June 18, 2025 • 48 mins
Northern Beaches locals outraged as council lifts rates by 25 per cent during Gaza debate, Federal government plans new power price rules to ease household costs. Plus, nearly 7000 businesses go under as closures surge across industries.
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 (00:02):
Peedo Kranblad live on Sky News Australia.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Put eving great to have your company. Here's what's coming
up in the program tonight. The US looks boys to
join Israel in directly attacking in Ran. President Trump now
calling for the Uranian leaders to surrender unconditionally. Greg Sheridan
joins me tonight and at least is on a precipice.
And if the AA Tolder is no more, who or
what will fill the vacuum. The Liberal Party review into
(00:29):
their disastrous campaign's now officially being established. And yet again
the silver bullet from Labor Life liberals is the introduction
of gender quotas. And yet the reality is the only
seat just one the Liberals one at the last election
was one by a Liberal man defeating a woman. Not
that simple, is it? Last? Jim Chalmers at the Press
(00:50):
Club today admitting that the federal budget's not sustainable. True,
one thing to acknowledge it, though another thing to fix it.
And when it comes to budget restrained spendy, it's just
not in Labour's DNA. And for a second day, the
PM dogged by questions over the Donald Trump meeting snub
with Anthony Alberteze now considering an urgent trip to NATO
(01:11):
next week to try and make amends.
Speaker 3 (01:14):
We'll reschedule a meeting from time to time. That is
what occurs.
Speaker 4 (01:18):
Everything that's happening well tis allies.
Speaker 5 (01:21):
Potentially consideration goes to the A.
Speaker 3 (01:25):
Yes, that's been considered.
Speaker 2 (01:29):
We'll stay with that issue because after being jilted at
the Altar this week in Canada, it seems that Anthony
Albertasi will try again to secure an audience with the
US President, not in September when we know he's in
New York for the UN Meeting, but most likely by
attending next week's NATO summit in the Netherlands. So this
Trump meeting must really be getting urgent because last week
(01:49):
the PM tried to downplay talk. It was even on
the agenda, it was in his diary, and then it wasn't.
And now he's ready to cross the globe twice to
make it happen. But if he chooses to go to NATO,
you would want to be sure, wouldn't you that the
meeting would actually come off. I mean, what if Albineazy
landed at the Hague and then Trump pulled out of
(02:12):
the NATO meeting. Yikes. I mean bad enough to be
snubbed once, but that would be pretty hard to explain
or recover from being dubbed twice by your closest ally.
And therein lies the real problem. It should never have
got to this, an Australian Prime Minister schlepping around the
world in the hope of getting his first face to
(02:33):
face meeting with the US President in the margins, literally
in the corridors of an international convention. Now, not only
is it demeaning to US as a nation, but it
raises the question why the PM's reluctance just to get
on a plane and go to Washington as opposed to
this diplomatic equivalent of stalking the world's most powerful man. Now, honestly,
(02:57):
what's wrong with making a drift in DC for the
soul purpose of establishing a personal rapport with the leader
of our most important ally. I mean, it's not as
if Anthony Albanez he hates to travel. It's not like
he doesn't like hobb nobbing with celebrities. I mean, no
PM has been abroad as often, and there isn't a
Grand Final or a sellout event that the PM won't
(03:18):
attend provided of course, it's got a lot of cameras
and not much thought. So why the Washington reluctance? After all,
he thought of nothing to visit the Pope for the
visit rome, for the Pope's installation. But the pope's not
as sceric of the importance to Australia, at least in
practical terms, as the US president is. So what's Anthony
(03:40):
Albertese's aversion to Washington and the Oval Office? Then? Well,
back in twenty seventeen, when he was a mere labor
frontbencher and Donald Trump was in his first term, Anthony
Albertezi couldn't help but pour scorn on the US president.
Speaker 3 (03:56):
We have an alliance with the US.
Speaker 6 (03:57):
We're going to deal with him.
Speaker 3 (03:58):
But that doesn't mean that you're uncritical about it. He's
scared out of me.
Speaker 2 (04:06):
At the time, it was assumed that this was just
the left standard Trump derangement syndrome that had him spoot,
and maybe it was. Maybe it's true now, maybe he's
actually intimidated. Trump is, as we know, unpredictable, and Alwine
easy isn't exactly known for his ability to think fast
on his feet. Maybe it's his minders who were scared
(04:28):
witless of a Zelenski style dressing down in the Oval office,
or maybe because addressing down he could very easily get
give it his own disparaging comments about Trump, the sneering
from others like rad and Penny Wong, plus his government's
almost pathological aversion to raising defense meaning despite our increased
(04:49):
strategic danger. Maybe that's it. Perhaps he thinks that are
meeting on the sidelines of something else would be brief
and that Trump would be distracted anyway, I doubt it.
Maybe he's worried that Donald Trump might ask him to
explain why Australia's energy policies making has ever more depended
on Chinese solar panels and wind turbines, that he might
(05:11):
ask us, why the heck are we still in Paris
and why are we making ourselves weaker and weaker by
refusing to even look at nuclear power. Maybe overwhelmingly, I
think it's petrified about being pushed on defense spending by
our largest ally and not being able to provide a
plausible answer as why Australia expects the US sons and
(05:31):
daughters to put their lives on the line to defend
us if necessary, and yet we can't even lift our
military spending to help ourselves. And he's right to worry
because there's nothing he can say really that stacks up. Indeed,
he should take a lesson out of Keir Starmer's book,
who took a rocky relationship with Trump and turned it around. Now,
(05:53):
let's not forget the British Labor Party said dozens and
dozens of staffers to help the Biden campaign to Trump.
One Starmer earned his absolution by fronding up to the
Oval Office back in February, behaving like an adult and
offering up as a measure of good will and increasing
British defense spending to three percent of GDP. That was
(06:14):
long overdue, because it's not just getting the meeting that matters.
It's what you do and say in it that counts
to get anywhere with the US. Right now, Australian needs
to demonstrate that we are an ally that pulls our weight.
Otherwise any meeting is a disaster, whenever and wherever it
takes place. Of course, there's another possible explanation for the
(06:37):
PM's aversion to having a serious sit down with a
president as opposed to a brush past in a corridor.
Maybe this lifelong leftist and instinctive anti nuclear activist, wouldn't
really mind if Aucus failed, especially if he could blame
someone else for being unreasonable, because Aucust is very inconvenient Labor,
(07:01):
because Orcus's nuclear submarines program makes a mockery of Labour's
rejection of nuclear power, and this is why many inside
Albany'ese has left faction want Aucust to fail. But one
thing is for sure. The longer their first meeting is delayed,
and right now the PMS about the only G twenty
leader who has not met with Trump in the seven
(07:23):
months or so since he was elected. The longer it's delayed,
the more significant that meeting will become when it happens,
and the more pressure there will be on our prime minister. Now,
I think Australia's weakest stance on Israel is also a
factor here, that our votes against Israel and the US
position at the UN have made it more difficult for us.
(07:46):
And the fact too that in our recent election campaign,
so much of Labour's attack against Peter Dunden was about
fitting him up as a Southern hemisphere Trump. Now there's
a saying that all politics is personal, and that's been
my observation of leaders close up. There's a lot in
that saying. Now, the problem here is that our Prime
(08:08):
minister has made his attacks on Trump very personal. Now
that he needs him, he's finding Trump's memory is about
on par with his ego. All right, let's get the
headlines now from Canbers Gunnis for the Reporter Cam Reddit.
Speaker 7 (08:28):
Good evening. A straight sets win in the High Court
means the Albanese government's intervention into one of Australia's largest
and most powerful unions can continue.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
The government will not tolerate criminal behavior, corruption and violence
in the construction sector.
Speaker 7 (08:45):
Claims of criminal conduct within the CFMEU saw two hundred
and seventy officials sacked and administrator Mark Irving Case installed
to clean the union up. One of those dismissed, Former
Queensland Secretary Michael Ravbar, claimed the action was unconstitutional, but
the High Court today dismissed his case in a unanimous
(09:05):
seven to zero ruling.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
This now creates that certainty we need.
Speaker 8 (09:09):
Gen registration always must remain on the table as a
final measure.
Speaker 7 (09:14):
Treasurer Jim Chalmers has laid out the case for broader
tax reform during an address to the National Press Club.
Speaker 5 (09:20):
Tax reform is so crucial to budget sustainability. It's also
about lifting productivity, it's about encouraging investment, lowering the personal
tax burden.
Speaker 7 (09:30):
Just don't ask him what's on or off the table.
Speaker 5 (09:33):
I think limiting ourselves to ruling things in or out
forever has a cancerous effect on our policy debates.
Speaker 7 (09:41):
The Prime Minister could now meet with President Trump as
soon as next week after their catch up in Canada
was canceled.
Speaker 3 (09:48):
It's perfectly understandable. Will reschedule a meeting from time to time,
that is what occurs.
Speaker 7 (09:54):
Anthony Alberanezi is weighing up a snap visit to next
week's NATO summit in hope of finally coming face to
face with Donald Trump. Cameron Reddin's Sky News Canberra.
Speaker 2 (10:07):
All right, planning, get across, johnyan Now, senior political reporter
Tritty Macintosh and senior reporter Krolyn Marcus. Well, welcome to
you both. We'll start with the Trump meeting will fallout today.
It's a run into the second day. The PM desperate
to try and brush off any criticism.
Speaker 3 (10:23):
Have a listen the decision that he made that meant
that the meetings that were scheduled not just with myself,
but with India, Ukraine, including President Zelenski, Mexico and other
countries didn't go ahead. Today's happening, well a potentially, yes,
(10:46):
that's been considered.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
Truly in many respects. I feel for the Prime Minister here,
I feel for his office. I've been there when these
things have moved around beyond your control. He mentions the
skinned president there and true their medig was canceled between
Trump and the President, but they got a phone call
from Trump. We didn't. Now he's talking about junking his
program for next week and heading off to NATO. So
(11:12):
clearly he's made a call that this meeting now cannot
wait until September, hasn't he.
Speaker 9 (11:20):
Well, yeah, it seems like that this is now a
live option, that he's going to go to the Hague
to attend the NATO summit.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
That had not been the plan up until today.
Speaker 9 (11:28):
Richard Marles, the Defense Minister, was the one who was
slated to go.
Speaker 2 (11:31):
Here.
Speaker 9 (11:32):
It shows you, as you say, they do want to
secure this first face to face meeting. It had been
telegraphed for such a long time as being at the
sidelines of the G seven summit. Donald Trump suddenly pulls
the rug out from under Anthony Abernuez E.
Speaker 2 (11:44):
But not just him.
Speaker 9 (11:45):
Ukraine's president was in the same situation. His country was
under attack as he was flying to this summer. He
goes all wait not to see he has That's true,
But the reporting out of Ukraine is they were still
disappointed that this is something that not just Australia is
dealing with.
