 4 (10:24):
There is so many unknowns, and the one common denominator
in all of this is the fact that Anthony Arberenesi
has been unable to get this meeting with Donald Trump
and Donald Trump's.
Speaker 3 (10:33):
Meeting with people, James.
Speaker 4 (10:34):
There have been leaders of multiple countries around the world
going over to the White House. It's not that Donald
Trump is not taking anything. We actually, Skyne you spoke
to John Howard about this over the weekend.
Speaker 3 (10:46):
Really interesting comments. This is what the former PM said, you.
Speaker 9 (10:49):
Don't treat a relationship as important as according to the
charge whim of a meeting on the sidelines of another meeting.
You just ring up and say I want to come
and see you in Washington.
Speaker 3 (11:03):
That's what you were doing.
Speaker 9 (11:04):
Yeah, I mean I used to go to see President
Bush and before that President Clinton. I in good relationship
with both of them, and I just think it's poor
form to say the least is he scared of meeting him.
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
Yeah, John Howard is absolutely right, and I don't know
whether it's a case at Anthony albaneze he can't get
a meeting with the leader of the United States. If
he really wanted one, he would be able to organize it. Surely,
the United States and Australia have always been close allies.
The US have a big interest in a relationship with Australia.
If Albanezey wanted a meeting, he could get himself to
(11:43):
Washington and have a meeting. The fact that hasn't happened,
I think says more about Anthony Alberanzi than it does
about Donald Trump.
Speaker 3 (11:49):
Absolutely, I agree.
Speaker 4 (11:50):
Well, let's bring in One Nation leader Pauline Hansen, for
more on this now, Senator, good to see you, as always,
thank you very much for joining us. We now have
the US asking legitimate questions about what role its allies
would play in any potential conflict with Taiwan. The Prime
Minister can't say the US wants us to lift defense spending,
and on top of that, we could now pay more
(12:11):
for submarines under ORCAS. And yet we've got the Prime
Minister flapping about in China. What message is Labour sending
to the US right.
Speaker 10 (12:18):
Now basically saying we're not interested in what you have
to say, and we'll do our own thing, and we're
going to have say and were our futial eyes.
Speaker 8 (12:30):
I think it's a big mistake on Anthony Obnissi and
the Labor Party.
Speaker 10 (12:34):
America has every right to ask where are they going
to go with Taiwan? If China does invade Taiwan, where
does that leave us? They have every right to us
at considering the Orcus Agreement and considering America is thinking
about sending us some of their subs, considering that, you
know the rest of the world would love them.
Speaker 8 (12:55):
How would they use it?
Speaker 10 (12:56):
How would this government use it in the best interest
of the do that we have with America and our
ally and agreement with them. He's not prepared to even
say that. I don't, As I've said constantly all the time,
I don't trust this government. Alban Easy is a socialist,
have no doubt about it. And I've read the White Paper.
(13:17):
The Labor White Paper was about fifteen twenty years ago,
and I was shocked by it's basically opening up our
borders to Asia and that we would invite them down
here in drives, they wouldn't have to get visas to
actually come.
Speaker 8 (13:30):
Down to this country, and that they.
Speaker 10 (13:32):
Were encouraging Australians to learn to speak Asian languages. Now,
if that's Labour's future for Australia, I'm in fear of
that because I don't want it. I'll be upfront and honest,
I don't want it. I don't want us to be
Asian eyes. And I've always said that from nineteen ninety
six in my first maiden speech to Parliament.
Speaker 8 (13:51):
So it really concerns me where.
Speaker 10 (13:53):
His head is at. He has an obligation or national
security to tell the people what he thinks. We've seen
so many changes of primecists in this country, especially from
rad rad Tony Abbott, then we had Turnbull, then we
had Morrison. And to leave this in the hands of
a prime mister solely at his whim, I think it's
a big mistake.
Speaker 8 (14:13):
I think when it.
Speaker 10 (14:14):
Comes to something like this defense, I think the two
major political parties should have a long term goal and
objective of where we lie as a nation and where
we will stand on these issues. We've seen changeover and
turnover of too many prime minsists in this country. I
would like to see a united front that would give
us long term vision for this country and security to
(14:36):
the people.
Speaker 1 (14:38):
So, Senator, we've got Anthony Albanezi in China at the moment,
he's spooking tourism and trade while the US alliance seems
to be at an all time low. As I said earlier,
Anthony Albanese's got a six day tour of China. Can't
organize a phone call with the United States. The optics
are not good, are they?
Speaker 8 (15:00):
No, they're not at all good. And that's what we said.
Speaker 10 (15:03):
I think he saw Selinski get addressing down by Trump
and he thought, I'm not going to go through that.
I will actually not get in touch. I won't have
a visit with him, and you know it is a
matter of just picking up the phone. I traveled with him,
and I've said this repeatedly. I traveled with Albanezi overseas.
I saw his interaction with leaders over.
Speaker 8 (15:25):
There, and it's not good.
Speaker 10 (15:27):
He has not got leadership qualities about him to interact
with these people. He might have improved over the years,
but my impression of him was not very high at all.
So it does concern me greatly. And he's over there
and he's trade deals that he's doing with China. You know,
the fact is he's booting them. This is a country
(15:48):
who has carbon emissions over thirty percent and yet is destroying,
decarbonizing Australia and de industrializing US as a nation. He's
more concerned about them having trade with us then what
he is is looking after our own industries and manufacturing
here in Australia.
Speaker 8 (16:06):
So he's not working for us.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
I got to ask you, Senator, you just said that
you were not impressed with Anthony Albanese's interactions with other leaders.
Can you expand on that? What have you seen that
made you feel so doubtful about his ability to relate
to other world leaders?
Speaker 3 (16:26):
Well, it was.
Speaker 8 (16:27):
What'sn't the world leaders.
Speaker 10 (16:28):
It was the leaders in the nation, the governors in India,
and that's where we traveled all across India. I just
didn't feel that he interacted with them. I think he
was very poor in his conversation, the questions, even his
answers to their questions. And actually, I will tell you this,
Melton Dick was on that delegation with me and a
(16:51):
couple of other members of Parliament and I actually Milton
Dick impressed me far more than what Anthony Albanize he did.
And I've told him, I said, you should have been
Prime mins, not Anthony ALBANIZI.
Speaker 4 (17:02):
Yeah, it's fascinating to hear perspectives from people about what
our own prime minister is actually like on the international stage.
So there you go, Senator. I want to ask you
about Treasurer Jim Chalmers. He has outlined the agenda for
the upcoming Economic Reforum Reform round Table here he was
on Sky News this morning.
Speaker 11 (17:21):
I mean, I don't mind what you call it. I
think the productivity challenge is central to our economic reform efforts.
It already is, but we're looking to build consensus on
the next steps in that agenda, and so I think
productivity and economic reform are inseparable. I set up the
press club and the Prime Minister's set out the press
Club that this is all about building consensus, building on
(17:44):
the progress that we've made, building on our substantial agenda.
Productivity will be the major focus, but it won't be
the only focus.
Speaker 4 (17:53):
Senator, Surely this round table is redundant. Productivity is low.
The RBA this week left rates on hold because it
is not satisfied that inflation is under control, despite Labour
telling us that's slayd the inflation dragon.
Speaker 3 (18:06):
What is the point of this talk fest?
Speaker 10 (18:10):
Well, it's trying to appease the Australian public. Oh look,
we're trying to do something about this. So we're going
to draw all these people in the CEOs of these
big companies. But it's their productivity in the decline that
we are seeing now. And we've lost a lot of
industries and manufacturing in Australia and we're going to lose
a lot more. We've seen thirty thousand small businesses go under.
(18:32):
It's due to the carbon credits. Oh not carbon credits,
but you know the net zero that we're headed down
that path it's industrial relations policies that's actually destroying people
for non more workers. All these extra days that people
have a year, you know, take more time off.
Speaker 8 (18:50):
Now we'd be down to about it won't belong before.
Speaker 10 (18:52):
We're going to be having thirty or thirty five days
hours a week and work and then that's going to
be more productivity. Gun, you've got members of the bureaucrats
who are working from home. That's a loss of productivity.
At the farming sector, lots of productivity. So it's through
the government policies that we've seen lots of productivity in
(19:14):
this country. I think it's just a talk fest. I
don't think that anything will come out of it. And
he talks about economic stability of the country. They they
have actually driven up the debt in this country and
it's going to be one point two billion within the
next year. Trillion, I should say billion. One point two
trillion in debt in the next year to two years.
Speaker 1 (19:37):
Yeah, for a second, you excited this all, senator when
you said billion, we thought, hey, we're doing okay, but no,
it's trillion.
Speaker 10 (19:42):
Unfortunately, it's wishful thinking.
Speaker 1 (19:46):
If only you'd been rights call of a senator Pauline Hanson,
thanks for joining us tonight. It's always a delight.
Speaker 7 (19:53):
Well.
Speaker 1 (19:53):
The man who co founded the Greens Party faces expulsion
over comments on his Facebook page about gender issues. Drew
Hutton wrote on Facebook that while he supported trans rights,
he also supported the rights of women.
Speaker 7 (20:07):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (20:07):
When he refused to delete the post, along with hundreds
of comments, many of which were critical of trans ideology,
he was suspended by the party.
Speaker 3 (20:16):
His fate will be decided at a Greens meeting.
Speaker 4 (20:19):
Would you believe next Sunday they're taking it to a meeting, James.
Speaker 1 (20:22):
There is a fair bit to unpack in this story. Look,
I'll start with this. I think if you're trying to
stand for trans rights and women's rights, you're in trouble
right from the beginning, because those two are clearly in conflict.
And so if you are going to advocate that men
can become women, then you can have a very difficult
time standing at the same time for women's rights. So,
(20:46):
while I'm going to sympathize, as I'm sure you will
with Drew Hutton's experience with the Greens, the party you
co founded, I think he's pretty foolish for trying to
advocate for trans rights and women's rights all at the
same time. That's a loser position from the beginning over
to you.
Speaker 3 (21:02):
No, look, I completely agree.
