June 24, 2025 • 49 mins
Israel accuses Iran of violating the ceasefire, and the PM’s cynical move to cut the opposition's staffing. Plus, the Victorian government’s embarrassing backflip on gas.
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 (00:01):
Peter Krandland live on Sky News Australia.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Good evening, Welcome to the program. Here's what's coming up
tonight on Kredlin. A ceasefire tonight between Iran and Israel.
It's been announced and confirmed by both parties. The question
is will it hold? Perhaps more importantly, are we sure
that all of Iran's nuclear assets really have been disabled?
Plenty of domestic news tonight to get across, including the
(00:28):
Prime Minister's cuts to the Opposition staffing and budget. And
this is really important because it's vindictive, and it's cynical
and it'll leave Australians worse off. Last the tale of
two Cities. The Victorian government forced into an embarrassing back
down on its gas span, while the City of Sydney
is leaning into this nonsense span with gas appliances to
(00:51):
go in new homes. And as criticism mounds of Labour's
flat foot and response to Iran, the Prime Minister's decided
it's all the media full, not his own. As we
become irrelevant on the world stage.
Speaker 3 (01:04):
There are some in the media who have a criticism
of anything that the Labor government does. What my government
does is act in an orderly coherent way.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
All right, We've got obviously that ban. It will come
into force, the ceasefire almost immediately. There are conditions put
on this. But it's all very interesting tonight. It is unfolding,
announced of course by the President Trump on his social
media the earlier. But I'll get across that in a moment.
But I've got to have something else to say. I
(01:40):
think about our Prime minister, who's becoming more and more
diminished as the day goes on and world events swirl
around him, and he's left looking like he's trying to
lass sue a columnist Smoke. Anthony Albinezi and Pettywong keep
trying to tell us that Australia is not central to
these events.
Speaker 4 (02:00):
Central player.
Speaker 3 (02:00):
We aren't a central player in this contract conflict.
Speaker 5 (02:04):
This was in ellateral action taken by the United States.
Speaker 3 (02:07):
I can't be clearer than this was unilateral action taken
by the United States.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
Not centrally, says, despite the fact that our largest military
ally is and many Australians two are currently stuck in
the region.
Speaker 6 (02:21):
Now.
Speaker 2 (02:22):
It is bizarre, isn't it that when it relates to Israel,
this isn't our sphere of influence the Middle East isn't
anywhere or somewhere that Australia gets involved in.
Speaker 7 (02:32):
Yet.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
If that's the case, explain to me why the government
took three thousand people out of Gaza, where no of
them was the neighbor in the region took anyone and
we are still funding UNRA. And when we took in way,
way more people than any other democracy. The UK it
took just one hundred and sixty eight, the United States
(02:54):
just seventeen. We took in that three thousand with barely
a security check. Now it was our region back then
if you listened to Penny Wong and the Prime Minister.
But nothing much to do with us now, says Labor.
And today, when the Prime Minister was interviewed by my
colleague Kieran Gilbert is squeamed yet again over the issue
(03:15):
of his own on again off again meeting with Donald Trump,
as the Prime Minister confirmed he would stay away from
this week's NATO meeting in the Hague.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
Should you have gone to NATO even wants to meet
with the Indo Pacific allies.
Speaker 3 (03:28):
They're not there, Kieran. The President of Career is not there.
The Prime Minister of Japan is not there in terms
of the IP four or three of the four leaders
aren't there. That was a part of the decision making
process that we made.
Speaker 4 (03:44):
NATO is about NATO.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
Now someone banked this out to be all about Donald Trump,
that the Trump meeting wasn't confirmed, so Albaneze couldn't afford
to go there and was looking like he had been
stood up a second time. But much more significant is
the fact that Albanezer couldn't sit around the table at
NATO and face the recriminations of having the lowest defense
spending in the room after most other nations have up
(04:11):
their spending as a result of growing global threats. That
is why Albanese is staying put in Australia and instead
of sending his defense minister who'll offer up his usual
miles weak excuses for an action now. Interestingly, in the
interview today, Kieran Gilbert also pressed the Prime Minister on
Australia's security threat level and whether we need it to
(04:34):
do more here given events in the Middle East. The
Prime Minister almost flippantly pushed this concern to one side
with an insurance he said these things were always being
looked at.
Speaker 1 (04:49):
The national terror threat level. Is that under review. Well
we're here this talk about sleeper cells in the US.
Is this something you'll reed on.
Speaker 3 (04:56):
It is constantly monitored, but there's been no chain in
the National security alert. We continue to have our national
security agencies to monitor the situation.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
And look, yes it is constantly monitored, but not by
the Prime Minister, by his officials. And it was these
very same intelligence officials that Albanezy booted from the National
Security Committee in his first term. So while they might
be doing their assessments their job, my question is is
the government reading the assessments now? Are they getting the
(05:33):
briefings they should be getting. Are they doing enough to
manage the real risk of young Australian boys being radicalized
online because of these events? Because this is what has
happened in the past. I saw it firsthand when the
West took on Islamic State ten years ago, and why
I would want to be absolutely sure it's been watched
(05:55):
just as closely this time round. But with this Prime minister,
you have got to wonder. Look in the People's Republic
of Victoria, there's been a minor reprieve from the energy madness,
with the Allen Labour government softening its earlier ban on
gas appliances in the home. Existing homes can still use
(06:19):
gas for heating and cooking, but if replacing a hot
water system after twenty twenty seven, it will have to
be electric, not gas, and all new homes and all
new commercial buildings are still supposed to be electric, even
though Labour's looming all renewable's power system is likely to
be both expensive and unreliable. To get to its ninety
(06:42):
five percent target of renewable energy within a decade, Labour
wants seven percent of Victoria's land masks to be covered
by an additional one thousand wind turbines and a further
five point two million solar panels, plus hundreds and hundreds
of kilometers of new transmission lines. And to get around
the growing resistance of farmers and rural communities to these
(07:04):
transmission lines cunning across their land and making much of
it worthless, Labours slipped legislation into the Parliament last week that,
if passed, could hit landlowners land owners with fines worth
tens of thousands of dollars if they refuse to put
transmission lines on their private property. Yes their private property,
(07:28):
according to the new National Electricity Victoria Amendment VIC Greed
Stage two reform bill. It reads that authorized officers accompanied
by officers of electricity corporations will be able to enter
private land without owner or occupy consent, and the fines
will hit farmers who resist. But they'll also be hit
(07:51):
with fines if they take down any signs from power companies,
or if they even refuse to identify themselves to these
authorized officers, even if they're standing in their own paddocks. Now,
the Victorian Liberals have rightly said this stinks, but they
have not said they'll oppose the legislation. They have not
said if elected next year, if they will repeal it.
Speaker 8 (08:16):
I mean what the government's doing is draconian. I mean
they are taking away people's rights. They're finding you if
you don't like it, and if you speak out, and
by the way, if you speak out, they're not going
to listen to you. The only way we can stop
this stuff is to change the government.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
That's the Victorian shadow treasurer there. And sure, I agree
with everything you just said, but nowhere in that interview
with Steve Price on Friday night did he say what
he and the Liberals would do. So today I went
back to the opposition, and I asked the Victorian Liberals
for a clear position. Well, this is the rubbish that
(08:55):
has come back to me tonight. They've called these laws draconian,
which they are. They say it's taking a huge news
stick to beat local communities, which it is. But nowhere
do they say what they will do. They couldn't even
tell me that they will oppose them in the Parliament,
let alone what they might do if they're elected in
(09:16):
November next year. Now that is not good enough. It
is beyond time for the Liberals to get off the
bloody fence. All right, let's go to camera for the headlines.
As I say, things are moving pretty fast tonight in
the Middle East. I'll keep you across all of that.