Speaker 2 (11:59):
How do you deal with the president.
Speaker 9 (12:00):
Whose schedule continues to change. You might, with all the
best intentions, have it locked in and then it changes.
That would be my worry for the PMP to going
to NATO. You might go there and Donald Trurey doesn't go,
or at the last minute he has to leave.
Speaker 2 (12:13):
Does that look? Does that a worse.
Speaker 9 (12:15):
Situation to attend for a second time and then be
snubbed Apparently again, I think it's risky to go. He's
been to them in the past, there is a precedent
for it. But yeah, what a time and politics to.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
Be Yeah, the problem with NATO two, I mean we're
not in the first eleven really in NATO, so he'll
have a lot of other priority, my lads, In addition
to the NATO deliberations and obviously, with the world at
war in multiple theaters, NATO takes on a different significance.
And you're right if he gets there and something happens
and the meeting doesn't happen for a second time. I
(12:46):
think the problem is l PM has said a lot
on the record that Trump knows about that's not been flattering.
Trump obviously would read the wires coming out of the
electure campaign in Australia and saw that he was a
figure of derision for labor and used against Peter Dunton.
He knows all of that. They still have not ever
met face to face seven months into the job. We
(13:07):
can talk about all those other leaders like Modi and
the Mexican and Zelensky who had missed yesterday, but they've
all met him. Our bloke hasn't met him. And we've
got a long laundry list of issues and we're not
making ourselves popular because we keep snubbing them. In relation
to defense spending, yeah, it's just a tricky issue.
Speaker 9 (13:28):
The one thing that stood out to me before this
election of Donald Trump again, Keir Starmer went privately to
Trump Tower to meet Donald Trump in the very likelihood
that he was going to be re elected that the
UK Labor team thought it's better to try and lay
the groundwork for a potential Trump second term. We didn't
take that opportunity. The decision was made not to do that.
(13:49):
So it does make this complicated, Anthony Arbenezi. The only
upside I thought yesterday, Peter, is that tweet from Caroline Levett,
the Press secretary didn't come out during Anthony Aarbanese's press conference.
He'd only just left in front of the press back.
Imagine that being told by journalists to your face that
your meeting's been canceled. I think that was the one
silver lining for Room yesterday.
Speaker 2 (14:09):
You've got to take the small mercies where you can
get them. That you Caroline. Let's go to the news
about the Liberal Party. They have officially announced their review process.
It will be a review. Submissions are open until August.
It'll be headed up by former New South the Wild
State Minister Pro Goward and of course Howard Government Cabinet
minister Nick mentioned. They're not just going to look at
(14:30):
the campaign in this review are though, though, Carolina, it's
going to be quite comprehensive.
Speaker 1 (14:37):
Well, they've got a really broad term of reference here,
so they can really look at anything that they consider
relevant to the election results, and it was historically low
result for the Liberal Party, so they'll be dissecting everything.
Speaker 2 (14:53):
That could have contributed to that.
Speaker 1 (14:55):
I mean, they'll have a look, it's been said, at
just the performance and general of the opposition during the
last term of government. They'll look at how the vote
went among different voter segments, and they'll also be having
a look at the challenge from the tials and how
the Liberal Party might be able to meet that challenge.
(15:18):
But of course a lot of it is going to
be taken up by looking in depth at the election
campaign itself. It is due submissions at the first of August,
so they've got six weeks and then till the end
of the year to report back.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
Let's hope it that doesn't sit on the shelf like
a lot of the other reviews in recent times. I
think that's part of the problem as well. Hey Truy,
what's going on the other side of the ear the
Prime Minister. What we're five weeks on from the election now,
they've not released the staffing numbers, they've not secured their
own stuff. They've got some six hundred positions where people
are not yet confirmed. I'm told we've got what about
(15:55):
eighty or ninety for the coalition. There'll be all this
other stuff obviously around the cross speech and elsewhere. Now,
come on, unless they get the staff into these minister's offices,
they really can't get to work. I don't know what's
going on. You got any ideas?
Speaker 9 (16:11):
Yeah, on both sides. I've speaken to staff as today
see new ones, Peter, and there is a level of uncertainty,
and particularly on the coalition side, people in senior roles
who are doing the job are being paid because they
had a job in the opposition before, but are technically
not in the spot, so they can't actually travel as
a part of their work. On the government side, it
(16:32):
relies on the government staff as being locked in. Then
that allocation is a proportion going to the opposition.
Speaker 2 (16:36):
That's how these things work. But ultimately it's up to
the Prime minister.
Speaker 9 (16:39):
A government source telling me today the decision has not
yet been made. They're expecting it to happen within the
coming days slash weeks, noting that the Prime Minister's currently
overseas so potentially be able to happen when he comes back,
but as you say, a.
Speaker 2 (16:51):
Lot of uncertainty.
Speaker 9 (16:53):
The people we don't normally think that much about in policies,
are you the staff, And it is a lot of
uncertainty for people I doerfed out or forced to boof
as a result of their bosses.
Speaker 2 (17:03):
And surely someone else in that office can use a computer.
Come on, get on with it, Get on with it.
We want the government back and the country working again. Hey,
speculation today that Josh s Reid move might be having
another tilted federal politics. There's been a new executive elected
for the Coupyong branch out in the east of Melbourne.
It's been joined with the old Higgins branch. The seat
(17:23):
of Higgins, of course, has been abolished, and quote, a
whole lot of Josh people have been elected. Now this
one's interesting for me here, Caroline, because Emelia Hamer contested
that seat. She obviously narrowly lost there to Monique Ryan.
And all the people who said Haym was a sort
of young person, a young woman we want to see
(17:45):
in politics are now all the same people saying, well,
she's going to move to one side because we want
Josh to get in the job. They're also the same
people who say the Liberal Party must have quotas.
Speaker 1 (17:57):
I think when push comes to shove, party members on
the whole are going to be backing someone who they
see as not only a potential Liberal leader, a future
Liberal leader, but someone who could be future Liberal Prime minister.
And that's always how Josh Fredenburg has been viewed. Look,
it would mean obviously he would need to have another
(18:20):
crack at it, but there's been rumors for a long
time and he refuses to say whether that's the case.
Speaker 2 (18:25):
But I think he'd be stupid not to.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
Given how close Amelia haimercam at unseating Monique Ryan, I
think he would have been watching that very closely and
thinking thinking what we're all thinking right now, that he's
going to have another go.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
I don't care how good.
Speaker 1 (18:41):
The pay and the hours are at Goldman Sachs compared
to his political job. I think some people are just
conviction politicians, and I dare say Josh Fridenberg is among them.
And he never got to fulfill his ambitions of becoming
prime minister one day, so I have no doubt we
will see him again. And now the chair position, the
(19:01):
treasurer positioned, the membership officer position, have all gone to
Josh loyalists. I dare say we will see him pre
selected at the next selection.
Speaker 2 (19:12):
I suspect to write, but we'll get the dance of
the Seven Vales before we get to that, and a
lot of urging and we forced reluctantly to run. But hey,
let's go to the news. The poor old Tony Burke
has got more trouble on his doorstep. This is again
in relation to those foreign detainees. We've got another man,
Somali born individual charged with breaching his electronic monitoring but
(19:36):
also committing serious crime which's not disclosed to what that
is whilst on bail. We also saw in recent days
a man was assaulted, an Australian man assaulted. He's fighting
for his life. That involved another foreign detainee. And we
still don't have one one community protection order lodge from
(19:58):
the government. Truty.
Speaker 9 (20:01):
Yeah, we've seen the oppositions. Andrew Hasty picking up the
ball on this one, trying to get some traction. He's
arguing that the government, as you say, should be using
those powers that they rush through the parliament. Don't forget
that in terms of preventative detention orders. Home Affairs Minister
Tony Burke in a statement though, pointing to this as
a High Court ruling and a challenge on one aspect
(20:22):
of this end zid yq cohort. They're waiting on that
in terms of trying to use separate powers to actually
deport these people. As Andrew Hasty's point is that ultimately
we can't afford to wait until that court ruling.
Speaker 2 (20:35):
But that's where this is up to.
Speaker 9 (20:36):
In terms of political sense, it's certainly not getting the
potency it did when this first came to the headlines.
Speaker 2 (20:41):
Is it Peter.
Speaker 10 (20:44):
No.
Speaker 2 (20:44):
But unfortunately we've got astrain a man who's likely to
lose his life because the government's still waiting on legal
advice or hasn't got its act together. And I just
don't think that two years on that's good enough. I'd
put the application in if it was me, and let
them take you to court government and test it, rather
than just hold back and wanting perfect I think it's crazy.
I'll leave it there, Thank you both, all right. Today's
(21:05):
announcement the Liberal Party's official review into the historic election
loss in May is underway. It brings with it the
usual demands of the party needs to move its policies
to the left. I'd have to say the election, I
thought they were close to the left anyway, and to
introduce gender quotas to if the party is standing with women.
Now you know my views on quotas. The only way
(21:26):
you pick a good candidate is to pick them based
on merit. Anything else is profoundly illiberal. But if you
listen to others around the fringes of the Liberal Party
or they think that quotas are the answer.
Speaker 6 (21:40):
The Liberals don't like to learn quotas too much. But
I do think that it is time that we address
this hands down. This needs to be the one thing
that we finally do. It should have been done at
the last review after the Scott Morrison loss, and we
didn't do it.
Speaker 2 (22:00):
Don't even owns to discuss this. Head of Advocacy at
the Women's Forum Australia, Stephanie Bastian, Stephie, thanks for your time. Look,
I think we'll probably all agree, Charlotte Wrdlocke, yourself and
I that we need more strong women in the Liberal
Party's ranks. But for a lot of Liberal women talk
of quotas as at anathema. People like Charlotte say it's
the answer to the party's problems. Will give you your
(22:22):
take on this debate.
Speaker 11 (22:25):
Well, good evening, Peter. I'm yet to hear a plausible
argument about how quotas will flip a single vote. If
we want to fix the Liberal parties perceived women problem,
we need to address the way that outspoken women are
treated in the party. And I'll note that even organizations
like the Helmer's Network and Miss nort Lock have been
very quiet about the way that Mora Deming was treated
by her male colleagues, the way that cath Eves was
(22:47):
briefed against, about the way that day Lee was treated
when she was suspended for ten years from the New
South Wales division. If we want to get serious about
winning over female voters, we need to improve our policy base.
Are often the economic managers of their homes. They've got
balanced budgets to balance this identity politics is not going
to turn a single vote. And as we saw in Goldstein,
(23:09):
Zoe Daniels was the ideal progressive candidate. She was beaten
by Tim Wilson, who's a man. So I think the
answer to this is actually improving our policy base.
Speaker 2 (23:21):
I have to agree with that because I made the
point of the top of show the same as you did.