Speaker 4 (21:03):
Firstly, I'll start off by saying I thought that the
Left were very tolerant of everything. I'm tolerant of each
other's points and perspective, but once again, the Left, they're
really always shown up for who they are. Firstly, the
Greens do not support free speech clearly with this instance,
and I understand your comments about Drew, I do agree,
but most importantly, they do not support women's rights. I
(21:25):
actually think this presents a bigger problem and one that
we are seeing play out across the country right now
because Drew Hutton and his post he said, unfortunately in
the Greens at present, that would seem to make me
a transfobe based on the argument, and that's exactly the
problem right now. If you even dare to speak up
about any gender based problems, you're a trans phobe, You're
(21:48):
a bigot. We have seen people literally been taken to
court over these matters. James Giggle versus Tickle. For one,
it's the Victorian Liberal Party. It's not just the Green.
Speaker 3 (21:59):
And the Victorian Party. We've seen court cases. But this
is the problem.
Speaker 4 (22:02):
As soon as you start speaking about women's rights, and
it's very important to talk about it. You've got trans players,
for example, playing in the women's league. You've got selfie
d laws across the country whereby you don't have to
go and get your gender change on your birth certificate.
Legally you can just say Hi, I'm a man, but
I identify as a female. Then suddenly you can gain
access to women's spaces, you can go into toilets, you
(22:24):
can go into showers, you can go into changing rooms.
But the soon you do it, you challenge that narrative
you're a transphobe. And this I just think presents a
bigger argument because the argument was with the comments that
were being made on that particular Facebook post or wherever
it was on social.
Speaker 3 (22:40):
Media about the comments he was making. And that's the problem.
Speaker 1 (22:44):
The other thing you've got here is you've got who
are the Greens. They are a far left Marxist party
identifying as an environmental movement, and that's creating. That's another throating, right, yeah,
and they have changed a great deal in the thirty
three years since Drew Hutton and Bob Brown. There's another irony.
The Greens led by a Brown, but in the thirty
(23:05):
three years since they were founded, they have clearly morphed
from what was an environmental party to now a social
justice party, which leads me to another thought. There's not
much justice within the Greens. Drew Hutton was suspended back
in twenty twenty three over these Facebook posts, and the
funny thing about the way the Greens work is if
you're suspended from the Greens party, you cannot appeal your suspension,
(23:27):
so they held him indefinitely in this sort of limber purgatry,
this limbo where he was suspended, couldn't appeal it, and
it was only when he complained about having been suspended
for almost two years they finally expelled him. Having been expelled,
now he can appeal his expulsion. I would have thought
being expelled from the Greens was a badge of honor,
but apparently it wants back in, so you should.
Speaker 3 (23:49):
Wear it as a badge of honor.
Speaker 4 (23:50):
Now, before we get to our next guest, we've got
to go through this topic, James. Australians will need to
verify their age when logged into Google or other search
engines before the end of the year.
Speaker 1 (23:58):
The idea comes from Australia's Safety Commissioner. She's full of
great ideas, who seems determined to use the worthy goal
of protecting children online as an excuse to undermine the
privacy of every citizen.
Speaker 4 (24:12):
Yeah, we heard about the banning under sixteen year olds
from social media.
Speaker 3 (24:15):
Clearly that was just the beginning this.
Speaker 4 (24:17):
It's a backdoor really for this big brother style of
surveillance because the types of ID checks that they could
use here on Google James a government issued ID, they
could do facial scanning to estimate your age, and they.
Speaker 3 (24:29):
Could also look at your previous search history.
Speaker 4 (24:31):
They're going to check out what you're looking at all
under the guise of safety. Now, remember Labor told us
the same thing when they wanted to rush through that
miscommunication bill, but to target what people could see online
on social media.
Speaker 3 (24:43):
It's all for your safety, it's all for you. We're
all trying to help you. We know exactly what they're trying.
Speaker 1 (24:47):
To do here, and we all warned that trying to
protect children online. As I said, it's a worthy goal.
But if you're going to use age verification, it's not
just children who have to verify their age adults have
to verify their age as well, and so now you've
got a privacy issue. What's interesting to me about the
Google thing is how few people know about it because
we were sold a ban on children using social media,
(25:11):
but most people wouldn't assume that Google is social media.
Google is a search engine that all of us rely
upon constantly to undertake all manner of normal daily activities.
Now for this to be snuck through in not in legislation,
but in regulation of codes for Internet and big tech
companies by the e Safety Commissioner, I think is quite
(25:32):
devious because most Australians don't know this is happening. By
the end of the year, you will have to have
some form of identification. The tech companies will decide it
to use Google search engine. That is a massive change,
and to my knowledge, I'm pretty sure this has not
happened anywhere else in the world.
Speaker 4 (25:49):
Big Brother's watching, James, big brother is watching.
Speaker 1 (25:53):
Well, if indecision was a renewable energy source, the Liberal
Party could power the entire Eastern Seaboard. Three months ago,
Libs paraded nuclear power as their flagship energy policy to
reach net zero. Now, well, they're not sure about nuclear power.
Or about net zero, or about quotas or pre selection
or party structure of it. I digress. One man who
suffers from no such crisis of belief is Barnaby Joyce,
(26:16):
and he joins us. Now, Barnaby, thanks for your time
this evening. When Parliament resumes later this month, you will
introduce a private member's bill to end what you've called
the lunatic crusade toward net zero. Why are you doing
this rather than the coalition?
Speaker 12 (26:34):
Well, I just look, I'm a realist. I don't think
you get support, but I think it's important. He is
showing people understand exactly what is before you. You have
to understand it. One of the most dramatic challenges for
our capacity for our sovereignty is is China. No one
(26:55):
wants to say that communist China, not the Chinese people.
And one of the greatest impediments of us doing that
is the net zero policy, which is the industrialized Australia,
which has basically made it impossible for us to attract
any major manufacturing here, which has put an incredible impediment
(27:17):
over the perhaps of our nation to defend itself, which
has become a part of all your class of living crisis.
If you anything you are paying too much for, you're
going to attach to an excessive price of power, which
is attached to a crazy crusade.
Speaker 7 (27:36):
For net zero.
Speaker 12 (27:38):
Now, look, I've been fighting for this for so long,
but I think it's got to a point we've actually
got to say, okay, let's see where we vote. Or
more to the point, if you don't even want to vote,
if you don't even have you're so courageous about the climate,
but you won't even have the debate in the partment.
Speaker 7 (27:56):
I believe they won't even have the debate in the Parliament.
Speaker 12 (27:59):
But I'm hoping that people who are so courageous, so
emboldened with their virtue about changing the temperature of the globe,
which is a very good job tonight because it's freezing,
I want to see if they have that conviction that
goes all the way to their desire for the Parliament
of Australia to have the debate about zero. I'm disappointingly skeptic,
(28:24):
but I'm affirmed with my view that they won't even
let the Australian people have the debate, and that is
the disgrace.
Speaker 7 (28:31):
Nonetheless, I'm going to try it see how we go.
Speaker 4 (28:34):
Well, good on you for sticking with your conscious on
this and what a shame so many of your colleagues
will just not have that same debate.
Speaker 3 (28:42):
Let's see how it goes.
Speaker 4 (28:43):
As you said, Barnaby, the Prime Minister is in China
spreaking tourism and sport right now, while the US wants
to know what its allies would do in the event of.
Speaker 3 (28:52):
War in Taiwan.
Speaker 4 (28:53):
What's more important right now Albo's Gadae Australia campaign or
making sure that we're on the same page as out
number one hour, Well.
Speaker 12 (29:02):
People think to lose sight. I don't know what's happening
with miss Albin Easy. I think, honestly, I think there's
a sense that he's had his ego shunted by the
fact that, you know, in a ted of ted with
President Trump. But we've only got one nation that's a
democratic institution that's going to protect our democratic wave of life,
and that's the United States of America. There is China
(29:27):
is a total here in regime. China will tell you
anything you want to hear to get China to where
it wants to be. China has made quite obvious I
have to give them tenuense to honesty what they expect
Australia to do, and they're fourteen points of what their
aspirations for Australia are they've actually delivered to them.
Speaker 7 (29:47):
And ladies and gentlemen, they've actually told us what they want.
Speaker 12 (29:49):
And if you want to live in an Indo specific
that speaks Mandarin, that works under the auspices of a
total tair in regime, that works under the e of
communist China, then all you have to do is hope
and pray that America doesn't prevail in what it does now.
I'm hoping and praying that America does, and I want
(30:10):
to be part of the United States of America in
making sure we maintain our democratic wife rites in this nation.
Because Aneka and James. Have a look at Hong Kong
and what would happen to you, Danika Anti you James,
if we had the communist the communist Chinese running Australia,
you would either be taken off there that would be
(30:32):
your best.
Speaker 7 (30:32):
Hope, dead is your worst.
Speaker 12 (30:36):
And in between is incarceration because that is what happens.
Have a look at Hong Kong, that is what will
happen to you under a communist hotels here in regime
run by VJP, I mean.
Speaker 7 (30:51):
And so we have to be realist here that don't
fall for this crap that they're going to.
Speaker 12 (30:58):
You know, you roll into China handsomely, young man, and
you know, here's some dolls and is some flowers and
oh aren't you know, have.
Speaker 7 (31:07):
A cup of tea, and you know, we'll all say
the right things. It's all it's all biges. It's all biges.
They're not that stupid. They are working for the beliefs.
Speaker 12 (31:20):
Of a manifest destiny, of a totality in regime, not
the Chinese people, but in the current regime that resides
in China called the Communist Party of China. That is
the manifest destiny that the Australian people are up against,
and in that we are destroyed.
Speaker 7 (31:40):
It's all over for us.
Speaker 1 (31:42):
Well, you're quite right, Barnaby, that Australia's alliance with the
US guarantees our protection. But fortunately we've got Kevin Rudd
looking after that relationship, so everything, oh my god, should
be fine. We've now got details about a meeting that
Rudd had Donald Trump back in January. I want to
ask you about this Dublign Affairs and Trade says. Ambassador
(32:02):
Rudd met President Trump in the dining room of the
Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach on January
twenty five. Party. All right, I'm going to give us
on this dining room diplomacy by Kevin Rudd. Has it
resulted in much?
Speaker 7 (32:18):
Oh?