Johny minowskyn Is political reporter Treddy Macintosh.
Speaker 9 (09:38):
The Prime Minister rejects claims he was flat footed in
response to the US strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.
Speaker 4 (09:44):
Now are you only by the usual suspects?
Speaker 9 (09:47):
Kieran Anthony Alberzi also standing by the decision not to
attend the NATO summit this week. That's despite the chance
he could secure FaceTime with Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
Should you've gone to NATO, He wants to meet with
the Indo Pacific.
Speaker 4 (10:00):
They're not there.
Speaker 3 (10:01):
Kiiran, the President of Career, is not there. The Prime
Minister of Japan is not there.
Speaker 4 (10:07):
NATO is about NATO.
Speaker 9 (10:09):
Amid global economic uncertainty. Treasurer Charmers will talk to the
US Treasury Secretary tomorrow.
Speaker 10 (10:14):
I expect that conversation to traverse issues like critical minerals, obviously,
trade and tariffs.
Speaker 9 (10:22):
YouTube is said to be included in the looming social
media ban for children under sixteen. The E Safety Commissioner,
Julian man Grant argues the carbout should be revised. It
would prevent kids having an account on the video platform
alongside other social media platforms.
Speaker 5 (10:37):
The stakes are high and we know that the eyes
of the world are upon us.
Speaker 9 (10:41):
YouTube has hit back, accusing the E Safety Commissioner of
ignoring the views of families, teachers and broad community sentiment.
Speaker 5 (10:49):
Any platform that says they're absolutely safe is absolutely spinning words.
Speaker 9 (10:56):
And it's welcome to Parliament for the new class of
MPs entering the House of Representatives for the first time,
the Speaker teaching the new Polly's rules and procedures. Parliament
will return for the first time since the election mid
next month. Trudy Macintosh Sky News, Camperra.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
Look In News justin I said it was moving pretty fast.
Israel has ordered intense strikes on Tehran, accusing Iran of
reaching the ceasefire. Not long after Benjaminett Yaho accepted the deal.
Jodymanown to discuss this and more. National affairs editor The
Datia Telegraph's Guy On news host James Morrow, and Deputy
Executive director at the Institute of Public Affairs Daniel Wild.
(11:36):
I'll start with you, James. I know it's only emerging now,
this resumption of strikes against Tehran. I guess my issue
with the waives played out today. You know the comments
from the US President that there is now a cease fire,
long before the two parties came out and agreed to it.
My concern is this seems very very premature. There's not
(11:58):
yet confirmation those nuclear assets in Tehran and in Iran
more broadly have been taken out. And you know, I
know you want to finish these wars quickly or they
strikes quickly, but you want to finish them absolutely. You
want to win them. You don't just want to get
it done quickly. What do you make of this news tonight.
Speaker 11 (12:22):
Well, I think that Iran basically asked for Israel to
come back and strike back, as it's reportedly done in
the last few minutes, with MISSUS being sent back in
Tehran's direction by Israel. Now this comes after, as you
say this morning, it's been a wild ride today, Pete.
In the last you know, ten twelve hours, we had
Donald Trump with that announcement saying there's peace. We've got
(12:45):
peace between Iran and Israel. Both sides are going to
accept it. After twelve hours, twenty four hours. Thank you
for your attention to this matter. Well, Iran, as we know,
they kept firing miss until the last minute, and then
they went over that and they hit an apartment block
in beershe in the south of Israel for people I
think reportedly died there, which is of course a tragedy.
(13:06):
But also you know, it shows that Iran is not serious.
But the other the question Peter too is you know,
you see the parties haven't come out and said they
accepted it. We also don't know who in Tehran is
able to even accept the deal. We don't know if
the Iatola kame and E is alive. We're dead. We
don't know who's actually in charge of things. We don't
know what the state of the government is there at
(13:26):
this stage. So the question of who can give the
order to cease fire, to stand down, that's an open question,
as is of course the question about the nuclear material
which you raise.
Speaker 2 (13:39):
We'll come back to this with Tom Switzer from the
Center of Individent Studies, but of a US expertial job
in our moment. But let's go to the domestic fall
out for our Prime minister here in Australia about all
of these various issues around his belated response to the
US strikes, as we Noah to be saying on Sunday
only briefly yesterday, pretty much on the back foot again
(14:01):
today sat down, of course with Kieren Gilbert defending not
going to NATO and everything else. Have a listen, should.
Speaker 1 (14:09):
You've gone to NATO even wants to meet with the
Indo Pacific allies.
Speaker 3 (14:12):
They're not there, Kieren, the President of Career is not there,
The Prime Minister of Japan is not there. In terms
of the ip four or three of the four leaders
aren't there. That was a part of the decision making
process that we made.
Speaker 4 (14:28):
NATO is about NATO.
Speaker 2 (14:32):
Sure, then those neighbors are not there, but everybody else
in NATO's around the table. And I think it's less
to do about whether it be stood up by Donald
Trump again and more about the fact that when he
sits around that table and where two fifths of bugger
all in terms of defense spending in a two point
three three percent of GDP, everybody else is three percent,
and plus we look like we're not pulling our weight.
Speaker 7 (14:57):
Well, that's right.
Speaker 12 (14:58):
Unfortunately, Peter, Australia is not taken seriously on the international
stage at the moment. And a part of that is,
as you greatly identify, we're not putting in our fair share.
But another part of it is I think that this
government has always had a domestic focus and a domestic
lens that it casts over the foreign policy decisions, particularly
as it pertains to matters in the Middle East. That's
(15:19):
driven by, as you know, the high Islamic vote that
Labour gets and wants to continue courting that vote. And
it's also partly driven by the fact that there's been
a long term hostility amongst some within Labor towards the
United States that has been heightened with the election of
Donald Trump, who many have a personal animosity towards, And
the reality is, whether you like Trump or not, he's
(15:41):
the president. America is our most important ally, and I
think that there's a lot of concerns about how the government,
as I say, casts a domestic lens over these important
foreign policy decisions, and they seem to not have the
ability to put our national interests ahead of their domestic
political considerations. And these are the consequences that we're now seeing.
Speaker 7 (16:02):
I was a bit.
Speaker 2 (16:03):
Cranky with the Prime Minister last night, James on air,
because I thought it was a dereliction of duty that
he did not have an NFC on Sunday. He should
have caused a National Security Committee meeting. He was asked
pointedly about the terror threat today. He said it has
not changed, and he saw it was a big glib
with his response. I don't think he's across his brief
(16:24):
in general terms, particularly in this space. I'm not confident
that he's getting the briefings he should. I'm not confident
that the experts are meeting with him as regularly as
they should. We also know, of course, AZO and the AFP,
which have got carriage at these issues in Australia. Well,
he punted them out of the NFC in his last
term and was only embarrassed and forced to put them
(16:45):
back around the table. And I remember last time with
Islamic status. I've already said tonight there was such a
radicalization of young Australian kids online playing out as they
were watching events in the Middle East. And when we
look at what's happening overseas, we see in the United
States that this is a live issue. We've got experts
(17:06):
in Australia warning we are not taking this seriously enough.
How confident are you when you look to Canberra.