That we only won the Liberal Party one seat one only,
God help us at the last election, and that was
the Melbourne seat of Goldstein. At Goldstein won by a man,
Tim Wilson, from a woman, Zoe Daniels. So it says
that just putting a female candidate in there is not
a silver bullet, and also conversely that a bloke as
(23:44):
you candidate is not the handicap that some in the
party might like to claim it is.
Speaker 11 (23:50):
No, it's absolutely not. And I think there's a range
of policies.
Speaker 2 (23:54):
That we could look at that would.
Speaker 11 (23:55):
Entice female of its, particularly that younger demographic that we
so often mist I mean childcare, for example, is very rigid.
It's a childcare center based only. There are only three thousand,
two hundred spots for in home childcare, which for a
lot of women who are nurses or who are working
shift work, that's very limiting. Or for women who are
wanting to stay home to raise families. Income splitting would
(24:16):
also be a very attractive policy to women. But instead
of talking about how we can engage women on these
policy debates, we're sort of going to quotas and I
think that it's not a winning strategy. I think it's
just a way to further it'll further democratize the party.
The right type.
Speaker 2 (24:37):
Of woman will get pre selected.
Speaker 11 (24:38):
If you're someone that believes in quotas therefore identity politics,
you're going to have to be a certain type of
women to get pre selected if you support this sort
of move, and I think it'll be detrimental to the
party and brand.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
I guess you know. The moral objection I have to
quotas is I hate to see anybody divided by attributes
as opposed to talent. One day it will be a
quota based on agenda. Tomorrow it may be indigenity or not.
It could be an age based quota. We see that's
coming into boards in New South Wales, a certain number
of seats reserved for those board members under the age
(25:14):
of twenty four. It could be religious space. We know
in some countries that you have to be Muslim potentially
to have seats in the Parliament. So I think this
is it's going to be a very difficult debate for
the Liberal Party to have because people are just wanting to,
I think, react to the devastating loss rather than look
(25:35):
at what is sustainable decisions to turn this around. I
think they want to quick fix and they want to
be able to move on.
Speaker 11 (25:46):
But I don't think that's going to work.
Speaker 2 (25:47):
I mean quotas.
Speaker 11 (25:48):
The Labor Party have had quotas for a significant number
of time. They've just won government after three terms of
a Liberal government. Improving your female representation isn't going to
necessarily bring in the quality and the caliber of an
MP that's going to win government. In fact, at the
last federal election, it was a senior Liberal female MP
(26:08):
that brought in the devastating work from home policy. This
MP also fearmongered about Chinese volunteers in Cuyong that I
think had a significant impact in seats like Menzies, Deacon
Chisholm and of course Cuong.
Speaker 6 (26:22):
So.
Speaker 11 (26:22):
I think that we need to go back to basics,
go back to our core brand, core brand policies of
economic management, lower taxes, and families will vote liberal. Women
will vote liberal because that is how you would you
manage the economics of your home and everything else.
Speaker 2 (26:45):
Yeah, I'll make the pointments before we go. You know,
the highest sort of level of female share of the
vote so high forties under mister Howard forty five under
Tony Abott, and neither of them were considered particularly women
friendly because the policy settings were right. When the party
went to Malcolm Turnbull in the twenty sixteen election, that
(27:06):
share of the female votes as this is women at
eighteen to sixty four fell to a very very low
thirty five percent and fell even further under scope moreton
So I think that amplifies your point. It's the policies
stupid that gets the female vote definite. Thank you, thanks
for your time. After the break, Jin Chalmers admits our
budget is not sustainable, but is that code for spending restraint?
(27:28):
Was labor warming us up for more taxes? Lass sues?
The Future Fund now beholden to left wing group think
welcome back still to come. Greg Sheridan on the latest
out of the Middle East. A speculation is rife that
the US readies to enter the battle in Tehran. But
first the Treasurer today in front of the press club
(27:50):
and did at least admit our current budget trajectory is
not sustainable.
Speaker 5 (27:56):
We recognize three blunt truths. Our budget is stronger, but
it's not yet sustainable enough. Our economy is growing, but
it's not productive.
Speaker 2 (28:07):
Enough.
Speaker 5 (28:08):
It is resilient, but it's not resilient enough.
Speaker 2 (28:13):
Or true. Jim Chalmers then mentioned tax reform.
Speaker 5 (28:17):
Now, no sensible progress can be made on productivity, resilience
or budget sustainability without proper consideration of more tax reform.
I don't just accept that.
Speaker 2 (28:30):
I welcome that, jentlemen now to discuss this in more.
Former Treasury Assistant Secretary David Peerl David welcome. I think
we're all going to agree that the budget isn't sustainable.
But what's the fix here? Because there wasn't much of
a fix on the table today at the Press Club.
I mean, either it's spending restraint and that's some tough
(28:51):
conversations with Australians and taking things off them, or it's
increasing our revenue base. Let's call that taxes with we
know taxes are in lay DNA. Unless you're going to
tell me there's another.
Speaker 8 (29:03):
Way, thanks for having me on, Peter.
Speaker 2 (29:07):
There's no other way.
Speaker 8 (29:08):
Jim Chalmers call today for more action to be taken
to make this budget sustainable is a recipe for higher taxation.
He's already showed his hand by committing to tax unrealized
gains for superannuents and the more he talks about tax reform,
I think the more people should be concerned that he's
(29:30):
going to broaden out from that and go after investors
more generally.
Speaker 2 (29:35):
So you took this to be a bit of a
softening up exercise.
Speaker 8 (29:40):
I think it is, and I think the Productivity Summit
was a hospital passed from the Prime Minister to the Treasurer.
To be honest, if you look at the Prime Minister's
speech last week, Peter, he talked about a productivity and
growth summit. He was setting up the Treasurer to fail.
In his speech today, the Treasurer was very careful to
backtrack from the hospital pass if you like. He disclaimed
(30:03):
any responsibility himself for undermining Australian productivity. He reframed the
summit as one about raising more revenue, which is what
references to sustainability is. And he also looked at the
summit participants in the media towards the end, Peter, and
he basically set himself out to blame them if the
(30:26):
summit fails. He said to the participants, you have to
come up with budget neutral proposals and you have to
make the public pace. And he said to the media,
don't put me in a corner on ruling things and
ruling out. I think it was an ass covering exercise
from the Treasure because he got a hospital passed from
the Prime Minister last week.
Speaker 2 (30:47):
Okay, but if we don't lift our productivity and if
a government doesn't get out of the way, I mean,
there was too much in that speech of government getting
in the way, not enough of government saying it's just
going to get out of the way of our productive
parts of the economy, which is the private sector. If
we don't lift down productivity, we're in a hiding to nothing,
are we.
Speaker 8 (31:10):
We're absolutely right. So I think Jim's been coached to
say that productivity is the key to higher living standards
because previously I think he's given the impression that productivity
is a plot to make workers toil for longer. But
the progressive Left and Jim Chalmers and the Labor Party
and the modern Treasury are captive to that view, believe
(31:30):
that productivity requires higher taxes, more welfare, and more government
domination of our lives. And the lefts quasi religious obsession
with net zero while the rest of the intelligent world
is backtracking. Is all you need to know about that
they have a complete blind spot on that, and that
(31:52):
won't be challenged by anybody at this round table.
Speaker 2 (31:58):
Right, Let's get to a couple of other questions. While
got to Greg Comboy today. He's the chair of the
Future Fund. Obviously he's taken the chair on after Peter
Costello retired. He says, we're too exposed to US stocks,
too volatile in terms of the Trump administration. Is this
a sound investment reaction or is it ideological? Do you think.
Speaker 8 (32:19):
It's ideological? I was appalled by his comments, Peter. At
a time when the Prime Minister is desperately trying to
get a one on one meeting with President Trump, he
has his Future fun boss essentially saying that Trump's election
itself delivers a hit to volatility and uncertainty. I think
(32:40):
that's not only ideological, I think his extremely ill conceived
in his comments, given what the Prime Minister's faced with now.
I couldn't believe it when I read those comments.
Speaker 2 (32:53):
Nope, I don't think they were good comments either. Will
leave it there, Thank you, David. After the Great President Trump,
bisho's a turn threat to it ran that he knows
the exact location, he says of the nation Supreme Leader.
Plus hour working from home is taking its told not
just on the bottom line of Melbourne's big train operator,
but it's costing taxpayers millions. Welcome back having up a
(33:18):
warning that the skyrocketing use by business of AI could
lead to more climate emissions. Seriously, but first for the
latest on growing hostilities in the Middle East, to the
possibility of US entry into the conflict. Ender, of course,
I don't want to get off again. Meet him between
the US President and our Prime minister. I'm joined now
by the foreign editor at The Australian, Greg Sheridan. Greg,
(33:39):
thank you for your time. I want to start tonight
in the Middle East with Donald Trump. As we know
he is back in the White House. We've seen imagery
of him in and around the situation room. He's caught
on an I run to issue an unconditional surrender. He's
gone on to social media and says, look, we know
where the eye are. Toller Is, You're an easy target.
Give it up. From what I've read on open sources,
(34:01):
the Iranians are already moving to ensure that if the
aotola has removed, there's been enough spread of power amongst
the guard that they can keep up the attacks on Israel.
So how serious do you see this threat from Donald Trump?
Speaker 12 (34:16):
Look, I think it would be very foolish to kill
the Ayatollah. That would just make him a martyr of
Islam for all time. I think that's quite stupid and
very strange remarks from Trump, as so many remarks of
Trump's are. And you know, you didn't even talk about
that in World War Two, killing the opposition's head of government.
(34:39):
But the more important stuff is that Trump is plainly
moving all the logistics into place to join Israel in
the battle if he wants to. That doesn't mean the
decision is made, because Trump has never decided to do
something until it happens. The key thing is that Israel,
(35:00):
either with the US or alone, needs to destroy all
or almost all of Iran's nuclear program. Now, everybody says
that Israel can't get the four dough nuclear facility because
it's sixty or eighty meters underground on the side of
a mountain without American bunker busters, this huge thirty thousand
(35:23):
pound bomb, and only American planes can carry it. So
I think there's a very strong case that Trump should
engage at least in that one mission with the Israelis.
Whether he would engage in a broader mission is very unclear,
and this might still all, you know, be reversed right
at the last minute.
Speaker 2 (35:44):
He might.
Speaker 12 (35:44):
You know, if the Uranians are a bit smarter than
they are, they should just agree to give up all
their nuclear weapons and then not do it. All their
nuclear programs rather and then just not do it. I
saw North Korea do that about twelve times on the
road to nuclear weapons. Because it's very hard for democracies
like Israel and the United States to get to this
state of warfare.