Speaker 12 (32:19):
Please God, please Kevin, don't tell me that you walk
up for the President of the United States unannounced in
a golf club.
Speaker 7 (32:28):
Please God, please do not tell me that you did that.
That does not work.
Speaker 12 (32:34):
Well, you can't, you can't look after Australia at the bay, Marie, Kevin.
Speaker 7 (32:40):
Actually you actually have to wait for a more formal setting.
I mean his idea that you know, he's getting spuds,
he's getting he's getting pump chicken.
Speaker 12 (32:52):
By the way, President of the United States, I'm Evans
from Australia.
Speaker 1 (32:57):
There.
Speaker 12 (32:58):
Oh my god, this sounds this sounds like the disaster
that it actually is. And and honestly it's it's comical,
except our nation's future relies on it. It's just go
make Kevin the ambassadors in the United Kingdom. You know,
(33:19):
as a key Starma would would love him. Look a
manual man love you don't make it to France.
Speaker 3 (33:28):
The United States it is.
Speaker 4 (33:31):
I wonder if he was lurking by the golf course,
you know, wait, waiting, observing, observing Trump's backstrength swing or something,
but choice.
Speaker 3 (33:38):
Good to have you on.
Speaker 4 (33:39):
Thanks so much for joining us on the show.
Speaker 1 (33:42):
Were coming up after the break. Defense bracing for Chinese
spy ships heading our way the head of Australia's largest
military exercise, Talisman Saber.
Speaker 3 (33:50):
We'll discuss that more with Michael Schubridge next Welcome back.
Speaker 8 (33:57):
Well.
Speaker 4 (33:57):
Defense is ready for Chinese spy ships to be heading
out way as Australia hosts its largest military exercise, Talisman Saber.
Although the threat of Chinese surveillance didn't seem to concern
Defense Industry Minister Pat Conroy.
Speaker 2 (34:11):
Well obviously observe their activities and monitor their presence around Australia,
but we'll also adjust how we conduct those exercises. People
observe these exercises to collect intelligence around procedures around the
electronic spectrum in the use of communications, and will adjust
(34:33):
accordingly so that we manage that leakage.
Speaker 4 (34:37):
Joining us now is Michael Schubridge, Director at Strategic Analysis Australia, Michael,
thank you.
Speaker 3 (34:42):
For joining us.
Speaker 4 (34:43):
What is China looking for and should we be worried
it is sending spy ships?
Speaker 13 (34:50):
Well, Denigro, I'm glad Pat Conroy is so relaxed. This
is people collect intelligence. This is China collecting military intelligence.
It's not people. It's Beijing's government sending a sophisticated electronic
vacuum cleaner on a big ship to hoover up a
whole lot of information about the vulnerabilities and strengths of Australian,
(35:13):
American and other partner military systems. We should be concerned
because China has been conducting a whole lot of very
high tempo military practice runs for invading Taiwan, and it
wants to know vulnerabilities in the militaries that might stop it.
Speaker 1 (35:31):
The Pentagon is pressing Australia to confirm what role we
would play in a potential war with China over Taiwan.
I've got two questions for you on this. First, what
does it say about the alliance that the US is
asking this question publicly? And second is the government right
to avoid giving an answer because they sure are trying
very hard to avoid a position on this.
Speaker 13 (35:54):
Well, James, who right it's really odd to have this
spill out into the public. As a real close ally
with America, these discussions are normally pretty stable and well understood,
so the fact they're asking the question publicly is a
sign of the state of the alliance. If you can't
do collective planning to deter China, you certainly aren't going
(36:18):
to be able to successfully collectively deter China. So I
absolutely understand why any Australian government will say a final
decision will be made on the circumstances at the time,
but we should be able to say, of course we
will engage in collective planning around a very likely scenario
a Taiwan conflict with our American partner and our other allies.
Speaker 4 (36:44):
Yes, baffling that the Prime Minister couldn't even bring himself
to say anything to that nature today. Now I want
to ask you about an interesting story where several sites
have been singled out as possible locations that would play
a critical role in a US war with China.
Speaker 3 (37:00):
Here in Australia.
Speaker 4 (37:00):
That includes the haraldy Holt Naval Communications Station at Northwest
Cape in Wa, the Joint Defense Facility Pine Gap in
the Northern Territory, and the Orcus Deep Space advanced radar
capability which is currently under construction in WA.
Speaker 3 (37:15):
These are just a few, Michael, But.
Speaker 4 (37:17):
The question is do we have the capacity to defend
those facilities?
Speaker 13 (37:24):
Well, Denika, this is why so many American troops along
with other partners like Japan and South Korea are turning
up in Australia with this big Talisman Saber exercise that's
happening right when the Prime Minister is in China. He
doesn't seem to know what the purpose of the exercise is,
but it's to be able to practice having military forces
(37:46):
operate out of Australia to protect Australia and to conduct
a military campaign in the region, most likely against China,
and by doing that, to demonstrate China shouldn't start a war. Unfortunately,
those faces you mentioned are way too vulnerable because our
government is not funding capabilities like Aaron miss isle and
(38:07):
counter drone defense to defend them.
Speaker 1 (38:10):
Michael, I want to show you a video released by
the Prime Minister on social media just a couple of
hours ago. Let me play it for you and then
I'll ask you about it.
Speaker 5 (38:18):
Here it is, I'm here in Shanghai, China supporting Australian businesses,
supporting Australian jobs and supporting our economy.
Speaker 1 (38:28):
We know that one in.
Speaker 5 (38:29):
Four of Australia's jobs depends upon free and fair trade
and our biggest export partner is China.
Speaker 1 (38:38):
Okay, so there's a Prime Minister just a couple of
hours ago, I wanted to show you because you've written
an article called making Australia the poster child for economic
dependence on Beijing is a mistake. And in that article
you write our pursuit of growing trade dependence on China
because it's just about Australian jobs apparently is making us
increasingly vulnerable to be and its coestion toolkit. Does the
(39:03):
Prime Minister not realize this or does he just think
he can outsmart Jijingping?
Speaker 13 (39:09):
Well, what a mystifying comment from the Prime minister that
we depend on free and open trade. Beijing does not
engage in free and open trade. Beijing hit Australia over
the head with twenty billion dollars of coercive trade barriers
that it's now removed. Meanwhile, it's hitting the rest of
the world over the head around rare earth access because
(39:30):
it's weaponized its economy. It wants countries to become more
dependent on it so that it can use its economy
as a weapon, and the Prime Minister is signing up
to have this done to Australia. It's embarrassing and it's
a national national interest error.
Speaker 4 (39:50):
So just going back then to your article then just
expand to us, is we're becoming increasingly vulnerable to Beijing
and it's.
Speaker 3 (40:00):
A coercion toolkit. What do you mean by.
Speaker 13 (40:03):
That, Well, we are growing both our exports to China
and our imports from China. Other countries in the developed
world in the OECD, the forty two member grouping of
democratic countries are far less vulnerable because they don't send
such a lot of their exports and take such a
(40:25):
lot of their imports from that one place, China. So
we diversified our trade a little bit to places like
Japan and South Korea at the height of those twenty
billion dollar bands from China. But we've gone back to
sleep and now we're trying to grow it all back
and more. In fact, the Treasurer is talking about growing
our trade relationships, so's the Prime Minister, so's the Trade minister.
(40:49):
And Beijing has built a bunch of sanctions and other
policy tools to control other countries who depend on it
for trade. That's what it's doing with rare earths right now.
Speaker 1 (41:02):
So, Michael, you wrote about the coercion issue, so I
understand that Australian government would be unlikely to speak out
strongly against China for fear of risking all of this trade.
But the other problem, of course, is if conflict breaks out.
We are so reliant upon China for all of the
products that we use just in daily life that potentially
(41:25):
our entire way of life could be paralyzed if conflict
broke out.
Speaker 13 (41:31):
Well exactly, and that's why other developed economies have diversified
their trade far more than we have now. Obviously iron
ore and coal. China's a massive market, but the rest
of the world makes things, the rest of the world
eats things, the rest of the world wants our quality products.
We are just being lazy and very shortsighted in doubling
(41:55):
down on our trade dependence with China when we know
China uses its economy as a weapon. The Europeans aren't
doing this, Japan's not doing this, America's certainly not doing this.
Speaker 4 (42:08):
But we are yeah to our own detriment as always,
Michael Schubridge, nice to catch up with you. Thanks very
much for joining us on the show this evening. We're
coming up after the break. Anti Semitism has been normalized
in middle class Britain, according to a new.
Speaker 1 (42:22):
Report, plus UK labor's push to define Islamophobia is facing
all sorts of issues. Who would have thought, Well, we'll
discussed that and more with Brendan O'Neil in just a moment. Well,
welcome back to the program. Anti Semitism has been quote
unquote normalized in middle class Britain. That's according to a
(42:44):
government backed report that found an increasing prejudice against Jews
in UK professions, cultural life and public services. Joining us
now from London is Brendan O'Neill, Spiked Online chief political reporter, Brendan,
it's always lovely to talk to you. Can you tell
us about what this report found and about the recommendations
expected to be tabled in Parliament later this week.
Speaker 14 (43:07):
Yeah, it's a really shocking report from what we know
so far. The whole report is coming out shortly, but
the snippets we've seen in the Telegraph are really disturbing.
You know, I should point out just in case there's
any kind of confusion. Linguistically, that middle class in the
UK pretty much refers to the upper middle classes. That's
how other people would refer to them. So we're not
talking about working class people. We're talking about culturally influential people,
(43:31):
people who run art galleries, who work in the public sector,
people who are well educated and pretty well paid, the
professional classes, and in those classes, anti Semitism has been normalized.
It's absolutely true. This is something I've clopped for a
long time. So on a lot of those very noisy
anti Israel demonstrations, there's always an unholy alliance of affluent
(43:51):
socialists and radical Islamists. That's really the pincer movement that
we've seen that is demonizing the Jewish nation and very
often demizing Jewish people too. So, you know, this is
the section of society that loves to think it's on
the right side of history, which says black lives matter,
which says trans women are women. It has all the
supposedly correct views, but when it comes to Jewish people,
(44:13):
it is very sniffy and often quite openly racist, and
it's pretty shocking.