Speaker 11 (17:15):
Not terribly, Peter, And you know you bring up the
NSC and this is not the first time we've had
these issues around this. I mean, I recall after the
our Cobra seventh attacks on Israel Bijamas, there was a
great question about whether or not the Prime Minister had
even bothered to call the NSC together during that international crisis. So,
you know, I think there's a real pattern we can
see here of this government being really passive and frankly
(17:41):
when it comes to this sort of national security stuff,
and whether it's you know, the United States and China,
whether it's this Iran whatever. There's a passivity and the
general sense I get, yes, you know what you guys
have been saying is right. You know, there's sort of
a distaste for Donald Trump and the United States and
this progressive patriotism which requires opposition to the United States
(18:02):
to define itself. But there's also I think a real
wish when it comes to foreign policy and the concerns
of foreign policy and national security that it would just
all go away. That's the sense I always get from
Anthony Albinisi whenever he's asked about these sort of critical
foreign policy matters, is that he just thinks this is
(18:23):
just too much, too complicated. It doesn't impact the domestic business,
which he is sort of interested in. I guess when
it comes to Australia, and that's about you know, constituencies
and votes and spending our money and you know, building
that sort of you know, reorientated society that he wants
to do. He finds the foreign policy stuff, the security stuff,
(18:44):
a huge distraction and I don't think we are very
well served by this government at all when it comes
to him.
Speaker 2 (18:52):
Yeah, and he leaves putting long with a whippan. I
think that's dangerous in itself. Dan, Let's go to some
issues in Melbourne, because I know you're here in Adelaide tonight.
You lived here for a long time. We talk about
it constantly in Victoria about how crime has just skyrocketed
in the suburbs. But have a look at this vision.
This was with the Jackie Fellgate on three aw yesterday
(19:13):
and this vision was posted on her Instagram page. You
can see a car there. Men are getting out with
axes bashing into a car that's got two young women
inside the car. This is in barich on Saturday night.
These women did nothing. We think it's a road rage incident,
but it's not yet confirmed. The women are left very,
(19:34):
very shaken. These guys get back in their car, they
drive away. They bring the police. They make it clear
to the police it's an emergency. It involves axes on
their car and a witness who saw it all spoke
to Jackie Felgate. But surprisingly, if you can believe this,
the police were not available to go out there to
this event. They asked the women to drive that car,
(19:54):
which should hardly be roadworthy, to the station. They said
they could not spare the resources to listen to what
the witness had to say.
Speaker 13 (20:02):
We went out to see if the two young ladies
were okay, and they were quite distressed and in shock.
The most distressing part was they called police after about
twenty minutes. My partner also called the police. Well after
an hour, no police on site, and then they phoned
the victims and told them to drive to the police
(20:24):
station to give a statement.
Speaker 2 (20:28):
Not good enough.
Speaker 7 (20:29):
Not good enough, Dan, No, it's shocking.
Speaker 12 (20:33):
And I think there's a lot of issues here, but
one of them clearly is the degradation of the police
force in Victoria. I mean, one of the problems you've
got in Victoria is that people are not signing up
to join the police, so they don't have enough police,
not enough cops on the beat. And a part of
the reason for that, Peter, is because of what happened
during COVID. I mean, I think this is a part
of the fallout from that where police lost a lot
(20:55):
of trust with the community during COVID because they were
shooting people with rubber bullets and stopping children from going
on playgrounds and all the rest of it. And so
the community no longer has the respect for the police
force as it once did. And I think that's a
very sad and disappointing thing, but it's the reality of
what happened. And as I've said before, I don't blame
the frontline police. I blame the leadership of the police
(21:15):
for essentially becoming politicized during COVID. But I do think
a part of the problem here is not just as
we've discussed how weak and soft the Allen government is
on crime, but the fact that people aren't putting their
hand up to sign up for the police because they're
not respected in the community in a way they once
used to be. And these are the real world consequences
of that.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
Peter, let's talk about staffing, because it might sound like
a camera bubble issue, James, but if you don't have
a strong opposition, you don't get good government. And it's
taken almost two months for the Prime minister too, because
all the staff are vested in the Prime minister under
the Act for the Prime Minister to tell the opposition
how many staff they're going to get. Now, traditionally, this
(21:56):
ratio goes back to the Howard era and it's been
honored by every single prime minister, Labor or Liberal since
that time. The opposition gets twenty one percent of the
overall government staff pool. Well, this prime minister slashed it
down to seventeen percent, which means about twenty senior staff
in the coalition will lose their jobs. So you end
(22:19):
up with the equation of the government having eighty three
more staff in their ranks than the opposition. The opposition
will get about sixty. The government will be over about
five hundred and fifty plus they've got three hundred and
sixty thousand public servants. Now, as I said, if you
want good government, you need a strong opposition. But I
(22:40):
think this is absolutely below the belt. It's never been
done before that I could remember, in about thirty thirty
five years. And this says a lot about the Prime
Minister's character.
Speaker 11 (22:53):
Yeah, Peter, look, you're exactly right. This is an issue
of character. This shows the Prime Minister, I think, to
be a weak man. I think it shows him to
be a small man. I think he is a man
who does not want to brook any opposition. You know,
here's a guy who goes on and on about threats
to our democracy. You know, as the saying goes, Well, this,
(23:15):
as you suggest, Peter, really is a threat to our democracy.
I mean, do you want a functional opposition or do
you want a one party state? And of course not
just a coalition that's had to suffer this blow here
as well. Paul Enhans has come out today talking about
the staffing hit that her One Nation Party is going
to take as well. It looks to me like this
(23:35):
is a government that does not trust itself to even
go up against an opposition that has decent staffing. I
mean just decent staffing. You know, answer the phones, deal
with correspondence, you know what it's like in these offices.
You know, much less come up with policy. A confident
prime minister who had just won a thumping majority, which
(23:55):
he did last month, would not behave like this. I
think it shows petty, small minded vindictiveness and a lot
of people who've come up behind the scenes with the
Prime Minister and crossed him in different ways would know
that the warm, cuddly album that you see out there
on your screens, that's not all there is to them.
Speaker 2 (24:18):
It's straight out of the Daniel Andrews playbook in Victoria.
So when they had their boozy lunch the other day,
the Prime Minister and Daniel Andrews at a very fancy
Melbourne restaurant. I suspect this was part of what was
discussed and now implemented in Canberra. Thank you, gentlemen. Let's
go down to the tailor of two cities today in
relation to decisions on gas in Melbourne and across Victoria.
(24:39):
More broadly, the government has been forced to back down
and after controversial reforms I aimed at cutting out the
use of domestic gas, it will now allow gas appliances
for heating in owner occupied homes, while businesses can keep
gas running in existing commercial buildings but not restaurants in
(25:00):
a raft of new places. Of course, if you replace
some appliances like hot water, you must move to electric,
but in a BAFTE move. In Sydney, given what's played
out in Victoria, they've done the reverse. They're bringing forward
bands on gas appliances and that will hit hard in
new homes from next year. The motion passed the Council
(25:22):
last night. Clovermore proposing the ban also is in relation
to officers, hotels and serviced apartments. Joining me now to
discuss this. MST Financial Senior Energy analyst Saul Kavonic, Well,
a bit of a backflip in Victoria. It's still though
gas on the way out. But it's absolutely on the
(25:45):
way out in Sydney, and a hell of a lot faster.
As Sydney chef Luke Magnan, he has been one of
the huge critics. He says, you need reliable gas to
cook from and cook with in these big restaurants. What's
going on here is that we're running out of gas
so much that we're panicking, we're ripping heaters out of homes.
Is that what it is?
Speaker 3 (26:05):
Soul.
Speaker 7 (26:07):
I don't think we're at that point yet, Peter. I mean,
I don't think anyone is really going to be accusing
local councils of brimming with energy market expertise to understand
the ramifications of what they're doing. But what is telling
is this backtrack in Victoria, and a big part of
it is what's starting to dawn on the Victorian government
(26:30):
is if they actually were successful in going down their
path of reducing gas usage for heating, what it actually
does is it starts to drastically increase the network costs
on the manufacturing base, who then have to cover a
much larger portion of that fixed infrastructure analytization, and so
then you'll see an even further hastening of the deterioration
(26:54):
of the manufacturing and small business sector in Victoria. A
lot of industry folks just over the last kind of
twelve hours have been questioning if the Energy Minister in Victoria,
Lily Denbrosio, has effectively been overruled by her own party
in this because she's been one of the big advocates
of demonizing gas use and getting our customers off gas.