Speaker 2 (36:08):
Yeah, that's a good point, because we in the West
can't get to the point where we are now, where
we're inside of taking out these nuclear facilities. And let's
put to one side that they might say we'll give
it up, but if they don't, we can't get to
this point and then somehow walk away and only then
wait for a few more months to things all start
(36:30):
up again, and we have this debate about taking out
the nuclear capability of Iran. I mean, I think we're
past that now, aren't we.
Speaker 12 (36:38):
Well, I think so. I think Israel will continue this
operation until it feels that it has done everything it
can to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities and its ballistic missile
capabilities and much of its military capabilities. Generally, the question
is whether they can do it without the United States.
(37:00):
Dates Trump seems to be on the very brink of
doing it again, you know, without being a bore about
this North Korean parallel. Bill Clinton, of all people, was
on the brink of taking military action against North Korea
before they had nuclear weapons, and Jimmy Carter went to
Pyongyang on an unscheduled, unapproved visit and sort of killed
(37:22):
the moment. As a result, Clinton didn't take action, and
as a result, North Korea now has dozens and dozens
of nuclear weapons and we'll soon have missiles which can
reach the United States. So I agree with you, Peter.
I think Israel will just go ahead until, you know,
until the mission is completed. But they could do the
mission much more effectively if the Americans do it with them,
(37:44):
and it would have much greater legitimacy then, and it
would be harder for anyone to describe this as a
pariah action. Even our own lame, lame, lame government is
kind of falling in behind behind Israel on this, largely
because of the Americans.
Speaker 2 (38:00):
I think, well, it feels pretty reluctant today. I mean, yes,
there's been some tougher comments from Penny Wong, but I
mean she was just urging restraint for a number of days.
And I look around the world or what other leaders
are saying, and you know, I've got something on the
screen to come up. In relation to the German Chancellor.
I mean, he is making the point. You and I
(38:20):
would get this. Australians watching tonight would get this. But
he says that this is dirty work that Israeli is
doing is for all of us. I mean we're not
hearing enough of that from the Australians. Whatever. The word
Israel is mixed up. Even in this case with Donald Trump,
Israel is still seen to be doing something that is
on the edges or outside international law. But I mean
(38:44):
I see this as a just war for humanity.
Speaker 7 (38:50):
Yeah.
Speaker 12 (38:50):
So I think the Alberzi government Rderick has been a
little stronger than usual. I'd agree with you, it's still
too weak, all in pursuit of this kind of pathetic
effort of Alberanzi to get an appointment with Trump, which
he hasn't been able to do so. Richard Marles for
the first time ever said if the Americans go to
(39:10):
war with China, Australia will be there with America. Well,
blow me down. Where did that come from? He sounds
just like Peter Dutton. That's amazing. So what an amazing coincident.
This is a couple of days before his boss, Albanesi
hopes to get an appointment with Trump and Penny Wong.
All of a sudden, yeah, she is urging de escalation,
but all of a sudden, she's saying the Iranian nuclear
(39:33):
program is a terrible threat in Israel has a right
to defend itself and all the rest of it. But
this has been a kind of a Keystone Cops foreign
trip by Albanesi. I enjoyed your earlier discussion, but I
truly hope he goes to NATO because, apart from anything else,
if he shows up at NATO, everyone at NATO is
pledging to spend three point five percent of GDP on defense,
(39:57):
and if he's there saying, we're the greatest ally the
Americans have ever had, and we're a major partner of
NATO and so forth. But by the way, we're not
going to meet the NATO standard of defense spending for
any American ally. And meanwhile, he still has no agenda
with Trump. He's just going there to whine about tariffs
and beg Trump to promise that he'll give him orcust
(40:18):
subs long after Trump has gone from office. I mean,
there's decisions about the ORCT subs doesn't happen until a
long time after Trump has gone. So I hope for
our national good that Albaneze goes there, because he may
well be shamed into good policy having exhausted all the
other alternatives.
Speaker 2 (40:37):
A point very well made, Rick Shan. That is very
very good. A bit of a public hectoring might help
him along the way to get to that three percent.
We'll see. Thank you, Greg Arthur Braton. Just when you
thought the campaign is from get up, had given up,
gone home, they're back. Plus the Queensland government that struck
a deal to keep a coal company afloat all of
the name though of zero. Welcome back. Now to the
(41:05):
warning that's been issued to companies using artificial intelligence and
super funds with big tech investments. Wait for it, the toll.
We need AI. We need it to increase productivity, but
watch out, it'll increase your emissions and the enormous amounts
of energy required to power AI could be a time
bomb for your corporate sustainability strategy. To discuss this in
(41:28):
more mopanel Age Chief Executive Gerald Holland an LPMP Phil Thompson, gents, welcome.
I tell you what you know. It's going to be
a big issue for these poor old corporates. Climate productivity,
AI and emissions perfect storm. Jared Peter.
Speaker 4 (41:47):
It's so frustrating in a nation where just about every
industry is going backwards at the moment, there could seriously
be a growth opportunity in embracing AI and embracing these
data centers, and now the Australian Institute is coming out
and telling us that we can't have them because of emissions.
I mean, the truth is businesses are not going to
turn away from these kinds of productivity tools if it
means that they're going to be able to do better.
(42:08):
I mean, we've already had sixteen thousand business insolvencies in
the last two years alone, so if we aren't doing
it here, it means that business is going to go overseas.
And what the Australia Institute does point out is this
is a really energy intensive business. The software that we
see on our screens, we take for granted, is produced
by a lot of hardware behind the scenes, and that
requires energy, more energy by twenty thirty than the entire
(42:30):
Japanese economy just to power these data centers. I think
in the US they're petrochemicals, their steel, their cement, all
of those energy intensive industries combined will be less than
their data center electricity requirements. So Australia can embrace this
or we can let it pass us by because of
our ideological fixation on these renewable targets.
Speaker 2 (42:53):
Yeah, but it's going to force the conversation Joe, that
we need to go to nuclear. There is no other
way if we want these data centers in austray if
we want to keep up with the rest of the world,
we have to have an adult conversation about nuclear. And
they just don't want that conversation. So they're now saying
we can't have it in Australia because of emissions. That's
the problem, and nuclear's emissions free as we know. Hey,
I thought there was a stake through the heart. Phil
(43:15):
Thompson of get Up. I thought they'd gone for all
money that they disbanded and morphed into the teals. But
now that Labour's got this big parliamentary majority, they're out
there trying to push them well beyond any mandate they
might have taken in terms of policies to the election.
They've got ads in all the papers. They're saying your
mob's out for the next two terms at least, and
(43:36):
that the Albanezer government should go for broke and push
on with some really radical change.
Speaker 10 (43:46):
Well, I'm here to win the next election. I'm not
heady to sit in the passenger seat and let get
Up or any other fringe group dictate what the coalition
should or shouldn't do. I think that get Up is
about fiding the country. It's not about bringing us together.
They're putting ads out. I thought they went away as well,
but now they're back. They want to pull the Labor
(44:07):
Prime Minister further to the extremes of the left and
demand that he does this. And to be honest, his
parliament looks like it will drive further to the left.
And you know, when you lose, and you lose well,
which we did. All these fringe groups come out of
the wouldwork because they see a payday and they see
a time to divide a country, because that's what they're about,
(44:27):
their divisive organization.
Speaker 2 (44:29):
It's in their mandate.
Speaker 10 (44:31):
But us as the coalition, we need to have sensible
policy to be an alternative government, and we'll fight back.
Speaker 2 (44:40):
Spot on, Phil, Let's go to Melbourne because this was
really interesting today. Metro Trains. This is the train network
that was privatized in Victoria. It's just had a payday
of five hundred million dollars from taxpayers because in their contracts,
if passenger revenue drops, the poor old taxpayers on the
hook to pay them out. The government's been here, Jared,
(45:01):
was that they're still not able to cope or recover
from COVID hitting transport flows. But we're five years on
from COVID. This is because Victoria and elsewhere is still
locked into work from home. So if we are not
going to change work from home and most of the
public service in Victoria work from home, then the poor
(45:22):
old taxpayer we'll be paying out these foreign own private
transport companies forever in the day.
Speaker 4 (45:32):
Peter, that's right, there is something really fishy about this story. So,
as you mentioned, the government's committed to underwriting five hundred
million over the next four years because footfall is so
much lower. But these contracts came up for a newal
last year, four years out from the COVID pandemic, when
we're already experiencing this massive drop in traffic, and yet
this Chinese, Chinese majority owned company was resigned for another
(45:56):
couple of years. And so if you sort of lay
it out, you've got Victoria tax pays across the state
and now paying five hundred million dollars to a Chinese
own company for trains in Melbourne that aren't carrying the
passengers that they're contracted to carry. It's just it doesn't
pass the sniff test. Victoria's heading for two hundred billion
dollars in debt in the next five or six years,
and I can't see how people continue to wear this.
Speaker 6 (46:21):
Well.
Speaker 2 (46:21):
It's not much better in Queensland, phil because there's reluctantly
one hundred and ten million dollars being paid by the
Chrystal Foley government. They've inherited a mess up there. In
relation to your big power station, Collide power station, there's
a coal company that has to be subsidized, so it
keeps digging up the coal that can feed the power
station to keep the lights on because of all the
(46:44):
next zero madness that have made the grid unstable.
Speaker 10 (46:50):
Farmers supplied the food truckes deliveratey or the resource sector
keeps the lights on. And what we've seen from the
previous Labor State government is a complete abandonment of the
resource sector. Their federal national colleague under the Labor Prome
Minister now abandoning the resource sector. Well, in Queensland, seventy
(47:11):
five percent of our power is generated by coal and
the Coalition is energy agnostic. We must look at all
types of energy to keep the power prices down. Now
to have this organization to receive this funding is because
of failed national policies that have ramped up production costs
(47:32):
and also low cost on coal. But it's because there
hasn't been a focal point on making sure that these
coal fire power stations stay online. People are doing it tough.
People can't afford to go to the movies to go out,
people that are working go to food pantries. They're doing
it tough, and we're going to see an increase in
power prices because people want to race to the bottom
(47:54):
to shut down coal fire power stations. So I can
tell you now that's not going to work, and it's
only going to put power prices up.
Speaker 2 (48:01):
Gil. Just before we go, because I know you're hot
to trot on law and order. In Victoria, they've just
announced a policy by the Libs that prisoners moved around
a prison will now be handcuffed if they're proven to
have assaulted guards before. You know, some four hundred assaults
happened last year. What shocks me is this doesn't happen already.
Speaker 10 (48:23):
Violent criminals should be handcuffed the day one they go
into prison, before they and when they get transported around.
Correctional staff should feel safe and should be protected. Violent
criminals should be restrained, whether they're in there or previously
or when they get in as a violent criminal, because
they're in there, because they're not safe to be out
(48:45):
on our streets and their rights and liberty has been
taken away from them. Keep them handcuffed, make sure our
people stay safe.