Speaker 3 (44:18):
Well, you know what else is shocking.
Speaker 4 (44:19):
Activist group Palestine Action has been prescribed as a terror
group and it's actually prompted UK wide protests at the
very decision. More than seventy people were arrested this weekend
alone at protests in England and Wales.
Speaker 3 (44:33):
Brendan, you know, help us understand this.
Speaker 4 (44:35):
The group is deemed a terror group and people are
upset about it.
Speaker 14 (44:40):
You know, Palestine Action, actually they perfectly. Some are what
we've just been talking about, which is that upper middle class,
bigoted content for the world's only Jewish country and also
in some instances for all Jewish people. You know, it's
been prescribed as a terrorist organization. As you say, it
carries out all these stunts to raise awareness about what
(45:01):
it refers to as the genocide in Gaza, what most
of us refer to as the war between Israel and
Hamas you know, in May, just a couple of months ago,
three masked men from Palestine Action went to Stamford Hill,
which is a very Jewish part of London. They smashed
up a Jewish business, They sprayed it with red paint,
They left shattered glass everywhere. They completely terrorized that Jewish
(45:23):
community and the next day a lot of the Orthodox
Jews who lived there, say, this is just like what
our ancestors tried to escape in Europe, shattered glass, broken glass,
destroyed businesses, that kind of bigoted graffiti that was there.
This is the group we're talking about. This is a
group that has terrorized actual Jewish community. So when I
see middle class activists and labor politicians and guardian journalists
(45:48):
defending this movement, to me, it sounds like they're defending
something very dark.
Speaker 1 (45:52):
Indeed, so Brendan, When UK Jews are being terrorized, it's
obvious that the Labor government would be worried about Islamophobia. Right.
The DEPUTYPM has backed down on plans though for a
new definition of Islamophobia, which they've been working on for
quite some time, after Free Speech campaign has threatened legal action.
(46:13):
Just talk us through what's happening there and what the
government's trying to achieve with this.
Speaker 14 (46:19):
The government is obsessed with Islamophobia. It's the only thing
that this Labor government really talks about. Even though we're
living through one of the worst crises of anti Semitism
of recent times, they're still banging on about so called Islamophobia.
So yes, the Free Speech Union has insisted that the
government must open up this consultation and involve more voices,
(46:39):
including voices that are concerned about the free speech consequences,
because you know, there is of course such a thing
as as anti Muslim bigotry that does exist and that
should be tackled. Of course it should. But Islamophobia is
something else. Islamophobia is really just blasphemy law by the
back door. It's about criminalizing or demonizing any criticism of Islam,
(47:00):
any criticism of Islamic practices, even criticizing radical Islam and
Islamist terrorism becomes more difficult when you have this regime
of censorship around this one religion in particular. So what
the government is proposing to introduce is pretty terrifying, which
is a new blasphemy law that would ring fence Islam
from any form of criticism or humor or mockery. And
(47:20):
I think the Free Speech Union is absolutely right to
say that this is a real attack on our free
speech rights.
Speaker 3 (47:26):
Absolutely, it really is extraordinary, Brendan.
Speaker 4 (47:29):
We want to change pace a little bit and ask
you about the royals. King Charles and Prince Harry's senior
aides have reportedly held a secret peace summit together to
try and resolve this bit of royal feud.
Speaker 3 (47:40):
But at the.
Speaker 4 (47:41):
Same time, Princess Kate made an appearance over the weekend
at Wimbledon and she was greeted to at rapturous applause.
Let's have a look, Oh, I wonder what's going on
(48:01):
in Montesa and Monticito at the moment. I'm sure Harry
and Meghan would have hated Daz saying that Brendan.
Speaker 3 (48:06):
But you know, in regards to this private meeting, do
you really think we're ever going to say a reunion?
Speaker 14 (48:13):
It's hard to tell, isn't it. But that footage of
Kate being given such a rousing round of applause, it
really does demonstrate that the vast majority of British people
are team Wales. They're on the side of the Prince
and Princess of Wales and they're not team Montecito. They
have no interest in Harry and Meghan, you know, the
John and Yoko of the royal family some people. But
you know, it's you know, fair play to King Charles.
(48:36):
He wants to make amends with his son. I'm sure
he probably misses him. You know, he is his father
at the end.
Speaker 7 (48:41):
Of the day.
Speaker 14 (48:41):
But let's not overlook that Prince Harry has behaved terribly.
This is a man who goes on and on about
people invading his privacy, and yet he wrote a four
hundred page memoir that tells the whole world about what
King Charles is like, what Prince William is like, about
what they said in private, about their text messages, about
apparently William wants pushing Harry to the floor, everything about them.
(49:05):
He invaded their previously, and that was unforgivable I think.
Speaker 1 (49:08):
Yeah, Brendan O'Neill, very appreciative of your time tonight, Thanks
for joining.
Speaker 4 (49:12):
Us, and thank you for your time this evening on
denecra and James will be back again next Sunday at
seven pm.
Speaker 1 (49:18):
Don't Go Anywhere. Coming up in just a moment is
calor Bond with the Sunday Showdown. Good Night,
Hi von Skynese Australia.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
This is Danika and James.
Speaker 3 (00:05):
Hello and welcome to the show tonight.
Speaker 4 (00:07):
As the Prime Minister begins his China trip, the United
States wants to know where we stand in the event
of war with Taiwan.
Speaker 3 (00:14):
Pauline Hanson will weigh in shortly.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
Several Australian sites have been named as locations that will
play a critical role in a US war with China,
But could we defend them? Michael Schubridge joins.
Speaker 4 (00:25):
Us and Barnaby Joyce will tell us why he is
wasting no time pushing for Net zero twenty fifty to
be dumped.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
But first, as war drums beat between China and the US,
Anthony Albanezi is in Shanghai looking to strengthen our ties
with China. The PM arrived in China today for the
start of a six day trip, his second official visit
to the Chinese nation, where he received a red carpet welcome.
Speaker 5 (00:51):
It's a great honor to represent Australia in international forums
and this is an important engagement that we will have.
In the fact that I am leading a very large
business delegation speaks to the importance of the economic relationship
between Australia and China.
Speaker 4 (01:10):
Yeah, Anthony Arbanese's agenda today boosting Chinese tourism.
Speaker 3 (01:14):
He launched the Come.
Speaker 4 (01:15):
Sagoday campaign aimed at increasing the number of Chinese visitors
to Australia, which are currently eight point five percent below
twenty nineteen pre pandemic numbers.
Speaker 1 (01:26):
There are so many ironies with this, yes, right, But
before we get to the ironies, maybe we should just
show a little part of the Sagaday campaign that Anthony
Albanesi is launching. Have a look at this.
Speaker 3 (01:39):
Gooday, Jill got to play badaha pleading Coryda.
Speaker 1 (01:46):
Okay. So we're saying to the Chinese, come say today,
at the very same time they are via their military
conducting surveillance of our northern shores while military games are
being conducted. Which brings me to the second irony this trip.
Albanesi is in Shanghai seeking closer ties at the very
time we are hosting wargames off Darwin with nineteen other
(02:09):
nations practicing for the event that China invade Taiwan and
we go to war with China. He's looking to strengthen
relationships with China while the US wonders allowed whether or
not we would join with them in a war against China,
which brings me to the final thing. He's got a
six day trip with China when he can't organize a
(02:32):
single phone call with our major ally, Donald Trump. So
I understand the importance of a trade mission. China are
clearly a very important trade partner, but the optics of
this are not good at all, and you start to wonder,
you know, whether ALBINESI is deliberately using strategic confusion. My
concern is that there's nothing strategic about it. The government
(02:54):
is just confused as to where their allegiances ultimately lie.
Speaker 3 (02:57):
I completely agree.
Speaker 4 (02:59):
A g I've got to say, when you look at
the pictures like this, the handsome boy from Australia, he's
really laying it on thick and fast. Over there is
and he James, he's loving it right now. Why because
he's at ease, He's comfortable. This is where he feels
most comfortable, Not of course, in the United States, not
in the White House, where he risks being publicly humiliated
(03:19):
or questioned on the world stage. No, no, he's happy
he's over there. The funniest part about all of this
was that the Prime minister actually held a press conference
in China today and this is what he said. I
just want to give you a quote. He said, quote
people to people relations are very important. Those people to
people relations help build understanding.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
Well, blow blow me down.
Speaker 4 (03:42):
Gee, wouldn't it be fantastic if our Prime minister actually
took on what advice he's dishing out, that people to
people relations are really important. What a shame our Prime
minister can't get that people.
Speaker 3 (03:54):
People to relation with Donald Trump.
Speaker 4 (03:57):
But it's his unwillingness to stand up to China that's
the real problem out of all this. I mean, if
it was only a couple of months ago that China
was conducting those live fire drills jays off the coast
of Australia, and thank goodness for those pilots from Virgin
Australia were actually able to notify, hey, something's wrong here.
But it's not just that, I mean, this goes way
before that. It's the tariff's of Australian goods. It is
(04:19):
the near missus, the military near misses. And on each occasion,
Anthony Albernzi has been so weak he refuses to stand
up to China, refuses to stand up for our values,
refuses to stand up for our security. Yet when he's
over there, he's smiling, he's shaking hands, he's all happy.
And I mean, look at the friendly speech he gave it,
the John Curtin arration. We can't forget about that.
Speaker 1 (04:41):
It's interesting you said that Albinizi is over there laying
it on thick. You're right. But more pertinent is China
are laying it on thick for Anthony Elbanzi because China
knows that if they can divide the Albanzi government from
the Trump administration, it advantages China's expansion plans in this
area of the world. And you just wonder whether Anthony
(05:03):
Alberanzi thinks he can outsmart Jijingping, whether he thinks he's
wiser and he's able to maneuver, and history would prove
that would not be the case. So it's quite confusing
as to what Anthony Albanesi actually believes, let alone how
he's trying to position Australia.
Speaker 4 (05:18):
I don't think he knows even what he believes to
be honest.
Speaker 3 (05:21):
At this point, and plus you alluded to this before.