(27:21):
What's really important is if Victoria actually wants to fix
their gas supply security issue, they need to have a
very clear statement backed up by actions that they see
a role for gas in the future. And because they're
still ultimately sitting on the fence here and only partly
walking it back, the appetite for investment in their gas
security is still not going to return.
Speaker 2 (27:44):
Very good point about the commercial players. Manufacturing obviously had
been a big part of the Victorian economy when it
had a cheap coal out of the Latrope valley that
has obviously fallen away. Poulsters said to me saw that
one of the reasons why the government was looking to
walk this back before they formerly did today was because
the Indian voter and the Chinese voter and other sort
(28:09):
of Asian ethnic communities. They love gas in the home
and it was hurting labor politically. I think that's a
fair point.
Speaker 7 (28:17):
I think it's very fair. The Victorian government and Energy
Ministry in particular continue to make the case that it
is cleaner and cheaper and better to get off gas
and electrify. And the thing is, if their case was
being made well, then the public would be listening and
wouldn't be wanting to install gas heaters and gas cookers anymore.
(28:37):
The fact that they felt the need to ban it
actually shows that they realized their argument wasn't witting people over.
Speaker 6 (28:45):
Right.
Speaker 2 (28:45):
Okay, I can see you in London tonight. Talk to
me about the Straits of Hormuz and any play out
that we might have given the bombing in Iran and
oil supply internationally, particularly in the case of Australia. Are
the price of petrol? Anything you can tell us here
about discussions at an international level.
Speaker 7 (29:07):
Well, in the space of a few hours, we went
from the brink of World War three narrative to peace
in the Middle East with a ceasefine. We'll see if
that holds and that seen oil prices come down again.
But the overall risk situation in the Middle East remains
quite elevated. Remember, we still don't actually have a nuclear
deal with Irad here. The scope for that is still
(29:29):
highly questionable, and we could end up with a period
of ongoing low intensity conflict like we've seen in other
parts of the Middle East and also in Ukraine, with
the scope for things to flare up. Bearing in mind,
twenty percent of the world's oil and twenty percent of
the world's liquefied natural gas all passed through the straight
up home was right next to Iran, and so any
(29:49):
kind of development there, any kind of escalation, is going
to see these spikes in prices. So I think we're
looking at much high increase voluntility and risk of prices
sparking to the up side for the foreseeable future.
Speaker 2 (30:04):
Yes, I took some precautions and put diesel in my
car just the other day, thinking this might be the
end result. But we'll see, we'll see, Thank you, Saul.
After the break. Given where we are tonight with a
ceasefire we had that looks like it is already being
broken on at the latest with US expert Tom Switzer
after the break, welcome back. Still the calm White. It's
(30:28):
not just Iran's nuclear capacity that should alarm us, but
also it's pushed for a caliphate. The brilliant I and
Hersiali coming out. But first the Australians. Foreign editor Greg
Sheridan has today slammed Anthony Albanese's delayed response to the
US strikes in Iran, saying the Prime Minister's confusion, passivity
and weakness has made us irrelevant. Here he was talking
(30:51):
a little earlier about the government today on Sky.
Speaker 14 (30:55):
It likes either the courage of its convictions to support
it properly, and it lacks the courage of its lack
of convictions to oppose it properly. So I don't think
the Australian government has ever been more comprehensively irrelevant than
it is today.
Speaker 2 (31:10):
Jonavan now the executive director of the Center for Independent Study.
Is Tom Switzer, Well, it doesn't mince his words there,
both in print and on camera. Do you think he's
right to say that Albaneze has made us irrelevant on
the world stage?
Speaker 15 (31:22):
Tom, Well, bear in mind, Peter, many nations around the world,
including US allies Japan, South Korea, have not given unqualified
and unconditional support to these US strikes. I mean they
were unilateral, that is a fact. They didn't have a
UN mandate, nor do they have US congressional authorization. And
(31:45):
many Americans from left to right, Democrats and Republicans, are
highly anxious that this could drag the United States once
again into a forever war. So I don't think that
Canberra's stance really damages australia credibility or isolates us in
the world, especially if and it is still and if
(32:05):
there is a ceasefire.
Speaker 2 (32:08):
Yeah, we'll get to that at the moment. Do you
think the Prime Minister shouldn't be at NATO rather than
send his deputy?
Speaker 15 (32:16):
Well, the Japanese and the South Korean leaders are pulled
out of NATO, not that they're part of NATO, Nora
is Australia. I mean, remember, Australia is one of many
countries that are desperate to meet with the new president.
Albo is not alone.
Speaker 2 (32:30):
Do you think we should be there at the table
because when he was stood up at the G seven
that was certainly on the cards last week.
Speaker 15 (32:39):
Yeah, you know, it's Donald Trump's only been in the
White House for five months, and I think it's usually
six months before a new president or a new prime
minister meet for the first time, and I think the
record was in early nineteen sixty one when Sir Robert
Menzies met with President John F. Kennedy and James and
(33:00):
the prominent diplomatic historian highlights that GoF Whitlam was frozen
out of the Nixon White House in nineteen seventy three,
and yet Nixon and Kissinger were supping with the Soviet
dictator Breshnif So you know, bear that in mind. It's
important for the Australian Prime minister have a good relationship
with the US president, and it's incumbent on Cambridge to
(33:21):
make that happen. After all, China, not Iran or Russia
for that matter, remained the greater threat to Australia and
the United States. So it's in Canberra's interest to make
this happen. But I don't think we should get two
worked up about it for now.
Speaker 2 (33:37):
I think the problem though all those former prime ministers
hadn't ventilated so publicly about incumbent presidents. I think part
of the problem is our ambassador, our Foreign Minister, and
our Prime minister have all been pretty negative about a
bloke that's got a glass jaw and a lot of power. Yeah.
Speaker 15 (33:55):
Well, look, I think Donald Trump is a unique case
to be frank. I mean, he's an exceptional president in
the sense that he's highly sensitive to criticism. Look, there's
a danger here for the Prime Minister and the Foreign
Minister for that matter, to look like they're bending over
backwards for Trumpet. But at the same time I think
there are appropriate channels underway for them to maintain a relationship.
(34:16):
And remember Australia is not alone here, you know. And
as I say, the main game is not Iran. The
main game is China and Asia. And it's incumbent on
our leadership to have a close relationship with Washington to
hedge against the rise in China.
Speaker 2 (34:32):
Particularly because Washington's more switched on to China as a
threat than our mob appeared to be. Let's go to
this ceasefire, which looks in the last half an hour
or so to be over earlier today, Former US Army
major Mike Lyons was on Sky. He seemed pretty skeptical.
Then it was a year innilateral announcement by the US
President that the ceasefire was there, yet then to be
(34:55):
confirmed by Iran or Israel. But this is what he
had to say about the President's announcement.
Speaker 16 (35:02):
I think it's not Franklin Israel's best interest to stop anything.
Right now, we don't know whether exactly the United States
did act and did eradicate the Iranian nuclear capability or not,
so there's a lot of unknowns there.
Speaker 4 (35:18):
Yeah, when I.
Speaker 2 (35:19):
Listened to his comments, I felt it was pretty premature
to call the thing over until we've got confirmation that
those three sites and others genuinely were taken out. Is
that fair.
Speaker 1 (35:31):
Well?