Speaker 2 (48:51):
Spot on gott to leave it there, gents, Thanks very much,
see you order to borrow night. He's Andrew
Peedo Kranblad live on Sky News Australia.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Put eving great to have your company. Here's what's coming
up in the program tonight. The US looks boys to
join Israel in directly attacking in Ran. President Trump now
calling for the Uranian leaders to surrender unconditionally. Greg Sheridan
joins me tonight and at least is on a precipice.
And if the AA Tolder is no more, who or
what will fill the vacuum. The Liberal Party review into
(00:29):
their disastrous campaign's now officially being established. And yet again
the silver bullet from Labor Life liberals is the introduction
of gender quotas. And yet the reality is the only
seat just one the Liberals one at the last election
was one by a Liberal man defeating a woman. Not
that simple, is it? Last? Jim Chalmers at the Press
(00:50):
Club today admitting that the federal budget's not sustainable. True,
one thing to acknowledge it, though another thing to fix it.
And when it comes to budget restrained spendy, it's just
not in Labour's DNA. And for a second day, the
PM dogged by questions over the Donald Trump meeting snub
with Anthony Alberteze now considering an urgent trip to NATO
(01:11):
next week to try and make amends.
Speaker 3 (01:14):
We'll reschedule a meeting from time to time. That is
what occurs.
Speaker 4 (01:18):
Everything that's happening well tis allies.
Speaker 5 (01:21):
Potentially consideration goes to the A.
Speaker 3 (01:25):
Yes, that's been considered.
Speaker 2 (01:29):
We'll stay with that issue because after being jilted at
the Altar this week in Canada, it seems that Anthony
Albertasi will try again to secure an audience with the
US President, not in September when we know he's in
New York for the UN Meeting, but most likely by
attending next week's NATO summit in the Netherlands. So this
Trump meeting must really be getting urgent because last week
(01:49):
the PM tried to downplay talk. It was even on
the agenda, it was in his diary, and then it wasn't.
And now he's ready to cross the globe twice to
make it happen. But if he chooses to go to NATO,
you would want to be sure, wouldn't you that the
meeting would actually come off. I mean, what if Albineazy
landed at the Hague and then Trump pulled out of
(02:12):
the NATO meeting. Yikes. I mean bad enough to be
snubbed once, but that would be pretty hard to explain
or recover from being dubbed twice by your closest ally.
And therein lies the real problem. It should never have
got to this, an Australian Prime Minister schlepping around the
world in the hope of getting his first face to
(02:33):
face meeting with the US President in the margins, literally
in the corridors of an international convention. Now, not only
is it demeaning to US as a nation, but it
raises the question why the PM's reluctance just to get
on a plane and go to Washington as opposed to
this diplomatic equivalent of stalking the world's most powerful man. Now, honestly,
(02:57):
what's wrong with making a drift in DC for the
soul purpose of establishing a personal rapport with the leader
of our most important ally. I mean, it's not as
if Anthony Albanez he hates to travel. It's not like
he doesn't like hobb nobbing with celebrities. I mean, no
PM has been abroad as often, and there isn't a
Grand Final or a sellout event that the PM won't
(03:18):
attend provided of course, it's got a lot of cameras
and not much thought. So why the Washington reluctance? After all,
he thought of nothing to visit the Pope for the
visit rome, for the Pope's installation. But the pope's not
as sceric of the importance to Australia, at least in
practical terms, as the US president is. So what's Anthony
(03:40):
Albertese's aversion to Washington and the Oval Office? Then? Well,
back in twenty seventeen, when he was a mere labor
frontbencher and Donald Trump was in his first term, Anthony
Albertezi couldn't help but pour scorn on the US president.
Speaker 3 (03:56):
We have an alliance with the US.
Speaker 6 (03:57):
We're going to deal with him.
Speaker 3 (03:58):
But that doesn't mean that you're uncritical about it. He's
scared out of me.
Speaker 2 (04:06):
At the time, it was assumed that this was just
the left standard Trump derangement syndrome that had him spoot,
and maybe it was. Maybe it's true now, maybe he's
actually intimidated. Trump is, as we know, unpredictable, and Alwine
easy isn't exactly known for his ability to think fast
on his feet. Maybe it's his minders who were scared
(04:28):
witless of a Zelenski style dressing down in the Oval office,
or maybe because addressing down he could very easily get
give it his own disparaging comments about Trump, the sneering
from others like rad and Penny Wong, plus his government's
almost pathological aversion to raising defense meaning despite our increased
(04:49):
strategic danger. Maybe that's it. Perhaps he thinks that are
meeting on the sidelines of something else would be brief
and that Trump would be distracted anyway, I doubt it.
Maybe he's worried that Donald Trump might ask him to
explain why Australia's energy policies making has ever more depended
on Chinese solar panels and wind turbines, that he might
(05:11):
ask us, why the heck are we still in Paris
and why are we making ourselves weaker and weaker by
refusing to even look at nuclear power. Maybe overwhelmingly, I
think it's petrified about being pushed on defense spending by
our largest ally and not being able to provide a
plausible answer as why Australia expects the US sons and
(05:31):
daughters to put their lives on the line to defend
us if necessary, and yet we can't even lift our
military spending to help ourselves. And he's right to worry
because there's nothing he can say really that stacks up. Indeed,
he should take a lesson out of Keir Starmer's book,
who took a rocky relationship with Trump and turned it around. Now,
(05:53):
let's not forget the British Labor Party said dozens and
dozens of staffers to help the Biden campaign to Trump.
One Starmer earned his absolution by fronding up to the
Oval Office back in February, behaving like an adult and
offering up as a measure of good will and increasing
British defense spending to three percent of GDP. That was
(06:14):
long overdue, because it's not just getting the meeting that matters.
It's what you do and say in it that counts
to get anywhere with the US. Right now, Australian needs
to demonstrate that we are an ally that pulls our weight.
Otherwise any meeting is a disaster, whenever and wherever it
takes place. Of course, there's another possible explanation for the
(06:37):
PM's aversion to having a serious sit down with a
president as opposed to a brush past in a corridor.
Maybe this lifelong leftist and instinctive anti nuclear activist, wouldn't
really mind if Aucus failed, especially if he could blame
someone else for being unreasonable, because Aucust is very inconvenient Labor,
(07:01):
because Orcus's nuclear submarines program makes a mockery of Labour's
rejection of nuclear power, and this is why many inside
Albany'ese has left faction want Aucust to fail. But one
thing is for sure. The longer their first meeting is delayed,
and right now the PMS about the only G twenty
leader who has not met with Trump in the seven
(07:23):
months or so since he was elected. The longer it's delayed,
the more significant that meeting will become when it happens,
and the more pressure there will be on our prime minister. Now,
I think Australia's weakest stance on Israel is also a
factor here, that our votes against Israel and the US
position at the UN have made it more difficult for us.
(07:46):
And the fact too that in our recent election campaign,
so much of Labour's attack against Peter Dunden was about
fitting him up as a Southern hemisphere Trump. Now there's
a saying that all politics is personal, and that's been
my observation of leaders close up. There's a lot in
that saying. Now, the problem here is that our Prime
(08:08):
minister has made his attacks on Trump very personal. Now
that he needs him, he's finding Trump's memory is about
on par with his ego. All right, let's get the
headlines now from Canbers Gunnis for the Reporter Cam Reddit.
Speaker 7 (08:28):
Good evening. A straight sets win in the High Court
means the Albanese government's intervention into one of Australia's largest
and most powerful unions can continue.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
The government will not tolerate criminal behavior, corruption and violence
in the construction sector.
Speaker 7 (08:45):
Claims of criminal conduct within the CFMEU saw two hundred
and seventy officials sacked and administrator Mark Irving Case installed
to clean the union up. One of those dismissed, Former
Queensland Secretary Michael Ravbar, claimed the action was unconstitutional, but
the High Court today dismissed his case in a unanimous
(09:05):
seven to zero ruling.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
This now creates that certainty we need.
Speaker 8 (09:09):
Gen registration always must remain on the table as a
final measure.
Speaker 7 (09:14):
Treasurer Jim Chalmers has laid out the case for broader
tax reform during an address to the National Press Club.
Speaker 5 (09:20):
Tax reform is so crucial to budget sustainability. It's also
about lifting productivity, it's about encouraging investment, lowering the personal
tax burden.
Speaker 7 (09:30):
Just don't ask him what's on or off the table.
Speaker 5 (09:33):
I think limiting ourselves to ruling things in or out
forever has a cancerous effect on our policy debates.
Speaker 7 (09:41):
The Prime Minister could now meet with President Trump as
soon as next week after their catch up in Canada
was canceled.
Speaker 3 (09:48):
It's perfectly understandable. Will reschedule a meeting from time to time,
that is what occurs.
Speaker 7 (09:54):
Anthony Alberanezi is weighing up a snap visit to next
week's NATO summit in hope of finally coming face to
face with Donald Trump. Cameron Reddin's Sky News Canberra.
Speaker 2 (10:07):
All right, planning, get across, johnyan Now, senior political reporter
Tritty Macintosh and senior reporter Krolyn Marcus. Well, welcome to
you both. We'll start with the Trump meeting will fallout today.
It's a run into the second day. The PM desperate
to try and brush off any criticism.
Speaker 3 (10:23):
Have a listen the decision that he made that meant
that the meetings that were scheduled not just with myself,
but with India, Ukraine, including President Zelenski, Mexico and other
countries didn't go ahead. Today's happening, well a potentially, yes,
(10:46):
that's been considered.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
Truly in many respects. I feel for the Prime Minister here,
I feel for his office. I've been there when these
things have moved around beyond your control. He mentions the
skinned president there and true their medig was canceled between
Trump and the President, but they got a phone call
from Trump. We didn't. Now he's talking about junking his
program for next week and heading off to NATO. So
(11:12):
clearly he's made a call that this meeting now cannot
wait until September, hasn't he.
Speaker 9 (11:20):
Well, yeah, it seems like that this is now a
live option, that he's going to go to the Hague
to attend the NATO summit.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
That had not been the plan up until today.
Speaker 9 (11:28):
Richard Marles, the Defense Minister, was the one who was
slated to go.
Speaker 2 (11:31):
Here.
Speaker 9 (11:32):
It shows you, as you say, they do want to
secure this first face to face meeting. It had been
telegraphed for such a long time as being at the
sidelines of the G seven summit. Donald Trump suddenly pulls
the rug out from under Anthony Abernuez E.
Speaker 2 (11:44):
But not just him.
Speaker 9 (11:45):
Ukraine's president was in the same situation. His country was
under attack as he was flying to this summer. He
goes all wait not to see he has That's true,
But the reporting out of Ukraine is they were still
disappointed that this is something that not just Australia is
dealing with.
Speaker 2 (11:59):
How do you deal with the president.