Speaker 4 (05:24):
There's a whole other issue at stake here. While Anthony
Aarberanesi is in China. Our US allies are pressuring his
government for clarity around whose side we would take in
the event of a conflict between the world's two superpowers.
Speaker 1 (05:37):
The Sydney Morning Herald has quoted an anonymous senior US
defense official saying, and I quote, there's a conversation this
is between the US and Australia about command structure, about
alignment of assets. We would want in any scenario, a
clear sense of what we can expect from Australia. Well,
despite our alliance with the US, the Prime Minister refused
(05:59):
to say which he would be on. Take a look, what.
Speaker 4 (06:03):
Role would Australia play if the US and China went
to war over Taiwan.
Speaker 5 (06:09):
Look, our aim of investing in our capability and as
well investing in our relationships is about advancing peace and
security in our region. That's our objective and that is
why we'll invest in our region.
Speaker 4 (06:29):
Meanwhile, Defense Industry Minister Pat Conroy was even more on
the fence.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
The sole power to commit Australia to war or to
allow our territory to be used for a conflict is
the elected government of the day. That is our position.
Sovereignty will always be prioritized and that will continue to
be our position.
Speaker 6 (06:48):
That's not the question that's being asked. It's not about sovereignty.
It's how we would react if that scenario was established.
Are we giving a clear answer behind closed doors too?
Speaker 2 (06:59):
We don't engage in high patheticals.
Speaker 1 (07:00):
I discuss hypotheticals.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
But secondly, the decision to commit Australian troops to a
conflict will be made by the government of the day,
not in advance.
Speaker 4 (07:11):
What's very clear is Labor seems to be needing some
gentle reminding of what an alliance is.
Speaker 3 (07:17):
Don't forget we're actually part of ASAS.
Speaker 4 (07:20):
Okay, we have an obligation under the Anzas Treaty.
Speaker 3 (07:23):
We've made this commitment.
Speaker 4 (07:24):
We are still part of ASAS, believe it or not,
and as such, if we're not going to then.
Speaker 3 (07:29):
You may as well just tear up the agreement.
Speaker 4 (07:31):
But right now it's clear that Anthony Abanezi cannot give
an answer each way.
Speaker 3 (07:35):
I don't think it's an.
Speaker 4 (07:36):
Unreasonable question or an unreasonable ask right now. The reality
is that Taiwan is indeed facing constant military threats and
intimidation from China.
Speaker 3 (07:46):
It was only a.
Speaker 4 (07:47):
Few weeks ago that the US Secretary of Defense Pete
Hegseth even reiterated just how severe the situation is.
Speaker 3 (07:53):
Right now.
Speaker 4 (07:54):
I read a very interesting article by Aspy. The author
was Jennifer Parker, who is a long time war Fair officer.
She wrote about how even if China was to take
on Taiwan by force, it's not just going to be
a straightforward island conflict in Taiwan. It is going to spread,
more specifically into an Indo Pacific conflict. So naturally, what
(08:14):
does that mean. It means that Australia would be at risk.
There would be strategic implications for Australia. Yet our Prime
minister's asked about it and he just seemingly doesn't have
a position.
Speaker 3 (08:25):
James, he doesn't know.
Speaker 4 (08:26):
I mean, nobody wants war, but why is he unable
to articulate it.
Speaker 3 (08:31):
We have an alliance with the United States.
Speaker 1 (08:34):
The problem is that he can't articulate it because he's
standing in Shanghai. That's not the place you articulate that policy.
It should have been clear before he went to China,
so he's put himself in this position. The other thing
that's interesting is the assistant Defense Industry Minister, saying he
won't speak about hypotheticals. Well, China's designs on Taiwan are
hardly hypothetical. Our own defense has said that they expect
(09:00):
some sort of invasion by about twenty twenty seven, which
is in the very near future. So this is a
live question. It's not some airy, fairy hypothetical people should know.
The other thing about this is the Trump administration believes
in peace through strength. There was a story the other
day about Donald Trump warning Vladimir Putin, if you do
too much in Ukraine, we will bomb the hell out
(09:21):
of you. He's apparently said the same thing to Xijingping.
He said the same thing to the ayatolers. So that's
why America wants a public commitment from Australia. If China
move on Taiwan, Australia would stand with the US. That's
a deterrent to China acting because they know that there
are strong nations who would stand up to them. But
failing to get that plays into China's hands, where they're
(09:42):
starting to calculate, well, maybe we could do this and
we wouldn't face as much opposition as we might. So
it makes sense for America to want a commitment from Australia.
And in addition, of course, the US are making quite
an investment in terms of nuclear technology, in terms of
prioritizing subs for Australi over subs for themselves. America want
(10:03):
a return on investment. They want a guarantee up front
that we will be a strong ally and they're just
not getting that from our government.
Speaker 7 (10:12):
Right.
Speaker 3 (10:12):
But they're not getting a lot from our government.
Speaker 8 (10:13):
Now.
Speaker 3 (10:13):
They've asked us to lift our dispense spending. We're not
doing that. Now.
Speaker 4 (10:17):
We hear a pause that the Pentagon is considering making
Australia pay more under the orcer. Still, we don't even
know if there is going to be an orcer.
Speaker 3 (10:24):
Still.
Speaker 4 (10:24):
There is so many unknowns, and the one common denominator
in all of this is the fact that Anthony Arberenesi
has been unable to get this meeting with Donald Trump
and Donald Trump's.
Speaker 3 (10:33):
Meeting with people, James.
Speaker 4 (10:34):
There have been leaders of multiple countries around the world
going over to the White House. It's not that Donald
Trump is not taking anything. We actually, Skyne you spoke
to John Howard about this over the weekend.
Speaker 3 (10:46):
Really interesting comments. This is what the former PM said, you.
Speaker 9 (10:49):
Don't treat a relationship as important as according to the
charge whim of a meeting on the sidelines of another meeting.
You just ring up and say I want to come
and see you in Washington.
Speaker 3 (11:03):
That's what you were doing.
Speaker 9 (11:04):
Yeah, I mean I used to go to see President
Bush and before that President Clinton. I in good relationship
with both of them, and I just think it's poor
form to say the least is he scared of meeting him.
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
Yeah, John Howard is absolutely right, and I don't know
whether it's a case at Anthony albaneze he can't get
a meeting with the leader of the United States. If
he really wanted one, he would be able to organize it. Surely,
the United States and Australia have always been close allies.
The US have a big interest in a relationship with Australia.
If Albanezey wanted a meeting, he could get himself to
(11:43):
Washington and have a meeting. The fact that hasn't happened,
I think says more about Anthony Alberanzi than it does
about Donald Trump.
Speaker 3 (11:49):
Absolutely, I agree.
Speaker 4 (11:50):
Well, let's bring in One Nation leader Pauline Hansen, for
more on this now, Senator, good to see you, as always,
thank you very much for joining us. We now have
the US asking legitimate questions about what role its allies
would play in any potential conflict with Taiwan. The Prime
Minister can't say the US wants us to lift defense spending,
and on top of that, we could now pay more
(12:11):
for submarines under ORCAS. And yet we've got the Prime
Minister flapping about in China. What message is Labour sending
to the US right.
Speaker 10 (12:18):
Now basically saying we're not interested in what you have
to say, and we'll do our own thing, and we're
going to have say and were our futial eyes.
Speaker 8 (12:30):
I think it's a big mistake on Anthony Obnissi and
the Labor Party.
Speaker 10 (12:34):
America has every right to ask where are they going
to go with Taiwan? If China does invade Taiwan, where
does that leave us? They have every right to us
at considering the Orcus Agreement and considering America is thinking
about sending us some of their subs, considering that, you
know the rest of the world would love them.
Speaker 8 (12:55):
How would they use it?
Speaker 10 (12:56):
How would this government use it in the best interest
of the do that we have with America and our
ally and agreement with them. He's not prepared to even
say that. I don't, As I've said constantly all the time,
I don't trust this government. Alban Easy is a socialist,
have no doubt about it. And I've read the White Paper.
(13:17):
The Labor White Paper was about fifteen twenty years ago,
and I was shocked by it's basically opening up our
borders to Asia and that we would invite them down
here in drives, they wouldn't have to get visas to
actually come.
Speaker 8 (13:30):
Down to this country, and that they.
Speaker 10 (13:32):
Were encouraging Australians to learn to speak Asian languages. Now,
if that's Labour's future for Australia, I'm in fear of
that because I don't want it. I'll be upfront and honest,
I don't want it. I don't want us to be
Asian eyes. And I've always said that from nineteen ninety
six in my first maiden speech to Parliament.
Speaker 8 (13:51):
So it really concerns me where.
Speaker 10 (13:53):
His head is at. He has an obligation or national
security to tell the people what he thinks. We've seen
so many changes of primecists in this country, especially from
rad rad Tony Abbott, then we had Turnbull, then we
had Morrison. And to leave this in the hands of
a prime mister solely at his whim, I think it's
a big mistake.
Speaker 8 (14:13):
I think when it.
Speaker 10 (14:14):
Comes to something like this defense, I think the two
major political parties should have a long term goal and
objective of where we lie as a nation and where
we will stand on these issues. We've seen changeover and
turnover of too many prime minsists in this country. I
would like to see a united front that would give
us long term vision for this country and security to
(14:36):
the people.
Speaker 1 (14:38):
So, Senator, we've got Anthony Albanezi in China at the moment,
he's spooking tourism and trade while the US alliance seems
to be at an all time low. As I said earlier,
Anthony Albanese's got a six day tour of China. Can't
organize a phone call with the United States. The optics
are not good, are they?
Speaker 8 (15:00):
No, they're not at all good. And that's what we said.
Speaker 10 (15:03):
I think he saw Selinski get addressing down by Trump
and he thought, I'm not going to go through that.
I will actually not get in touch. I won't have
a visit with him, and you know it is a
matter of just picking up the phone. I traveled with him,
and I've said this repeatedly. I traveled with Albanezi overseas.
I saw his interaction with leaders over.
Speaker 8 (15:25):
There, and it's not good.
Speaker 10 (15:27):
He has not got leadership qualities about him to interact
with these people. He might have improved over the years,
but my impression of him was not very high at all.