Speaker 15 (35:31):
Preventive wars history shows are fraught with the danger of
unintended consequences. But the thing about this Iranian strike, retaliatory
strike against the US base in Qatar overnight our time,
is that it was pretty limited. No one was killed,
there was no serious damage. And my sense is that
(35:53):
to this indicates if these attitudes prevail in Tehran, and
we're still at the very early stages of this conflict,
but to the extent those attitudes prevail in Tehran, that
would indicate that Iran's mullers are more bent on survival
than martyrdom. And also, let's not forget Iran has been
(36:13):
seriously diminished since October seven. You know, the sa crescent
is really no more. Hesbla's really been diminished in Lebanon,
so too has the Shia militia in Syria. This hard
regime's gone in Sirius, so Iran is really on the
back foot. Is it really in Tehran's interests to provoke
(36:34):
the Americans? And it would be the easiest thing in
the world, getting back to your original point, Peter, to
taunt and go this president out of his sense of restraint,
and who knows where we might end up. But my
sense is that the Mullers in Tehran have a lot
more to lose by being deliberately provocative in this environment.
Speaker 2 (36:55):
Right well over it there, I'm suggesting it probably will
change by the hour, Tom Switzer, thank you. The military operations,
we'll get to those in the moment. We'll talk to
Iron Hersey Ali after this break. Welcome a back coming up,
the scandal of government funded charter flings will only fly
(37:18):
indigenous children and leave non indigenous kids in remote areas
on the tarmac even if there's a seat that's empty.
The first let's bring in global commentator and Skinny's regular
Iron Hersey Ali to commentate to with us now on
the events in the Middle East. It's been a remarkable
forty eight hours or so. It's still moving fast tonight,
I am. I'm sure you're across the latest talk that
(37:41):
there's been already a breach in the ceasefire. I want
to get your thoughts though. You know this region better
than anyone. You were raised a devout in Muslim so
you understand what's at stake here better than anyone I
can talk to on the program. Where does the region
go now? Not just dear but particularly Iran, because we
(38:02):
know their long term aim isn't just acquiring nuclear weapons.
They want to caliphate. They want jihad not just togetinst
Christians and Jews, but also against their switting Muslim neighbors.
Give us your sense of things.
Speaker 5 (38:18):
So you know how in the West we have this
cleavage where we say there are people on the left
and there are people on the right. In that region
in the Middle East, the prevailing cleavage is that there
are people who want the caliphate back, the radical Islamists
like this, like the Iotolahs, and there are people who
wanted to move forward. They don't want a caliphate, they
(38:40):
wanted to be modern nation. States like the United Arab Emirates,
and maybe it looks as if, you know, the Sodi
government may be willing also to let go of the
promise of the caliphate and move on and become a
modern nation state. So the reason why it's really important
in my view to bring this particular regime down is
(39:00):
because it's explicitly committed to exporting the Islamic Revolution beyond
Iran's borders, and it explicitly says in their constitution that
they have to use subversion, terrorism, civil wars, proselytization and
other means. And these other means that is, this development
of a nuclear bomb. And they regard America as a
(39:22):
great Satan, Israel as little Satan, and the Sunni governments
like the Saudis, the Jordanians, the Egyptians and so on,
they regard them as Sunni apostates. And so this is
this is a regime that is committed to repression at
home and terror and expansion beyond its borders. And at
(39:43):
this very moment, it is weak. And I think we
have been doing for many decades. We've been sort of
a half you know, a half done job. We would
go into places and not really finish the job. And
I think I'm of the viewpoint that to bring this
regime down.
Speaker 2 (40:02):
Arm of the view when you got your foot on
your opponent's throat, you keep it there. And I was
a bit perturbed, I have to say, about how quickly
the US President wanted to call the job done without
any documented evidence, at least publicly, that all those nuclear
sites and those assets have been completely wiped out. Give
us a sense of what a caliphate really means, what
(40:24):
a caliphate would look like iron particularly, Let's assume they
keep the bomb or keep the bomb making capacity. If
Iran and the mull has had the bomb, how would
they use the bomb to deliver a caliphate.
Speaker 5 (40:40):
Well, first and foremost, they would wipe Israel off the map.
There was one of their leadership was as they were
doing this and richment. It was about maybe seventeen years ago,
and this leader, it may have been Estralla, he said, yes,
we will use the bomb to wipe Israel off the map.
And then he was confronted with the reality that Israel
would be taliate and he said, well, there are only
(41:02):
ten million of them, and there are eighty million of us,
meaning eighty million Muslims in the region and we will survive.
And so they are committed to this goal, which they
think of as a divine mandate. And it is apocalyptic
and I think the Western mind has a very hard
time understanding what that is like. But the people of
(41:23):
Iran who lived under this regime, they understand what it
feels like, what it is like to live under Sharia
law and under a caliphate. But the quest for the
caliphate never stops. It is to change your society, to
change your region, and then to change the whole world.
That is why I think it is delusional for anybody
(41:44):
to think that, oh, well, the Ayatola is going to
come passionately to his senses and that this is why
is going to hold. No, it's not going to hold
because it goes against their commitment.
Speaker 2 (41:57):
So you've written a wonderful pace where you call the
action by Ronald Trump as a civilizational moment. And I
think that in itself, that form of words stops you
when you tracks for people to understand that's exactly what
we're looking at here. So regime change, is it possible?
And if we have regime change in Iran, is this
(42:20):
threat weakened?
Speaker 6 (42:24):
The regime.
Speaker 5 (42:24):
Change is going to come from the Iranian people. They're
ready for change. I was just listening to and following
Reza Pahlavi, who is the son of the shaw who
was hosted in nineteen seventy nine by the Mullahs and
by radical Marxists. They're desperate for change. They just need
a little bit of help from US. Iran is different
(42:45):
from Libya and Syria. It's an all ancient civilization and
the leadership in the diaspora of Iran and the people
of Iran who reject this regime. But I think the
last time I had the number eighty percent. They want
to rid themselves of this and all we need to
do is help them. And I hope that that Donald
(43:07):
Trump and Bibbin Netanyahu that they rise to the occasion
and that they don't stop at this moment where we say, oh,
we've destroyed the facilities and so now we can move on.
We can't move on. They're going to regroup, They're going
to use terrorism in the region and beyond, and they
are determined to build this bomb, even if it takes
them another ten decades. They're absolutely determined, and that is
(43:30):
why they have to be completely removed. The people of
Iran want to do it. We just need to help
the people and instead of giving throwing the Iotola lifeline.
Speaker 2 (43:42):
This will be a continuing conversation. Ian hesse Ali, thank you.
All right, after the break the Indigenous Flights scandal and
the red tape drowning Australian businesses, all right, let's just
jump in now with my Tuesday nine panel IPS and
your fellow and chief economist Adam Crichton skin used regular
(44:06):
Terry Barnes News today Adam, five thousand new regulations have
been added by the Albanezy Governor. No excuses as to
why business in this country is failing and insolvencies are
through the roof. Red tape is what they are drowning in.
And also to a friend of mine's posted something in
relation to the new Industrial Relations Legislation and the acts
(44:30):
the abalgamated legislations out. It's two hundred and two thousand,
two hundred and thirteen pages long, and when the ir
AT first came out in nineteen o four it was
thirty pages long. Poor old business. This is why we
can't have productivity in this country.
Speaker 10 (44:45):
Yeah, look certainly that's true. I mean we rightly talk
about energy regulations all the time, but we don't talk
enough about ion regulation anymore. I mean, it certainly throttles
small businesses around the country. It's only the biggest businesses
that can really deal with it. And just in terms
of regulation in general, the increase in regulations, those five
thousand new regulations under the Labor government, it's also the
(45:05):
bureaucrats that enforce the regulations. They have grown by nineteen
percent just in the last three years. There's some one
hundred and seven thousand federal bureaucrats now whose whole job
is to enforce regulations and they alone cost fifteen billion
dollars a year. That's according to recent IPA research. So
it's a huge problem, whether it's energy, whether it's ir
We really do need to pair it back.
Speaker 6 (45:25):
Let's hope that happens.