Speaker 9 (12:00):
Whose schedule continues to change. You might, with all the
best intentions, have it locked in and then it changes.
That would be my worry for the PMP to going
to NATO. You might go there and Donald Trurey doesn't go,
or at the last minute he has to leave.
Speaker 2 (12:13):
Does that look? Does that a worse.
Speaker 9 (12:15):
Situation to attend for a second time and then be
snubbed Apparently again, I think it's risky to go. He's
been to them in the past, there is a precedent
for it. But yeah, what a time and politics to.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
Be Yeah, the problem with NATO two, I mean we're
not in the first eleven really in NATO, so he'll
have a lot of other priority, my lads, In addition
to the NATO deliberations and obviously, with the world at
war in multiple theaters, NATO takes on a different significance.
And you're right if he gets there and something happens
and the meeting doesn't happen for a second time. I
(12:46):
think the problem is l PM has said a lot
on the record that Trump knows about that's not been flattering.
Trump obviously would read the wires coming out of the
electure campaign in Australia and saw that he was a
figure of derision for labor and used against Peter Dunton.
He knows all of that. They still have not ever
met face to face seven months into the job. We
(13:07):
can talk about all those other leaders like Modi and
the Mexican and Zelensky who had missed yesterday, but they've
all met him. Our bloke hasn't met him. And we've
got a long laundry list of issues and we're not
making ourselves popular because we keep snubbing them. In relation
to defense spending, yeah, it's just a tricky issue.
Speaker 9 (13:28):
The one thing that stood out to me before this
election of Donald Trump again, Keir Starmer went privately to
Trump Tower to meet Donald Trump in the very likelihood
that he was going to be re elected that the
UK Labor team thought it's better to try and lay
the groundwork for a potential Trump second term. We didn't
take that opportunity. The decision was made not to do that.
(13:49):
So it does make this complicated, Anthony Arbenezi. The only
upside I thought yesterday, Peter, is that tweet from Caroline Levett,
the Press secretary didn't come out during Anthony Aarbanese's press conference.
He'd only just left in front of the press back.
Imagine that being told by journalists to your face that
your meeting's been canceled. I think that was the one
silver lining for Room yesterday.
Speaker 2 (14:09):
You've got to take the small mercies where you can
get them. That you Caroline. Let's go to the news
about the Liberal Party. They have officially announced their review process.
It will be a review. Submissions are open until August.
It'll be headed up by former New South the Wild
State Minister Pro Goward and of course Howard Government Cabinet
minister Nick mentioned. They're not just going to look at
(14:30):
the campaign in this review are though, though, Carolina, it's
going to be quite comprehensive.
Speaker 1 (14:37):
Well, they've got a really broad term of reference here,
so they can really look at anything that they consider
relevant to the election results, and it was historically low
result for the Liberal Party, so they'll be dissecting everything.
Speaker 2 (14:53):
That could have contributed to that.
Speaker 1 (14:55):
I mean, they'll have a look, it's been said, at
just the performance and general of the opposition during the
last term of government. They'll look at how the vote
went among different voter segments, and they'll also be having
a look at the challenge from the tials and how
the Liberal Party might be able to meet that challenge.
(15:18):
But of course a lot of it is going to
be taken up by looking in depth at the election
campaign itself. It is due submissions at the first of August,
so they've got six weeks and then till the end
of the year to report back.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
Let's hope it that doesn't sit on the shelf like
a lot of the other reviews in recent times. I
think that's part of the problem as well. Hey Truy,
what's going on the other side of the ear the
Prime Minister. What we're five weeks on from the election now,
they've not released the staffing numbers, they've not secured their
own stuff. They've got some six hundred positions where people
are not yet confirmed. I'm told we've got what about
(15:55):
eighty or ninety for the coalition. There'll be all this
other stuff obviously around the cross speech and elsewhere. Now,
come on, unless they get the staff into these minister's offices,
they really can't get to work. I don't know what's
going on. You got any ideas?
Speaker 9 (16:11):
Yeah, on both sides. I've speaken to staff as today
see new ones, Peter, and there is a level of uncertainty,
and particularly on the coalition side, people in senior roles
who are doing the job are being paid because they
had a job in the opposition before, but are technically
not in the spot, so they can't actually travel as
a part of their work. On the government side, it
(16:32):
relies on the government staff as being locked in. Then
that allocation is a proportion going to the opposition.
Speaker 2 (16:36):
That's how these things work. But ultimately it's up to
the Prime minister.
Speaker 9 (16:39):
A government source telling me today the decision has not
yet been made. They're expecting it to happen within the
coming days slash weeks, noting that the Prime Minister's currently
overseas so potentially be able to happen when he comes back,
but as you say, a.
Speaker 2 (16:51):
Lot of uncertainty.
Speaker 9 (16:53):
The people we don't normally think that much about in policies,
are you the staff, And it is a lot of
uncertainty for people I doerfed out or forced to boof
as a result of their bosses.
Speaker 2 (17:03):
And surely someone else in that office can use a computer.
Come on, get on with it, Get on with it.
We want the government back and the country working again. Hey,
speculation today that Josh s Reid move might be having
another tilted federal politics. There's been a new executive elected
for the Coupyong branch out in the east of Melbourne.
It's been joined with the old Higgins branch. The seat
(17:23):
of Higgins, of course, has been abolished, and quote, a
whole lot of Josh people have been elected. Now this
one's interesting for me here, Caroline, because Emelia Hamer contested
that seat. She obviously narrowly lost there to Monique Ryan.
And all the people who said Haym was a sort
of young person, a young woman we want to see
(17:45):
in politics are now all the same people saying, well,
she's going to move to one side because we want
Josh to get in the job. They're also the same
people who say the Liberal Party must have quotas.
Speaker 1 (17:57):
I think when push comes to shove, party members on
the whole are going to be backing someone who they
see as not only a potential Liberal leader, a future
Liberal leader, but someone who could be future Liberal Prime minister.
And that's always how Josh Fredenburg has been viewed. Look,
it would mean obviously he would need to have another
(18:20):
crack at it, but there's been rumors for a long
time and he refuses to say whether that's the case.
Speaker 2 (18:25):
But I think he'd be stupid not to.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
Given how close Amelia haimercam at unseating Monique Ryan, I
think he would have been watching that very closely and
thinking thinking what we're all thinking right now, that he's
going to have another go.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
I don't care how good.
Speaker 1 (18:41):
The pay and the hours are at Goldman Sachs compared
to his political job. I think some people are just
conviction politicians, and I dare say Josh Fridenberg is among them.
And he never got to fulfill his ambitions of becoming
prime minister one day, so I have no doubt we
will see him again. And now the chair position, the
(19:01):
treasurer positioned, the membership officer position, have all gone to
Josh loyalists. I dare say we will see him pre
selected at the next selection.
Speaker 2 (19:12):
I suspect to write, but we'll get the dance of
the Seven Vales before we get to that, and a
lot of urging and we forced reluctantly to run. But hey,
let's go to the news. The poor old Tony Burke
has got more trouble on his doorstep. This is again
in relation to those foreign detainees. We've got another man,
Somali born individual charged with breaching his electronic monitoring but
(19:36):
also committing serious crime which's not disclosed to what that
is whilst on bail. We also saw in recent days
a man was assaulted, an Australian man assaulted. He's fighting
for his life. That involved another foreign detainee. And we
still don't have one one community protection order lodge from
(19:58):
the government. Truty.
Speaker 9 (20:01):
Yeah, we've seen the oppositions. Andrew Hasty picking up the
ball on this one, trying to get some traction. He's
arguing that the government, as you say, should be using
those powers that they rush through the parliament. Don't forget
that in terms of preventative detention orders. Home Affairs Minister
Tony Burke in a statement though, pointing to this as
a High Court ruling and a challenge on one aspect
(20:22):
of this end zid yq cohort. They're waiting on that
in terms of trying to use separate powers to actually
deport these people. As Andrew Hasty's point is that ultimately
we can't afford to wait until that court ruling.
Speaker 2 (20:35):
But that's where this is up to.
Speaker 9 (20:36):
In terms of political sense, it's certainly not getting the
potency it did when this first came to the headlines.
Speaker 2 (20:41):
Is it Peter.
Speaker 10 (20:44):
No.
Speaker 2 (20:44):
But unfortunately we've got astrain a man who's likely to
lose his life because the government's still waiting on legal
advice or hasn't got its act together. And I just
don't think that two years on that's good enough. I'd
put the application in if it was me, and let
them take you to court government and test it, rather
than just hold back and wanting perfect I think it's crazy.
I'll leave it there, Thank you both, all right. Today's
(21:05):
announcement the Liberal Party's official review into the historic election
loss in May is underway. It brings with it the
usual demands of the party needs to move its policies
to the left. I'd have to say the election, I
thought they were close to the left anyway, and to
introduce gender quotas to if the party is standing with women.
Now you know my views on quotas. The only way
(21:26):
you pick a good candidate is to pick them based
on merit. Anything else is profoundly illiberal. But if you
listen to others around the fringes of the Liberal Party
or they think that quotas are the answer.
Speaker 6 (21:40):
The Liberals don't like to learn quotas too much. But
I do think that it is time that we address
this hands down. This needs to be the one thing
that we finally do. It should have been done at
the last review after the Scott Morrison loss, and we
didn't do it.
Speaker 2 (22:00):
Don't even owns to discuss this. Head of Advocacy at
the Women's Forum Australia, Stephanie Bastian, Stephie, thanks for your time. Look,
I think we'll probably all agree, Charlotte Wrdlocke, yourself and
I that we need more strong women in the Liberal
Party's ranks. But for a lot of Liberal women talk
of quotas as at anathema. People like Charlotte say it's
the answer to the party's problems. Will give you your
(22:22):
take on this debate.
Speaker 11 (22:25):
Well, good evening, Peter. I'm yet to hear a plausible
argument about how quotas will flip a single vote. If
we want to fix the Liberal parties perceived women problem,
we need to address the way that outspoken women are
treated in the party. And I'll note that even organizations
like the Helmer's Network and Miss nort Lock have been
very quiet about the way that Mora Deming was treated
by her male colleagues, the way that cath Eves was
(22:47):
briefed against, about the way that day Lee was treated
when she was suspended for ten years from the New
South Wales division. If we want to get serious about
winning over female voters, we need to improve our policy base.
Are often the economic managers of their homes. They've got
balanced budgets to balance this identity politics is not going
to turn a single vote. And as we saw in Goldstein,
(23:09):
Zoe Daniels was the ideal progressive candidate. She was beaten
by Tim Wilson, who's a man. So I think the
answer to this is actually improving our policy base.
Speaker 2 (23:21):
I have to agree with that because I made the
point of the top of show the same as you did.