So it does concern me greatly. And he's over there
and he's trade deals that he's doing with China. You know,
the fact is he's booting them. This is a country
(15:48):
who has carbon emissions over thirty percent and yet is destroying,
decarbonizing Australia and de industrializing US as a nation. He's
more concerned about them having trade with us then what
he is is looking after our own industries and manufacturing
here in Australia.
Speaker 8 (16:06):
So he's not working for us.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
I got to ask you, Senator, you just said that
you were not impressed with Anthony Albanese's interactions with other leaders.
Can you expand on that? What have you seen that
made you feel so doubtful about his ability to relate
to other world leaders?
Speaker 3 (16:26):
Well, it was.
Speaker 8 (16:27):
What'sn't the world leaders.
Speaker 10 (16:28):
It was the leaders in the nation, the governors in India,
and that's where we traveled all across India. I just
didn't feel that he interacted with them. I think he
was very poor in his conversation, the questions, even his
answers to their questions. And actually, I will tell you this,
Melton Dick was on that delegation with me and a
(16:51):
couple of other members of Parliament and I actually Milton
Dick impressed me far more than what Anthony Albanize he did.
And I've told him, I said, you should have been
Prime mins, not Anthony ALBANIZI.
Speaker 4 (17:02):
Yeah, it's fascinating to hear perspectives from people about what
our own prime minister is actually like on the international stage.
So there you go, Senator. I want to ask you
about Treasurer Jim Chalmers. He has outlined the agenda for
the upcoming Economic Reforum Reform round Table here he was
on Sky News this morning.
Speaker 11 (17:21):
I mean, I don't mind what you call it. I
think the productivity challenge is central to our economic reform efforts.
It already is, but we're looking to build consensus on
the next steps in that agenda, and so I think
productivity and economic reform are inseparable. I set up the
press club and the Prime Minister's set out the press
Club that this is all about building consensus, building on
(17:44):
the progress that we've made, building on our substantial agenda.
Productivity will be the major focus, but it won't be
the only focus.
Speaker 4 (17:53):
Senator, Surely this round table is redundant. Productivity is low.
The RBA this week left rates on hold because it
is not satisfied that inflation is under control, despite Labour
telling us that's slayd the inflation dragon.
Speaker 3 (18:06):
What is the point of this talk fest?
Speaker 10 (18:10):
Well, it's trying to appease the Australian public. Oh look,
we're trying to do something about this. So we're going
to draw all these people in the CEOs of these
big companies. But it's their productivity in the decline that
we are seeing now. And we've lost a lot of
industries and manufacturing in Australia and we're going to lose
a lot more. We've seen thirty thousand small businesses go under.
(18:32):
It's due to the carbon credits. Oh not carbon credits,
but you know the net zero that we're headed down
that path it's industrial relations policies that's actually destroying people
for non more workers. All these extra days that people
have a year, you know, take more time off.
Speaker 8 (18:50):
Now we'd be down to about it won't belong before.
Speaker 10 (18:52):
We're going to be having thirty or thirty five days
hours a week and work and then that's going to
be more productivity. Gun, you've got members of the bureaucrats
who are working from home. That's a loss of productivity.
At the farming sector, lots of productivity. So it's through
the government policies that we've seen lots of productivity in
(19:14):
this country. I think it's just a talk fest. I
don't think that anything will come out of it. And
he talks about economic stability of the country. They they
have actually driven up the debt in this country and
it's going to be one point two billion within the
next year. Trillion, I should say billion. One point two
trillion in debt in the next year to two years.
Speaker 1 (19:37):
Yeah, for a second, you excited this all, senator when
you said billion, we thought, hey, we're doing okay, but no,
it's trillion.
Speaker 10 (19:42):
Unfortunately, it's wishful thinking.
Speaker 1 (19:46):
If only you'd been rights call of a senator Pauline Hanson,
thanks for joining us tonight. It's always a delight.
Speaker 7 (19:53):
Well.
Speaker 1 (19:53):
The man who co founded the Greens Party faces expulsion
over comments on his Facebook page about gender issues. Drew
Hutton wrote on Facebook that while he supported trans rights,
he also supported the rights of women.
Speaker 7 (20:07):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (20:07):
When he refused to delete the post, along with hundreds
of comments, many of which were critical of trans ideology,
he was suspended by the party.
Speaker 3 (20:16):
His fate will be decided at a Greens meeting.
Speaker 4 (20:19):
Would you believe next Sunday they're taking it to a meeting, James.
Speaker 1 (20:22):
There is a fair bit to unpack in this story. Look,
I'll start with this. I think if you're trying to
stand for trans rights and women's rights, you're in trouble
right from the beginning, because those two are clearly in conflict.
And so if you are going to advocate that men
can become women, then you can have a very difficult
time standing at the same time for women's rights. So,
(20:46):
while I'm going to sympathize, as I'm sure you will
with Drew Hutton's experience with the Greens, the party you
co founded, I think he's pretty foolish for trying to
advocate for trans rights and women's rights all at the
same time. That's a loser position from the beginning over
to you.
Speaker 3 (21:02):
No, look, I completely agree.
Speaker 4 (21:03):
Firstly, I'll start off by saying I thought that the
Left were very tolerant of everything. I'm tolerant of each
other's points and perspective, but once again, the Left, they're
really always shown up for who they are. Firstly, the
Greens do not support free speech clearly with this instance,
and I understand your comments about Drew, I do agree,
but most importantly, they do not support women's rights. I
(21:25):
actually think this presents a bigger problem and one that
we are seeing play out across the country right now
because Drew Hutton and his post he said, unfortunately in
the Greens at present, that would seem to make me
a transfobe based on the argument, and that's exactly the
problem right now. If you even dare to speak up
about any gender based problems, you're a trans phobe, You're
(21:48):
a bigot. We have seen people literally been taken to
court over these matters. James Giggle versus Tickle. For one,
it's the Victorian Liberal Party. It's not just the Green.
Speaker 3 (21:59):
And the Victorian Party. We've seen court cases. But this
is the problem.
Speaker 4 (22:02):
As soon as you start speaking about women's rights, and
it's very important to talk about it. You've got trans players,
for example, playing in the women's league. You've got selfie
d laws across the country whereby you don't have to
go and get your gender change on your birth certificate.
Legally you can just say Hi, I'm a man, but
I identify as a female. Then suddenly you can gain
access to women's spaces, you can go into toilets, you
(22:24):
can go into showers, you can go into changing rooms.
But the soon you do it, you challenge that narrative
you're a transphobe. And this I just think presents a
bigger argument because the argument was with the comments that
were being made on that particular Facebook post or wherever
it was on social.
Speaker 3 (22:40):
Media about the comments he was making. And that's the problem.
Speaker 1 (22:44):
The other thing you've got here is you've got who
are the Greens. They are a far left Marxist party
identifying as an environmental movement, and that's creating. That's another throating, right, yeah,
and they have changed a great deal in the thirty
three years since Drew Hutton and Bob Brown. There's another irony.
The Greens led by a Brown, but in the thirty
(23:05):
three years since they were founded, they have clearly morphed
from what was an environmental party to now a social
justice party, which leads me to another thought. There's not
much justice within the Greens. Drew Hutton was suspended back
in twenty twenty three over these Facebook posts, and the
funny thing about the way the Greens work is if
you're suspended from the Greens party, you cannot appeal your suspension,
(23:27):
so they held him indefinitely in this sort of limber purgatry,
this limbo where he was suspended, couldn't appeal it, and
it was only when he complained about having been suspended
for almost two years they finally expelled him. Having been expelled,
now he can appeal his expulsion. I would have thought
being expelled from the Greens was a badge of honor,
but apparently it wants back in, so you should.
Speaker 3 (23:49):
Wear it as a badge of honor.
Speaker 4 (23:50):
Now, before we get to our next guest, we've got
to go through this topic, James. Australians will need to
verify their age when logged into Google or other search
engines before the end of the year.
Speaker 1 (23:58):
The idea comes from Australia's Safety Commissioner. She's full of
great ideas, who seems determined to use the worthy goal
of protecting children online as an excuse to undermine the
privacy of every citizen.
Speaker 4 (24:12):
Yeah, we heard about the banning under sixteen year olds
from social media.
Speaker 3 (24:15):
Clearly that was just the beginning this.
Speaker 4 (24:17):
It's a backdoor really for this big brother style of
surveillance because the types of ID checks that they could
use here on Google James a government issued ID, they
could do facial scanning to estimate your age, and they.
Speaker 3 (24:29):
Could also look at your previous search history.
Speaker 4 (24:31):
They're going to check out what you're looking at all
under the guise of safety. Now, remember Labor told us
the same thing when they wanted to rush through that
miscommunication bill, but to target what people could see online
on social media.
Speaker 3 (24:43):
It's all for your safety, it's all for you. We're
all trying to help you. We know exactly what they're trying.
Speaker 1 (24:47):
To do here, and we all warned that trying to
protect children online. As I said, it's a worthy goal.
But if you're going to use age verification, it's not
just children who have to verify their age adults have
to verify their age as well, and so now you've
got a privacy issue. What's interesting to me about the
Google thing is how few people know about it because
we were sold a ban on children using social media,
(25:11):
but most people wouldn't assume that Google is social media.
Google is a search engine that all of us rely
upon constantly to undertake all manner of normal daily activities.
Now for this to be snuck through in not in legislation,
but in regulation of codes for Internet and big tech
companies by the e Safety Commissioner, I think is quite
(25:32):
devious because most Australians don't know this is happening. By
the end of the year, you will have to have
some form of identification. The tech companies will decide it
to use Google search engine. That is a massive change,
and to my knowledge, I'm pretty sure this has not
happened anywhere else in the world.
Speaker 4 (25:49):
Big Brother's watching, James, big brother is watching.
Speaker 1 (25:53):
Well, if indecision was a renewable energy source, the Liberal
Party could power the entire Eastern Seaboard. Three months ago,
Libs paraded nuclear power as their flagship energy policy to
reach net zero. Now, well, they're not sure about nuclear power.
Or about net zero, or about quotas or pre selection
or party structure of it. I digress. One man who
suffers from no such crisis of belief is Barnaby Joyce,
(26:16):
and he joins us. Now, Barnaby, thanks for your time
this evening. When Parliament resumes later this month, you will
introduce a private member's bill to end what you've called
the lunatic crusade toward net zero. Why are you doing
this rather than the coalition?