Speaker 10 (45:26):
But I must say I'm not particularly confident with this government.
Speaker 2 (45:29):
We've got the Productivity love In coming up pretty shortly,
and the former head of the Productivity Commission, the chair
Michael Brennan, says we must fix Australia's broken GST. He
says we should a genuine tax reform on the table.
It'll come down though one and Terry for the states
to actually advocate. They are the ones that all must agree.
(45:50):
Correct me if I'm wrong on the old legislation. But
they've all got to agree in order to change the
mix of or the rate of the GST. They'll all
benefit from it, but politically most of them are pretty guardless.
Speaker 17 (46:04):
That's correct about all states are required to sign on
to any change the GSC. And certainly I think well
tax report was on the table according the Treasurer.
Speaker 6 (46:14):
But all he is concerned about, isn't he is.
Speaker 17 (46:17):
Raising revenue, raising war revenue, beating the beats. He's not
actually talking about the other side. You know what the
tax is paid for. There's no going to be any
rationalization reform there really that the government has just once
more of our money.
Speaker 6 (46:31):
But when it comes to the GSC, it was broken
from the start, wasn't it, Because that was the.
Speaker 17 (46:34):
Political compromise that John Howard and Peter Costello had to
do way back go those thirty years ago now with
the Australian Democrats to get it through.
Speaker 6 (46:42):
But certainly I think we do have to look at
what the tax mixed. I think indirect tax GSC is
the sexual part of it.
Speaker 17 (46:49):
But the way the States use the GSC and why
it's carved it is very important.
Speaker 2 (46:53):
To just a big jumping adam.
Speaker 10 (46:57):
Yes, So just a very brief point on the GST.
And it's often sold in Australia that it's a negative
that the rate is so low, but if you look
at Europe you'll see exactly what happens when they lift
that rate. That gets lifted again and again and again,
and you end up with a twenty percent GST. So
I'd be very reluctant to recommend to lift the rate
of the GST. It just gives government vastly more money
if they have to do anything with it. I would
broaden the base, but you know we have a spending problem,
(47:20):
not a taxing problem.
Speaker 2 (47:22):
All right, absolutely, just let me jump in there if
I can. When you came back at them from overseas,
you'd had that time lob seeing in the United States,
you just said, what the heck has happened to my country?
You've all gone woke, you've all gone off the deep
end a whole lot of issues, and that the battle
around race had really heightened in your time away. Have
listened to this one in remote Queensland, you've got kids
(47:44):
who are non Indigenous. It takes six days for them
to get home from boarding schools because they're not allowed
to get on any of these government funded Charter flights
because they're for Indigenous children only. So the white fellas
and the non indigenous kids they have to stay behind
and go home on a bus, I presume, because there
are seats going begging if they're not filled. Here's what
(48:06):
a pilot had to say.
Speaker 9 (48:09):
Your two sons who bored at school in Charter's towers.
Speaker 1 (48:12):
They're not allowed to get on the planes.
Speaker 7 (48:14):
No, they're not.
Speaker 4 (48:15):
Why of cause they don't fall under ab study.
Speaker 9 (48:19):
So the flights are only available to ab study recipients.
Speaker 6 (48:24):
Yes, Adam Crime.
Speaker 10 (48:27):
It's just absolutely shocking. This would never fly in the US.
And it's a mean, it's obviously reverse racism. It's blatant racism,
and it shouldn't be happening. I mean, there's probably a
strong case for these flights, but they should go to
all students, regardless of what the color of their skin is.
Speaker 8 (48:40):
It.
Speaker 10 (48:40):
I mean, it frankly shocks me that this is that
this sort of stuff is still on the books. I
actually thought that they got rid of ab study but
it's you know, it's obviously not the case. Very disappointing.
Speaker 2 (48:49):
Let's go to something you've written in the Financial Review, Terry.
You describe the Victorian their rules as a political circus
run by clowns. You've called them underperformers, time servers and
extinct volcanoes. Tell us what you really think.
Speaker 17 (49:03):
Well, look, I only gave me what eight hundred words,
so I couldn't really sort of go up.
Speaker 6 (49:07):
A long run, could I.
Speaker 17 (49:08):
Look, I was so cheesed off last week the settlement
of the John Desnuto situation, the bailout.
Speaker 6 (49:15):
That he was given by the Liberal Party. I just
decided to let let.
Speaker 17 (49:18):
Light I mean, effectively the Liberal Party down here Victoria.
I could say the same probably about every state Liberal
opposition around the country. Not fit for purpose. They've gotten
to people who have been there for too long, non contributors,
as I said, time servers and second rasers.
Speaker 6 (49:34):
But more to the point, there's no there's no plan,
there's no alternative vision to actually sell Victorians. And if
they don't get no fingers out, I'm mad at.
Speaker 2 (49:44):
I'm out of som tery. I gotta leave it there,
but we will. It'll be an evergreen topic. I am
sure we will come back to it again. That's it
for me everyone. Andrew's on leave, of course, sent up
next to wonderful Steve Price
Peter Krandland live on Sky News Australia.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Good evening, Welcome to the program. Here's what's coming up
tonight on Kredlin. A ceasefire tonight between Iran and Israel.
It's been announced and confirmed by both parties. The question
is will it hold? Perhaps more importantly, are we sure
that all of Iran's nuclear assets really have been disabled?
Plenty of domestic news tonight to get across, including the
(00:28):
Prime Minister's cuts to the Opposition staffing and budget. And
this is really important because it's vindictive, and it's cynical
and it'll leave Australians worse off. Last the tale of
two Cities. The Victorian government forced into an embarrassing back
down on its gas span, while the City of Sydney
is leaning into this nonsense span with gas appliances to
(00:51):
go in new homes. And as criticism mounds of Labour's
flat foot and response to Iran, the Prime Minister's decided
it's all the media full, not his own. As we
become irrelevant on the world stage.
Speaker 3 (01:04):
There are some in the media who have a criticism
of anything that the Labor government does. What my government
does is act in an orderly coherent way.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
All right, We've got obviously that ban. It will come
into force, the ceasefire almost immediately. There are conditions put
on this. But it's all very interesting tonight. It is unfolding,
announced of course by the President Trump on his social
media the earlier. But I'll get across that in a moment.
But I've got to have something else to say. I
(01:40):
think about our Prime minister, who's becoming more and more
diminished as the day goes on and world events swirl
around him, and he's left looking like he's trying to
lass sue a columnist Smoke. Anthony Albinezi and Pettywong keep
trying to tell us that Australia is not central to
these events.
Speaker 4 (02:00):
Central player.
Speaker 3 (02:00):
We aren't a central player in this contract conflict.
Speaker 5 (02:04):
This was in ellateral action taken by the United States.
Speaker 3 (02:07):
I can't be clearer than this was unilateral action taken
by the United States.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
Not centrally, says, despite the fact that our largest military
ally is and many Australians two are currently stuck in
the region.
Speaker 6 (02:21):
Now.
Speaker 2 (02:22):
It is bizarre, isn't it that when it relates to Israel,
this isn't our sphere of influence the Middle East isn't
anywhere or somewhere that Australia gets involved in.
Speaker 7 (02:32):
Yet.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
If that's the case, explain to me why the government
took three thousand people out of Gaza, where no of
them was the neighbor in the region took anyone and
we are still funding UNRA. And when we took in way,
way more people than any other democracy. The UK it
took just one hundred and sixty eight, the United States
(02:54):
just seventeen. We took in that three thousand with barely
a security check. Now it was our region back then
if you listened to Penny Wong and the Prime Minister.
But nothing much to do with us now, says Labor.