That we only won the Liberal Party one seat one only,
God help us at the last election, and that was
the Melbourne seat of Goldstein. At Goldstein won by a man,
Tim Wilson, from a woman, Zoe Daniels. So it says
that just putting a female candidate in there is not
a silver bullet, and also conversely that a bloke as
(23:44):
you candidate is not the handicap that some in the
party might like to claim it is.
Speaker 11 (23:50):
No, it's absolutely not. And I think there's a range
of policies.
Speaker 2 (23:54):
That we could look at that would.
Speaker 11 (23:55):
Entice female of its, particularly that younger demographic that we
so often mist I mean childcare, for example, is very rigid.
It's a childcare center based only. There are only three thousand,
two hundred spots for in home childcare, which for a
lot of women who are nurses or who are working
shift work, that's very limiting. Or for women who are
wanting to stay home to raise families. Income splitting would
(24:16):
also be a very attractive policy to women. But instead
of talking about how we can engage women on these
policy debates, we're sort of going to quotas and I
think that it's not a winning strategy. I think it's
just a way to further it'll further democratize the party.
The right type.
Speaker 2 (24:37):
Of woman will get pre selected.
Speaker 11 (24:38):
If you're someone that believes in quotas therefore identity politics,
you're going to have to be a certain type of
women to get pre selected if you support this sort
of move, and I think it'll be detrimental to the
party and brand.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
I guess you know. The moral objection I have to
quotas is I hate to see anybody divided by attributes
as opposed to talent. One day it will be a
quota based on agenda. Tomorrow it may be indigenity or not.
It could be an age based quota. We see that's
coming into boards in New South Wales, a certain number
of seats reserved for those board members under the age
(25:14):
of twenty four. It could be religious space. We know
in some countries that you have to be Muslim potentially
to have seats in the Parliament. So I think this
is it's going to be a very difficult debate for
the Liberal Party to have because people are just wanting to,
I think, react to the devastating loss rather than look
(25:35):
at what is sustainable decisions to turn this around. I
think they want to quick fix and they want to
be able to move on.
Speaker 11 (25:46):
But I don't think that's going to work.
Speaker 2 (25:47):
I mean quotas.
Speaker 11 (25:48):
The Labor Party have had quotas for a significant number
of time. They've just won government after three terms of
a Liberal government. Improving your female representation isn't going to
necessarily bring in the quality and the caliber of an
MP that's going to win government. In fact, at the
last federal election, it was a senior Liberal female MP
(26:08):
that brought in the devastating work from home policy. This
MP also fearmongered about Chinese volunteers in Cuyong that I
think had a significant impact in seats like Menzies, Deacon
Chisholm and of course Cuong.
Speaker 6 (26:22):
So.
Speaker 11 (26:22):
I think that we need to go back to basics,
go back to our core brand, core brand policies of
economic management, lower taxes, and families will vote liberal. Women
will vote liberal because that is how you would you
manage the economics of your home and everything else.
Speaker 2 (26:45):
Yeah, I'll make the pointments before we go. You know,
the highest sort of level of female share of the
vote so high forties under mister Howard forty five under
Tony Abott, and neither of them were considered particularly women
friendly because the policy settings were right. When the party
went to Malcolm Turnbull in the twenty sixteen election, that
(27:06):
share of the female votes as this is women at
eighteen to sixty four fell to a very very low
thirty five percent and fell even further under scope moreton
So I think that amplifies your point. It's the policies
stupid that gets the female vote definite. Thank you, thanks
for your time. After the break, Jin Chalmers admits our
budget is not sustainable, but is that code for spending restraint?
(27:28):
Was labor warming us up for more taxes? Lass sues?
The Future Fund now beholden to left wing group think
welcome back still to come. Greg Sheridan on the latest
out of the Middle East. A speculation is rife that
the US readies to enter the battle in Tehran. But
first the Treasurer today in front of the press club
(27:50):
and did at least admit our current budget trajectory is
not sustainable.
Speaker 5 (27:56):
We recognize three blunt truths. Our budget is stronger, but
it's not yet sustainable enough. Our economy is growing, but
it's not productive.
Speaker 2 (28:07):
Enough.
Speaker 5 (28:08):
It is resilient, but it's not resilient enough.
Speaker 2 (28:13):
Or true. Jim Chalmers then mentioned tax reform.
Speaker 5 (28:17):
Now, no sensible progress can be made on productivity, resilience
or budget sustainability without proper consideration of more tax reform.
I don't just accept that.
Speaker 2 (28:30):
I welcome that, jentlemen now to discuss this in more.
Former Treasury Assistant Secretary David Peerl David welcome. I think
we're all going to agree that the budget isn't sustainable.
But what's the fix here? Because there wasn't much of
a fix on the table today at the Press Club.
I mean, either it's spending restraint and that's some tough
(28:51):
conversations with Australians and taking things off them, or it's
increasing our revenue base. Let's call that taxes with we
know taxes are in lay DNA. Unless you're going to
tell me there's another.
Speaker 8 (29:03):
Way, thanks for having me on, Peter.
Speaker 2 (29:07):
There's no other way.
Speaker 8 (29:08):
Jim Chalmers call today for more action to be taken
to make this budget sustainable is a recipe for higher taxation.
He's already showed his hand by committing to tax unrealized
gains for superannuents and the more he talks about tax reform,
I think the more people should be concerned that he's
(29:30):
going to broaden out from that and go after investors
more generally.
Speaker 2 (29:35):
So you took this to be a bit of a
softening up exercise.
Speaker 8 (29:40):
I think it is, and I think the Productivity Summit
was a hospital passed from the Prime Minister to the Treasurer.
To be honest, if you look at the Prime Minister's
speech last week, Peter, he talked about a productivity and
growth summit. He was setting up the Treasurer to fail.
In his speech today, the Treasurer was very careful to
backtrack from the hospital pass if you like. He disclaimed
(30:03):
any responsibility himself for undermining Australian productivity. He reframed the
summit as one about raising more revenue, which is what
references to sustainability is. And he also looked at the
summit participants in the media towards the end, Peter, and
he basically set himself out to blame them if the
(30:26):
summit fails. He said to the participants, you have to
come up with budget neutral proposals and you have to
make the public pace. And he said to the media,
don't put me in a corner on ruling things and
ruling out. I think it was an ass covering exercise
from the Treasure because he got a hospital passed from
the Prime Minister last week.
Speaker 2 (30:47):
Okay, but if we don't lift our productivity and if
a government doesn't get out of the way, I mean,
there was too much in that speech of government getting
in the way, not enough of government saying it's just
going to get out of the way of our productive
parts of the economy, which is the private sector. If
we don't lift down productivity, we're in a hiding to nothing,
are we.
Speaker 8 (31:10):
We're absolutely right. So I think Jim's been coached to
say that productivity is the key to higher living standards
because previously I think he's given the impression that productivity
is a plot to make workers toil for longer. But
the progressive Left and Jim Chalmers and the Labor Party
and the modern Treasury are captive to that view, believe
(31:30):
that productivity requires higher taxes, more welfare, and more government
domination of our lives. And the lefts quasi religious obsession
with net zero while the rest of the intelligent world
is backtracking. Is all you need to know about that
they have a complete blind spot on that, and that
(31:52):
won't be challenged by anybody at this round table.
Speaker 2 (31:58):
Right, Let's get to a couple of other questions. While
got to Greg Comboy today. He's the chair of the
Future Fund. Obviously he's taken the chair on after Peter
Costello retired. He says, we're too exposed to US stocks,
too volatile in terms of the Trump administration. Is this
a sound investment reaction or is it ideological? Do you think.
Speaker 8 (32:19):
It's ideological? I was appalled by his comments, Peter. At
a time when the Prime Minister is desperately trying to
get a one on one meeting with President Trump, he
has his Future fun boss essentially saying that Trump's election
itself delivers a hit to volatility and uncertainty. I think
(32:40):
that's not only ideological, I think his extremely ill conceived
in his comments, given what the Prime Minister's faced with now.
I couldn't believe it when I read those comments.
Speaker 2 (32:53):
Nope, I don't think they were good comments either. Will
leave it there, Thank you, David. After the Great President Trump,
bisho's a turn threat to it ran that he knows
the exact location, he says of the nation Supreme Leader.
Plus hour working from home is taking its told not
just on the bottom line of Melbourne's big train operator,
but it's costing taxpayers millions. Welcome back having up a
(33:18):
warning that the skyrocketing use by business of AI could
lead to more climate emissions. Seriously, but first for the
latest on growing hostilities in the Middle East, to the
possibility of US entry into the conflict. Ender, of course,
I don't want to get off again. Meet him between
the US President and our Prime minister. I'm joined now
by the foreign editor at The Australian, Greg Sheridan. Greg,
(33:39):
thank you for your time. I want to start tonight
in the Middle East with Donald Trump. As we know
he is back in the White House. We've seen imagery
of him in and around the situation room. He's caught
on an I run to issue an unconditional surrender. He's
gone on to social media and says, look, we know
where the eye are. Toller Is, You're an easy target.
Give it up. From what I've read on open sources,
(34:01):
the Iranians are already moving to ensure that if the
aotola has removed, there's been enough spread of power amongst
the guard that they can keep up the attacks on Israel.
So how serious do you see this threat from Donald Trump?
Speaker 12 (34:16):
Look, I think it would be very foolish to kill
the Ayatollah. That would just make him a martyr of
Islam for all time. I think that's quite stupid and
very strange remarks from Trump, as so many remarks of
Trump's are. And you know, you didn't even talk about
that in World War Two, killing the opposition's head of government.
(34:39):
But the more important stuff is that Trump is plainly
moving all the logistics into place to join Israel in
the battle if he wants to. That doesn't mean the
decision is made, because Trump has never decided to do
something until it happens. The key thing is that Israel,
(35:00):
either with the US or alone, needs to destroy all
or almost all of Iran's nuclear program. Now, everybody says
that Israel can't get the four dough nuclear facility because
it's sixty or eighty meters underground on the side of
a mountain without American bunker busters, this huge thirty thousand
(35:23):
pound bomb, and only American planes can carry it. So
I think there's a very strong case that Trump should
engage at least in that one mission with the Israelis.
Whether he would engage in a broader mission is very unclear,
and this might still all, you know, be reversed right
at the last minute.
Speaker 2 (35:44):
He might.
Speaker 12 (35:44):
You know, if the Uranians are a bit smarter than
they are, they should just agree to give up all
their nuclear weapons and then not do it. All their
nuclear programs rather and then just not do it. I
saw North Korea do that about twelve times on the
road to nuclear weapons. Because it's very hard for democracies
like Israel and the United States to get to this
state of warfare.
Speaker 2 (36:08):
Yeah, that's a good point, because we in the West
can't get to the point where we are now, where
we're inside of taking out these nuclear facilities. And let's
put to one side that they might say we'll give
it up, but if they don't, we can't get to
this point and then somehow walk away and only then
wait for a few more months to things all start
(36:30):
up again, and we have this debate about taking out
the nuclear capability of Iran. I mean, I think we're
past that now, aren't we.