Speaker 12 (26:34):
Well, I just look, I'm a realist. I don't think
you get support, but I think it's important. He is
showing people understand exactly what is before you. You have
to understand it. One of the most dramatic challenges for
our capacity for our sovereignty is is China. No one
(26:55):
wants to say that communist China, not the Chinese people.
And one of the greatest impediments of us doing that
is the net zero policy, which is the industrialized Australia,
which has basically made it impossible for us to attract
any major manufacturing here, which has put an incredible impediment
(27:17):
over the perhaps of our nation to defend itself, which
has become a part of all your class of living crisis.
If you anything you are paying too much for, you're
going to attach to an excessive price of power, which
is attached to a crazy crusade.
Speaker 7 (27:36):
For net zero.
Speaker 12 (27:38):
Now, look, I've been fighting for this for so long,
but I think it's got to a point we've actually
got to say, okay, let's see where we vote. Or
more to the point, if you don't even want to vote,
if you don't even have you're so courageous about the climate,
but you won't even have the debate in the partment.
Speaker 7 (27:56):
I believe they won't even have the debate in the Parliament.
Speaker 12 (27:59):
But I'm hoping that people who are so courageous, so
emboldened with their virtue about changing the temperature of the globe,
which is a very good job tonight because it's freezing,
I want to see if they have that conviction that
goes all the way to their desire for the Parliament
of Australia to have the debate about zero. I'm disappointingly skeptic,
(28:24):
but I'm affirmed with my view that they won't even
let the Australian people have the debate, and that is
the disgrace.
Speaker 7 (28:31):
Nonetheless, I'm going to try it see how we go.
Speaker 4 (28:34):
Well, good on you for sticking with your conscious on
this and what a shame so many of your colleagues
will just not have that same debate.
Speaker 3 (28:42):
Let's see how it goes.
Speaker 4 (28:43):
As you said, Barnaby, the Prime Minister is in China
spreaking tourism and sport right now, while the US wants
to know what its allies would do in the event of.
Speaker 3 (28:52):
War in Taiwan.
Speaker 4 (28:53):
What's more important right now Albo's Gadae Australia campaign or
making sure that we're on the same page as out
number one hour, Well.
Speaker 12 (29:02):
People think to lose sight. I don't know what's happening
with miss Albin Easy. I think, honestly, I think there's
a sense that he's had his ego shunted by the
fact that, you know, in a ted of ted with
President Trump. But we've only got one nation that's a
democratic institution that's going to protect our democratic wave of life,
and that's the United States of America. There is China
(29:27):
is a total here in regime. China will tell you
anything you want to hear to get China to where
it wants to be. China has made quite obvious I
have to give them tenuense to honesty what they expect
Australia to do, and they're fourteen points of what their
aspirations for Australia are they've actually delivered to them.
Speaker 7 (29:47):
And ladies and gentlemen, they've actually told us what they want.
Speaker 12 (29:49):
And if you want to live in an Indo specific
that speaks Mandarin, that works under the auspices of a
total tair in regime, that works under the e of
communist China, then all you have to do is hope
and pray that America doesn't prevail in what it does now.
I'm hoping and praying that America does, and I want
(30:10):
to be part of the United States of America in
making sure we maintain our democratic wife rites in this nation.
Because Aneka and James. Have a look at Hong Kong
and what would happen to you, Danika Anti you James,
if we had the communist the communist Chinese running Australia,
you would either be taken off there that would be
(30:32):
your best.
Speaker 7 (30:32):
Hope, dead is your worst.
Speaker 12 (30:36):
And in between is incarceration because that is what happens.
Have a look at Hong Kong, that is what will
happen to you under a communist hotels here in regime
run by VJP, I mean.
Speaker 7 (30:51):
And so we have to be realist here that don't
fall for this crap that they're going to.
Speaker 12 (30:58):
You know, you roll into China handsomely, young man, and
you know, here's some dolls and is some flowers and
oh aren't you know, have.
Speaker 7 (31:07):
A cup of tea, and you know, we'll all say
the right things. It's all it's all biges. It's all biges.
They're not that stupid. They are working for the beliefs.
Speaker 12 (31:20):
Of a manifest destiny, of a totality in regime, not
the Chinese people, but in the current regime that resides
in China called the Communist Party of China. That is
the manifest destiny that the Australian people are up against,
and in that we are destroyed.
Speaker 7 (31:40):
It's all over for us.
Speaker 1 (31:42):
Well, you're quite right, Barnaby, that Australia's alliance with the
US guarantees our protection. But fortunately we've got Kevin Rudd
looking after that relationship, so everything, oh my god, should
be fine. We've now got details about a meeting that
Rudd had Donald Trump back in January. I want to
ask you about this Dublign Affairs and Trade says. Ambassador
(32:02):
Rudd met President Trump in the dining room of the
Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach on January
twenty five. Party. All right, I'm going to give us
on this dining room diplomacy by Kevin Rudd. Has it
resulted in much?
Speaker 7 (32:18):
Oh?
Speaker 12 (32:19):
Please God, please Kevin, don't tell me that you walk
up for the President of the United States unannounced in
a golf club.
Speaker 7 (32:28):
Please God, please do not tell me that you did that.
That does not work.
Speaker 12 (32:34):
Well, you can't, you can't look after Australia at the bay, Marie, Kevin.
Speaker 7 (32:40):
Actually you actually have to wait for a more formal setting.
I mean his idea that you know, he's getting spuds,
he's getting he's getting pump chicken.
Speaker 12 (32:52):
By the way, President of the United States, I'm Evans
from Australia.
Speaker 1 (32:57):
There.
Speaker 12 (32:58):
Oh my god, this sounds this sounds like the disaster
that it actually is. And and honestly it's it's comical,
except our nation's future relies on it. It's just go
make Kevin the ambassadors in the United Kingdom. You know,
(33:19):
as a key Starma would would love him. Look a
manual man love you don't make it to France.
Speaker 3 (33:28):
The United States it is.
Speaker 4 (33:31):
I wonder if he was lurking by the golf course,
you know, wait, waiting, observing, observing Trump's backstrength swing or something,
but choice.
Speaker 3 (33:38):
Good to have you on.
Speaker 4 (33:39):
Thanks so much for joining us on the show.
Speaker 1 (33:42):
Were coming up after the break. Defense bracing for Chinese
spy ships heading our way the head of Australia's largest
military exercise, Talisman Saber.
Speaker 3 (33:50):
We'll discuss that more with Michael Schubridge next Welcome back.
Speaker 8 (33:57):
Well.
Speaker 4 (33:57):
Defense is ready for Chinese spy ships to be heading
out way as Australia hosts its largest military exercise, Talisman Saber.
Although the threat of Chinese surveillance didn't seem to concern
Defense Industry Minister Pat Conroy.
Speaker 2 (34:11):
Well obviously observe their activities and monitor their presence around Australia,
but we'll also adjust how we conduct those exercises. People
observe these exercises to collect intelligence around procedures around the
electronic spectrum in the use of communications, and will adjust
(34:33):
accordingly so that we manage that leakage.
Speaker 4 (34:37):
Joining us now is Michael Schubridge, Director at Strategic Analysis Australia, Michael,
thank you.
Speaker 3 (34:42):
For joining us.
Speaker 4 (34:43):
What is China looking for and should we be worried
it is sending spy ships?
Speaker 13 (34:50):
Well, Denigro, I'm glad Pat Conroy is so relaxed. This
is people collect intelligence. This is China collecting military intelligence.
It's not people. It's Beijing's government sending a sophisticated electronic
vacuum cleaner on a big ship to hoover up a
whole lot of information about the vulnerabilities and strengths of Australian,
(35:13):
American and other partner military systems. We should be concerned
because China has been conducting a whole lot of very
high tempo military practice runs for invading Taiwan, and it
wants to know vulnerabilities in the militaries that might stop it.
Speaker 1 (35:31):
The Pentagon is pressing Australia to confirm what role we
would play in a potential war with China over Taiwan.
I've got two questions for you on this. First, what
does it say about the alliance that the US is
asking this question publicly? And second is the government right
to avoid giving an answer because they sure are trying
very hard to avoid a position on this.
Speaker 13 (35:54):
Well, James, who right it's really odd to have this
spill out into the public. As a real close ally
with America, these discussions are normally pretty stable and well understood,
so the fact they're asking the question publicly is a
sign of the state of the alliance. If you can't
do collective planning to deter China, you certainly aren't going
(36:18):
to be able to successfully collectively deter China. So I
absolutely understand why any Australian government will say a final
decision will be made on the circumstances at the time,
but we should be able to say, of course we
will engage in collective planning around a very likely scenario
a Taiwan conflict with our American partner and our other allies.
Speaker 4 (36:44):
Yes, baffling that the Prime Minister couldn't even bring himself
to say anything to that nature today. Now I want
to ask you about an interesting story where several sites
have been singled out as possible locations that would play
a critical role in a US war with China.
Speaker 3 (37:00):
Here in Australia.
Speaker 4 (37:00):
That includes the haraldy Holt Naval Communications Station at Northwest
Cape in Wa, the Joint Defense Facility Pine Gap in
the Northern Territory, and the Orcus Deep Space advanced radar
capability which is currently under construction in WA.
Speaker 3 (37:15):
These are just a few, Michael, But.
Speaker 4 (37:17):
The question is do we have the capacity to defend
those facilities?
Speaker 13 (37:24):
Well, Denika, this is why so many American troops along
with other partners like Japan and South Korea are turning
up in Australia with this big Talisman Saber exercise that's
happening right when the Prime Minister is in China. He
doesn't seem to know what the purpose of the exercise is,
but it's to be able to practice having military forces
(37:46):
operate out of Australia to protect Australia and to conduct
a military campaign in the region, most likely against China,
and by doing that, to demonstrate China shouldn't start a war. Unfortunately,
those faces you mentioned are way too vulnerable because our
government is not funding capabilities like Aaron miss isle and
(38:07):
counter drone defense to defend them.