And today, when the Prime Minister was interviewed by my
colleague Kieran Gilbert is squeamed yet again over the issue
(03:15):
of his own on again off again meeting with Donald Trump,
as the Prime Minister confirmed he would stay away from
this week's NATO meeting in the Hague.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
Should you have gone to NATO even wants to meet
with the Indo Pacific allies.
Speaker 3 (03:28):
They're not there, Kieran. The President of Career is not there.
The Prime Minister of Japan is not there in terms
of the IP four or three of the four leaders
aren't there. That was a part of the decision making
process that we made.
Speaker 4 (03:44):
NATO is about NATO.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
Now someone banked this out to be all about Donald Trump,
that the Trump meeting wasn't confirmed, so Albaneze couldn't afford
to go there and was looking like he had been
stood up a second time. But much more significant is
the fact that Albanezer couldn't sit around the table at
NATO and face the recriminations of having the lowest defense
spending in the room after most other nations have up
(04:11):
their spending as a result of growing global threats. That
is why Albanese is staying put in Australia and instead
of sending his defense minister who'll offer up his usual
miles weak excuses for an action now. Interestingly, in the
interview today, Kieran Gilbert also pressed the Prime Minister on
Australia's security threat level and whether we need it to
(04:34):
do more here given events in the Middle East. The
Prime Minister almost flippantly pushed this concern to one side
with an insurance he said these things were always being
looked at.
Speaker 1 (04:49):
The national terror threat level. Is that under review. Well
we're here this talk about sleeper cells in the US.
Is this something you'll reed on.
Speaker 3 (04:56):
It is constantly monitored, but there's been no chain in
the National security alert. We continue to have our national
security agencies to monitor the situation.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
And look, yes it is constantly monitored, but not by
the Prime Minister, by his officials. And it was these
very same intelligence officials that Albanezy booted from the National
Security Committee in his first term. So while they might
be doing their assessments their job, my question is is
the government reading the assessments now? Are they getting the
(05:33):
briefings they should be getting. Are they doing enough to
manage the real risk of young Australian boys being radicalized
online because of these events? Because this is what has
happened in the past. I saw it firsthand when the
West took on Islamic State ten years ago, and why
I would want to be absolutely sure it's been watched
(05:55):
just as closely this time round. But with this Prime minister,
you have got to wonder. Look in the People's Republic
of Victoria, there's been a minor reprieve from the energy madness,
with the Allen Labour government softening its earlier ban on
gas appliances in the home. Existing homes can still use
(06:19):
gas for heating and cooking, but if replacing a hot
water system after twenty twenty seven, it will have to
be electric, not gas, and all new homes and all
new commercial buildings are still supposed to be electric, even
though Labour's looming all renewable's power system is likely to
be both expensive and unreliable. To get to its ninety
(06:42):
five percent target of renewable energy within a decade, Labour
wants seven percent of Victoria's land masks to be covered
by an additional one thousand wind turbines and a further
five point two million solar panels, plus hundreds and hundreds
of kilometers of new transmission lines. And to get around
the growing resistance of farmers and rural communities to these
(07:04):
transmission lines cunning across their land and making much of
it worthless, Labours slipped legislation into the Parliament last week that,
if passed, could hit landlowners land owners with fines worth
tens of thousands of dollars if they refuse to put
transmission lines on their private property. Yes their private property,
(07:28):
according to the new National Electricity Victoria Amendment VIC Greed
Stage two reform bill. It reads that authorized officers accompanied
by officers of electricity corporations will be able to enter
private land without owner or occupy consent, and the fines
will hit farmers who resist. But they'll also be hit
(07:51):
with fines if they take down any signs from power companies,
or if they even refuse to identify themselves to these
authorized officers, even if they're standing in their own paddocks. Now,
the Victorian Liberals have rightly said this stinks, but they
have not said they'll oppose the legislation. They have not
said if elected next year, if they will repeal it.
Speaker 8 (08:16):
I mean what the government's doing is draconian. I mean
they are taking away people's rights. They're finding you if
you don't like it, and if you speak out, and
by the way, if you speak out, they're not going
to listen to you. The only way we can stop
this stuff is to change the government.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
That's the Victorian shadow treasurer there. And sure, I agree
with everything you just said, but nowhere in that interview
with Steve Price on Friday night did he say what
he and the Liberals would do. So today I went
back to the opposition, and I asked the Victorian Liberals
for a clear position. Well, this is the rubbish that
(08:55):
has come back to me tonight. They've called these laws draconian,
which they are. They say it's taking a huge news
stick to beat local communities, which it is. But nowhere
do they say what they will do. They couldn't even
tell me that they will oppose them in the Parliament,
let alone what they might do if they're elected in
(09:16):
November next year. Now that is not good enough. It
is beyond time for the Liberals to get off the
bloody fence. All right, let's go to camera for the headlines.
As I say, things are moving pretty fast tonight in
the Middle East. I'll keep you across all of that.
Johny minowskyn Is political reporter Treddy Macintosh.
Speaker 9 (09:38):
The Prime Minister rejects claims he was flat footed in
response to the US strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.
Speaker 4 (09:44):
Now are you only by the usual suspects?
Speaker 9 (09:47):
Kieran Anthony Alberzi also standing by the decision not to
attend the NATO summit this week. That's despite the chance
he could secure FaceTime with Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
Should you've gone to NATO, He wants to meet with
the Indo Pacific.
Speaker 4 (10:00):
They're not there.
Speaker 3 (10:01):
Kiiran, the President of Career, is not there. The Prime
Minister of Japan is not there.
Speaker 4 (10:07):
NATO is about NATO.
Speaker 9 (10:09):
Amid global economic uncertainty. Treasurer Charmers will talk to the
US Treasury Secretary tomorrow.
Speaker 10 (10:14):
I expect that conversation to traverse issues like critical minerals, obviously,
trade and tariffs.
Speaker 9 (10:22):
YouTube is said to be included in the looming social
media ban for children under sixteen. The E Safety Commissioner,
Julian man Grant argues the carbout should be revised. It
would prevent kids having an account on the video platform
alongside other social media platforms.
Speaker 5 (10:37):
The stakes are high and we know that the eyes
of the world are upon us.
Speaker 9 (10:41):
YouTube has hit back, accusing the E Safety Commissioner of
ignoring the views of families, teachers and broad community sentiment.
Speaker 5 (10:49):
Any platform that says they're absolutely safe is absolutely spinning words.
Speaker 9 (10:56):
And it's welcome to Parliament for the new class of
MPs entering the House of Representatives for the first time,
the Speaker teaching the new Polly's rules and procedures. Parliament
will return for the first time since the election mid
next month. Trudy Macintosh Sky News, Camperra.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
Look In News justin I said it was moving pretty fast.
Israel has ordered intense strikes on Tehran, accusing Iran of
reaching the ceasefire. Not long after Benjaminett Yaho accepted the deal.
Jodymanown to discuss this and more. National affairs editor The
Datia Telegraph's Guy On news host James Morrow, and Deputy
Executive director at the Institute of Public Affairs Daniel Wild.
(11:36):
I'll start with you, James. I know it's only emerging now,
this resumption of strikes against Tehran. I guess my issue
with the waives played out today. You know the comments
from the US President that there is now a cease fire,
long before the two parties came out and agreed to it.
My concern is this seems very very premature. There's not
(11:58):
yet confirmation those nuclear assets in Tehran and in Iran
more broadly have been taken out. And you know, I
know you want to finish these wars quickly or they
strikes quickly, but you want to finish them absolutely. You
want to win them. You don't just want to get
it done quickly. What do you make of this news tonight.
Speaker 11 (12:22):
Well, I think that Iran basically asked for Israel to
come back and strike back, as it's reportedly done in
the last few minutes, with MISSUS being sent back in
Tehran's direction by Israel. Now this comes after, as you
say this morning, it's been a wild ride today, Pete.