Speaker 12 (36:38):
Well, I think so. I think Israel will continue this
operation until it feels that it has done everything it
can to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities and its ballistic missile
capabilities and much of its military capabilities. Generally, the question
is whether they can do it without the United States.
(37:00):
Dates Trump seems to be on the very brink of
doing it again, you know, without being a bore about
this North Korean parallel. Bill Clinton, of all people, was
on the brink of taking military action against North Korea
before they had nuclear weapons, and Jimmy Carter went to
Pyongyang on an unscheduled, unapproved visit and sort of killed
(37:22):
the moment. As a result, Clinton didn't take action, and
as a result, North Korea now has dozens and dozens
of nuclear weapons and we'll soon have missiles which can
reach the United States. So I agree with you, Peter.
I think Israel will just go ahead until, you know,
until the mission is completed. But they could do the
mission much more effectively if the Americans do it with them,
(37:44):
and it would have much greater legitimacy then, and it
would be harder for anyone to describe this as a
pariah action. Even our own lame, lame, lame government is
kind of falling in behind behind Israel on this, largely
because of the Americans.
Speaker 2 (38:00):
I think, well, it feels pretty reluctant today. I mean, yes,
there's been some tougher comments from Penny Wong, but I
mean she was just urging restraint for a number of days.
And I look around the world or what other leaders
are saying, and you know, I've got something on the
screen to come up. In relation to the German Chancellor.
I mean, he is making the point. You and I
(38:20):
would get this. Australians watching tonight would get this. But
he says that this is dirty work that Israeli is
doing is for all of us. I mean we're not
hearing enough of that from the Australians. Whatever. The word
Israel is mixed up. Even in this case with Donald Trump,
Israel is still seen to be doing something that is
on the edges or outside international law. But I mean
(38:44):
I see this as a just war for humanity.
Speaker 7 (38:50):
Yeah.
Speaker 12 (38:50):
So I think the Alberzi government Rderick has been a
little stronger than usual. I'd agree with you, it's still
too weak, all in pursuit of this kind of pathetic
effort of Alberanzi to get an appointment with Trump, which
he hasn't been able to do so. Richard Marles for
the first time ever said if the Americans go to
(39:10):
war with China, Australia will be there with America. Well,
blow me down. Where did that come from? He sounds
just like Peter Dutton. That's amazing. So what an amazing coincident.
This is a couple of days before his boss, Albanesi
hopes to get an appointment with Trump and Penny Wong.
All of a sudden, yeah, she is urging de escalation,
but all of a sudden, she's saying the Iranian nuclear
(39:33):
program is a terrible threat in Israel has a right
to defend itself and all the rest of it. But
this has been a kind of a Keystone Cops foreign
trip by Albanesi. I enjoyed your earlier discussion, but I
truly hope he goes to NATO because, apart from anything else,
if he shows up at NATO, everyone at NATO is
pledging to spend three point five percent of GDP on defense,
(39:57):
and if he's there saying, we're the greatest ally the
Americans have ever had, and we're a major partner of
NATO and so forth. But by the way, we're not
going to meet the NATO standard of defense spending for
any American ally. And meanwhile, he still has no agenda
with Trump. He's just going there to whine about tariffs
and beg Trump to promise that he'll give him orcust
(40:18):
subs long after Trump has gone from office. I mean,
there's decisions about the ORCT subs doesn't happen until a
long time after Trump has gone. So I hope for
our national good that Albaneze goes there, because he may
well be shamed into good policy having exhausted all the
other alternatives.
Speaker 2 (40:37):
A point very well made, Rick Shan. That is very
very good. A bit of a public hectoring might help
him along the way to get to that three percent.
We'll see. Thank you, Greg Arthur Braton. Just when you
thought the campaign is from get up, had given up,
gone home, they're back. Plus the Queensland government that struck
a deal to keep a coal company afloat all of
the name though of zero. Welcome back. Now to the
(41:05):
warning that's been issued to companies using artificial intelligence and
super funds with big tech investments. Wait for it, the toll.
We need AI. We need it to increase productivity, but
watch out, it'll increase your emissions and the enormous amounts
of energy required to power AI could be a time
bomb for your corporate sustainability strategy. To discuss this in
(41:28):
more mopanel Age Chief Executive Gerald Holland an LPMP Phil Thompson, gents, welcome.
I tell you what you know. It's going to be
a big issue for these poor old corporates. Climate productivity,
AI and emissions perfect storm. Jared Peter.
Speaker 4 (41:47):
It's so frustrating in a nation where just about every
industry is going backwards at the moment, there could seriously
be a growth opportunity in embracing AI and embracing these
data centers, and now the Australian Institute is coming out
and telling us that we can't have them because of emissions.
I mean, the truth is businesses are not going to
turn away from these kinds of productivity tools if it
means that they're going to be able to do better.
(42:08):
I mean, we've already had sixteen thousand business insolvencies in
the last two years alone, so if we aren't doing
it here, it means that business is going to go overseas.
And what the Australia Institute does point out is this
is a really energy intensive business. The software that we
see on our screens, we take for granted, is produced
by a lot of hardware behind the scenes, and that
requires energy, more energy by twenty thirty than the entire
(42:30):
Japanese economy just to power these data centers. I think
in the US they're petrochemicals, their steel, their cement, all
of those energy intensive industries combined will be less than
their data center electricity requirements. So Australia can embrace this
or we can let it pass us by because of
our ideological fixation on these renewable targets.
Speaker 2 (42:53):
Yeah, but it's going to force the conversation Joe, that
we need to go to nuclear. There is no other
way if we want these data centers in austray if
we want to keep up with the rest of the world,
we have to have an adult conversation about nuclear. And
they just don't want that conversation. So they're now saying
we can't have it in Australia because of emissions. That's
the problem, and nuclear's emissions free as we know. Hey,
I thought there was a stake through the heart. Phil
(43:15):
Thompson of get Up. I thought they'd gone for all
money that they disbanded and morphed into the teals. But
now that Labour's got this big parliamentary majority, they're out
there trying to push them well beyond any mandate they
might have taken in terms of policies to the election.
They've got ads in all the papers. They're saying your
mob's out for the next two terms at least, and
(43:36):
that the Albanezer government should go for broke and push
on with some really radical change.
Speaker 10 (43:46):
Well, I'm here to win the next election. I'm not
heady to sit in the passenger seat and let get
Up or any other fringe group dictate what the coalition
should or shouldn't do. I think that get Up is
about fiding the country. It's not about bringing us together.
They're putting ads out. I thought they went away as well,
but now they're back. They want to pull the Labor
(44:07):
Prime Minister further to the extremes of the left and
demand that he does this. And to be honest, his
parliament looks like it will drive further to the left.
And you know, when you lose, and you lose well,
which we did. All these fringe groups come out of
the wouldwork because they see a payday and they see
a time to divide a country, because that's what they're about,
(44:27):
their divisive organization.
Speaker 2 (44:29):
It's in their mandate.
Speaker 10 (44:31):
But us as the coalition, we need to have sensible
policy to be an alternative government, and we'll fight back.
Speaker 2 (44:40):
Spot on, Phil, Let's go to Melbourne because this was
really interesting today. Metro Trains. This is the train network
that was privatized in Victoria. It's just had a payday
of five hundred million dollars from taxpayers because in their contracts,
if passenger revenue drops, the poor old taxpayers on the
hook to pay them out. The government's been here, Jared,
(45:01):
was that they're still not able to cope or recover
from COVID hitting transport flows. But we're five years on
from COVID. This is because Victoria and elsewhere is still
locked into work from home. So if we are not
going to change work from home and most of the
public service in Victoria work from home, then the poor
(45:22):
old taxpayer we'll be paying out these foreign own private
transport companies forever in the day.
Speaker 4 (45:32):
Peter, that's right, there is something really fishy about this story. So,
as you mentioned, the government's committed to underwriting five hundred
million over the next four years because footfall is so
much lower. But these contracts came up for a newal
last year, four years out from the COVID pandemic, when
we're already experiencing this massive drop in traffic, and yet
this Chinese, Chinese majority owned company was resigned for another
(45:56):
couple of years. And so if you sort of lay
it out, you've got Victoria tax pays across the state
and now paying five hundred million dollars to a Chinese
own company for trains in Melbourne that aren't carrying the
passengers that they're contracted to carry. It's just it doesn't
pass the sniff test. Victoria's heading for two hundred billion
dollars in debt in the next five or six years,
and I can't see how people continue to wear this.
Speaker 6 (46:21):
Well.
Speaker 2 (46:21):
It's not much better in Queensland, phil because there's reluctantly
one hundred and ten million dollars being paid by the
Chrystal Foley government. They've inherited a mess up there. In
relation to your big power station, Collide power station, there's
a coal company that has to be subsidized, so it
keeps digging up the coal that can feed the power
station to keep the lights on because of all the
(46:44):
next zero madness that have made the grid unstable.
Speaker 10 (46:50):
Farmers supplied the food truckes deliveratey or the resource sector
keeps the lights on. And what we've seen from the
previous Labor State government is a complete abandonment of the
resource sector. Their federal national colleague under the Labor Prome
Minister now abandoning the resource sector. Well, in Queensland, seventy
(47:11):
five percent of our power is generated by coal and
the Coalition is energy agnostic. We must look at all
types of energy to keep the power prices down. Now
to have this organization to receive this funding is because
of failed national policies that have ramped up production costs
(47:32):
and also low cost on coal. But it's because there
hasn't been a focal point on making sure that these
coal fire power stations stay online. People are doing it tough.
People can't afford to go to the movies to go out,
people that are working go to food pantries. They're doing
it tough, and we're going to see an increase in
power prices because people want to race to the bottom
(47:54):
to shut down coal fire power stations. So I can
tell you now that's not going to work, and it's
only going to put power prices up.
Speaker 2 (48:01):
Gil. Just before we go, because I know you're hot
to trot on law and order. In Victoria, they've just
announced a policy by the Libs that prisoners moved around
a prison will now be handcuffed if they're proven to
have assaulted guards before. You know, some four hundred assaults
happened last year. What shocks me is this doesn't happen already.
Speaker 10 (48:23):
Violent criminals should be handcuffed the day one they go
into prison, before they and when they get transported around.
Correctional staff should feel safe and should be protected. Violent
criminals should be restrained, whether they're in there or previously
or when they get in as a violent criminal, because
they're in there, because they're not safe to be out
(48:45):
on our streets and their rights and liberty has been
taken away from them. Keep them handcuffed, make sure our
people stay safe.
Speaker 2 (48:51):
Spot on gott to leave it there, gents, Thanks very much,
see you order to borrow night. He's Andrew
Popular Podcasts
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.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.