Speaker 1 (38:10):
Michael, I want to show you a video released by
the Prime Minister on social media just a couple of
hours ago. Let me play it for you and then
I'll ask you about it.
Speaker 5 (38:18):
Here it is, I'm here in Shanghai, China supporting Australian businesses,
supporting Australian jobs and supporting our economy.
Speaker 1 (38:28):
We know that one in.
Speaker 5 (38:29):
Four of Australia's jobs depends upon free and fair trade
and our biggest export partner is China.
Speaker 1 (38:38):
Okay, so there's a Prime Minister just a couple of
hours ago, I wanted to show you because you've written
an article called making Australia the poster child for economic
dependence on Beijing is a mistake. And in that article
you write our pursuit of growing trade dependence on China
because it's just about Australian jobs apparently is making us
increasingly vulnerable to be and its coestion toolkit. Does the
(39:03):
Prime Minister not realize this or does he just think
he can outsmart Jijingping?
Speaker 13 (39:09):
Well, what a mystifying comment from the Prime minister that
we depend on free and open trade. Beijing does not
engage in free and open trade. Beijing hit Australia over
the head with twenty billion dollars of coercive trade barriers
that it's now removed. Meanwhile, it's hitting the rest of
the world over the head around rare earth access because
(39:30):
it's weaponized its economy. It wants countries to become more
dependent on it so that it can use its economy
as a weapon, and the Prime Minister is signing up
to have this done to Australia. It's embarrassing and it's
a national national interest error.
Speaker 4 (39:50):
So just going back then to your article then just
expand to us, is we're becoming increasingly vulnerable to Beijing
and it's.
Speaker 3 (40:00):
A coercion toolkit. What do you mean by.
Speaker 13 (40:03):
That, Well, we are growing both our exports to China
and our imports from China. Other countries in the developed
world in the OECD, the forty two member grouping of
democratic countries are far less vulnerable because they don't send
such a lot of their exports and take such a
(40:25):
lot of their imports from that one place, China. So
we diversified our trade a little bit to places like
Japan and South Korea at the height of those twenty
billion dollar bands from China. But we've gone back to
sleep and now we're trying to grow it all back
and more. In fact, the Treasurer is talking about growing
our trade relationships, so's the Prime Minister, so's the Trade minister.
(40:49):
And Beijing has built a bunch of sanctions and other
policy tools to control other countries who depend on it
for trade. That's what it's doing with rare earths right now.
Speaker 1 (41:02):
So, Michael, you wrote about the coercion issue, so I
understand that Australian government would be unlikely to speak out
strongly against China for fear of risking all of this trade.
But the other problem, of course, is if conflict breaks out.
We are so reliant upon China for all of the
products that we use just in daily life that potentially
(41:25):
our entire way of life could be paralyzed if conflict
broke out.
Speaker 13 (41:31):
Well exactly, and that's why other developed economies have diversified
their trade far more than we have now. Obviously iron
ore and coal. China's a massive market, but the rest
of the world makes things, the rest of the world
eats things, the rest of the world wants our quality products.
We are just being lazy and very shortsighted in doubling
(41:55):
down on our trade dependence with China when we know
China uses its economy as a weapon. The Europeans aren't
doing this, Japan's not doing this, America's certainly not doing this.
Speaker 4 (42:08):
But we are yeah to our own detriment as always,
Michael Schubridge, nice to catch up with you. Thanks very
much for joining us on the show this evening. We're
coming up after the break. Anti Semitism has been normalized
in middle class Britain, according to a new.
Speaker 1 (42:22):
Report, plus UK labor's push to define Islamophobia is facing
all sorts of issues. Who would have thought, Well, we'll
discussed that and more with Brendan O'Neil in just a moment. Well,
welcome back to the program. Anti Semitism has been quote
unquote normalized in middle class Britain. That's according to a
(42:44):
government backed report that found an increasing prejudice against Jews
in UK professions, cultural life and public services. Joining us
now from London is Brendan O'Neill, Spiked Online chief political reporter, Brendan,
it's always lovely to talk to you. Can you tell
us about what this report found and about the recommendations
expected to be tabled in Parliament later this week.
Speaker 14 (43:07):
Yeah, it's a really shocking report from what we know
so far. The whole report is coming out shortly, but
the snippets we've seen in the Telegraph are really disturbing.
You know, I should point out just in case there's
any kind of confusion. Linguistically, that middle class in the
UK pretty much refers to the upper middle classes. That's
how other people would refer to them. So we're not
talking about working class people. We're talking about culturally influential people,
(43:31):
people who run art galleries, who work in the public sector,
people who are well educated and pretty well paid, the
professional classes, and in those classes, anti Semitism has been normalized.
It's absolutely true. This is something I've clopped for a
long time. So on a lot of those very noisy
anti Israel demonstrations, there's always an unholy alliance of affluent
(43:51):
socialists and radical Islamists. That's really the pincer movement that
we've seen that is demonizing the Jewish nation and very
often demizing Jewish people too. So, you know, this is
the section of society that loves to think it's on
the right side of history, which says black lives matter,
which says trans women are women. It has all the
supposedly correct views, but when it comes to Jewish people,
(44:13):
it is very sniffy and often quite openly racist, and
it's pretty shocking.
Speaker 3 (44:18):
Well, you know what else is shocking.
Speaker 4 (44:19):
Activist group Palestine Action has been prescribed as a terror
group and it's actually prompted UK wide protests at the
very decision. More than seventy people were arrested this weekend
alone at protests in England and Wales.
Speaker 3 (44:33):
Brendan, you know, help us understand this.
Speaker 4 (44:35):
The group is deemed a terror group and people are
upset about it.
Speaker 14 (44:40):
You know, Palestine Action, actually they perfectly. Some are what
we've just been talking about, which is that upper middle class,
bigoted content for the world's only Jewish country and also
in some instances for all Jewish people. You know, it's
been prescribed as a terrorist organization. As you say, it
carries out all these stunts to raise awareness about what
(45:01):
it refers to as the genocide in Gaza, what most
of us refer to as the war between Israel and
Hamas you know, in May, just a couple of months ago,
three masked men from Palestine Action went to Stamford Hill,
which is a very Jewish part of London. They smashed
up a Jewish business, They sprayed it with red paint,
They left shattered glass everywhere. They completely terrorized that Jewish
(45:23):
community and the next day a lot of the Orthodox
Jews who lived there, say, this is just like what
our ancestors tried to escape in Europe, shattered glass, broken glass,
destroyed businesses, that kind of bigoted graffiti that was there.
This is the group we're talking about. This is a
group that has terrorized actual Jewish community. So when I
see middle class activists and labor politicians and guardian journalists
(45:48):
defending this movement, to me, it sounds like they're defending
something very dark.
Speaker 1 (45:52):
Indeed, so Brendan, When UK Jews are being terrorized, it's
obvious that the Labor government would be worried about Islamophobia. Right.
The DEPUTYPM has backed down on plans though for a
new definition of Islamophobia, which they've been working on for
quite some time, after Free Speech campaign has threatened legal action.
(46:13):
Just talk us through what's happening there and what the
government's trying to achieve with this.
Speaker 14 (46:19):
The government is obsessed with Islamophobia. It's the only thing
that this Labor government really talks about. Even though we're
living through one of the worst crises of anti Semitism
of recent times, they're still banging on about so called Islamophobia.
So yes, the Free Speech Union has insisted that the
government must open up this consultation and involve more voices,
(46:39):
including voices that are concerned about the free speech consequences,
because you know, there is of course such a thing
as as anti Muslim bigotry that does exist and that
should be tackled. Of course it should. But Islamophobia is
something else. Islamophobia is really just blasphemy law by the
back door. It's about criminalizing or demonizing any criticism of Islam,
(47:00):
any criticism of Islamic practices, even criticizing radical Islam and
Islamist terrorism becomes more difficult when you have this regime
of censorship around this one religion in particular. So what
the government is proposing to introduce is pretty terrifying, which
is a new blasphemy law that would ring fence Islam
from any form of criticism or humor or mockery. And
(47:20):
I think the Free Speech Union is absolutely right to
say that this is a real attack on our free
speech rights.
Speaker 3 (47:26):
Absolutely, it really is extraordinary, Brendan.
Speaker 4 (47:29):
We want to change pace a little bit and ask
you about the royals. King Charles and Prince Harry's senior
aides have reportedly held a secret peace summit together to
try and resolve this bit of royal feud.
Speaker 3 (47:40):
But at the.
Speaker 4 (47:41):
Same time, Princess Kate made an appearance over the weekend
at Wimbledon and she was greeted to at rapturous applause.
Let's have a look, Oh, I wonder what's going on
(48:01):
in Montesa and Monticito at the moment. I'm sure Harry
and Meghan would have hated Daz saying that Brendan.
Speaker 3 (48:06):
But you know, in regards to this private meeting, do
you really think we're ever going to say a reunion?
Speaker 14 (48:13):
It's hard to tell, isn't it. But that footage of
Kate being given such a rousing round of applause, it
really does demonstrate that the vast majority of British people
are team Wales. They're on the side of the Prince
and Princess of Wales and they're not team Montecito. They
have no interest in Harry and Meghan, you know, the
John and Yoko of the royal family some people. But
you know, it's you know, fair play to King Charles.
(48:36):
He wants to make amends with his son. I'm sure
he probably misses him. You know, he is his father
at the end.
Speaker 7 (48:41):
Of the day.
Speaker 14 (48:41):
But let's not overlook that Prince Harry has behaved terribly.
This is a man who goes on and on about
people invading his privacy, and yet he wrote a four
hundred page memoir that tells the whole world about what
King Charles is like, what Prince William is like, about
what they said in private, about their text messages, about
apparently William wants pushing Harry to the floor, everything about them.
(49:05):
He invaded their previously, and that was unforgivable I think.
Speaker 1 (49:08):
Yeah, Brendan O'Neill, very appreciative of your time tonight, Thanks
for joining.
Speaker 4 (49:12):
Us, and thank you for your time this evening on
denecra and James will be back again next Sunday at
seven pm.
Speaker 1 (49:18):
Don't Go Anywhere. Coming up in just a moment is
calor Bond with the Sunday Showdown. Good Night,
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.