In the last you know, ten twelve hours, we had
Donald Trump with that announcement saying there's peace. We've got
(12:45):
peace between Iran and Israel. Both sides are going to
accept it. After twelve hours, twenty four hours. Thank you
for your attention to this matter. Well, Iran, as we know,
they kept firing miss until the last minute, and then
they went over that and they hit an apartment block
in beershe in the south of Israel for people I
think reportedly died there, which is of course a tragedy.
(13:06):
But also you know, it shows that Iran is not serious.
But the other the question Peter too is you know,
you see the parties haven't come out and said they
accepted it. We also don't know who in Tehran is
able to even accept the deal. We don't know if
the Iatola kame and E is alive. We're dead. We
don't know who's actually in charge of things. We don't
know what the state of the government is there at
(13:26):
this stage. So the question of who can give the
order to cease fire, to stand down, that's an open question,
as is of course the question about the nuclear material
which you raise.
Speaker 2 (13:39):
We'll come back to this with Tom Switzer from the
Center of Individent Studies, but of a US expertial job
in our moment. But let's go to the domestic fall
out for our Prime minister here in Australia about all
of these various issues around his belated response to the
US strikes, as we Noah to be saying on Sunday
only briefly yesterday, pretty much on the back foot again
(14:01):
today sat down, of course with Kieren Gilbert defending not
going to NATO and everything else. Have a listen, should.
Speaker 1 (14:09):
You've gone to NATO even wants to meet with the
Indo Pacific allies.
Speaker 3 (14:12):
They're not there, Kieren, the President of Career is not there,
The Prime Minister of Japan is not there. In terms
of the ip four or three of the four leaders
aren't there. That was a part of the decision making
process that we made.
Speaker 4 (14:28):
NATO is about NATO.
Speaker 2 (14:32):
Sure, then those neighbors are not there, but everybody else
in NATO's around the table. And I think it's less
to do about whether it be stood up by Donald
Trump again and more about the fact that when he
sits around that table and where two fifths of bugger
all in terms of defense spending in a two point
three three percent of GDP, everybody else is three percent,
and plus we look like we're not pulling our weight.
Speaker 7 (14:57):
Well, that's right.
Speaker 12 (14:58):
Unfortunately, Peter, Australia is not taken seriously on the international
stage at the moment. And a part of that is,
as you greatly identify, we're not putting in our fair share.
But another part of it is I think that this
government has always had a domestic focus and a domestic
lens that it casts over the foreign policy decisions, particularly
as it pertains to matters in the Middle East. That's
(15:19):
driven by, as you know, the high Islamic vote that
Labour gets and wants to continue courting that vote. And
it's also partly driven by the fact that there's been
a long term hostility amongst some within Labor towards the
United States that has been heightened with the election of
Donald Trump, who many have a personal animosity towards, And
the reality is, whether you like Trump or not, he's
(15:41):
the president. America is our most important ally, and I
think that there's a lot of concerns about how the government,
as I say, casts a domestic lens over these important
foreign policy decisions, and they seem to not have the
ability to put our national interests ahead of their domestic
political considerations. And these are the consequences that we're now seeing.
Speaker 7 (16:02):
I was a bit.
Speaker 2 (16:03):
Cranky with the Prime Minister last night, James on air,
because I thought it was a dereliction of duty that
he did not have an NFC on Sunday. He should
have caused a National Security Committee meeting. He was asked
pointedly about the terror threat today. He said it has
not changed, and he saw it was a big glib
with his response. I don't think he's across his brief
(16:24):
in general terms, particularly in this space. I'm not confident
that he's getting the briefings he should. I'm not confident
that the experts are meeting with him as regularly as
they should. We also know, of course, AZO and the AFP,
which have got carriage at these issues in Australia. Well,
he punted them out of the NFC in his last
term and was only embarrassed and forced to put them
(16:45):
back around the table. And I remember last time with
Islamic status. I've already said tonight there was such a
radicalization of young Australian kids online playing out as they
were watching events in the Middle East. And when we
look at what's happening overseas, we see in the United
States that this is a live issue. We've got experts
(17:06):
in Australia warning we are not taking this seriously enough.
How confident are you when you look to Canberra.
Speaker 11 (17:15):
Not terribly, Peter, And you know you bring up the
NSC and this is not the first time we've had
these issues around this. I mean, I recall after the
our Cobra seventh attacks on Israel Bijamas, there was a
great question about whether or not the Prime Minister had
even bothered to call the NSC together during that international crisis. So,
you know, I think there's a real pattern we can
see here of this government being really passive and frankly
(17:41):
when it comes to this sort of national security stuff,
and whether it's you know, the United States and China,
whether it's this Iran whatever. There's a passivity and the
general sense I get, yes, you know what you guys
have been saying is right. You know, there's sort of
a distaste for Donald Trump and the United States and
this progressive patriotism which requires opposition to the United States
(18:02):
to define itself. But there's also I think a real
wish when it comes to foreign policy and the concerns
of foreign policy and national security that it would just
all go away. That's the sense I always get from
Anthony Albinisi whenever he's asked about these sort of critical
foreign policy matters, is that he just thinks this is
(18:23):
just too much, too complicated. It doesn't impact the domestic business,
which he is sort of interested in. I guess when
it comes to Australia, and that's about you know, constituencies
and votes and spending our money and you know, building
that sort of you know, reorientated society that he wants
to do. He finds the foreign policy stuff, the security stuff,
(18:44):
a huge distraction and I don't think we are very
well served by this government at all when it comes
to him.
Speaker 2 (18:52):
Yeah, and he leaves putting long with a whippan. I
think that's dangerous in itself. Dan, Let's go to some
issues in Melbourne, because I know you're here in Adelaide tonight.
You lived here for a long time. We talk about
it constantly in Victoria about how crime has just skyrocketed
in the suburbs. But have a look at this vision.
This was with the Jackie Fellgate on three aw yesterday
(19:13):
and this vision was posted on her Instagram page. You
can see a car there. Men are getting out with
axes bashing into a car that's got two young women
inside the car. This is in barich on Saturday night.
These women did nothing. We think it's a road rage incident,
but it's not yet confirmed. The women are left very,
(19:34):
very shaken. These guys get back in their car, they
drive away. They bring the police. They make it clear
to the police it's an emergency. It involves axes on
their car and a witness who saw it all spoke
to Jackie Felgate. But surprisingly, if you can believe this,
the police were not available to go out there to
this event. They asked the women to drive that car,
(19:54):
which should hardly be roadworthy, to the station. They said
they could not spare the resources to listen to what
the witness had to say.
Speaker 13 (20:02):
We went out to see if the two young ladies
were okay, and they were quite distressed and in shock.
The most distressing part was they called police after about
twenty minutes. My partner also called the police. Well after
an hour, no police on site, and then they phoned
the victims and told them to drive to the police
(20:24):
station to give a statement.
Speaker 2 (20:28):
Not good enough.
Speaker 7 (20:29):
Not good enough, Dan, No, it's shocking.
Speaker 12 (20:33):
And I think there's a lot of issues here, but
one of them clearly is the degradation of the police
force in Victoria. I mean, one of the problems you've
got in Victoria is that people are not signing up
to join the police, so they don't have enough police,
not enough cops on the beat. And a part of
the reason for that, Peter, is because of what happened
during COVID. I mean, I think this is a part
of the fallout from that where police lost a lot
(20:55):
of trust with the community during COVID because they were
shooting people with rubber bullets and stopping children from going
on playgrounds and all the rest of it. And so
the community no longer has the respect for the police
force as it once did. And I think that's a
very sad and disappointing thing, but it's the reality of
what happened. And as I've said before, I don't blame
the frontline police. I blame the leadership of the police
(21:15):
for essentially becoming politicized during COVID. But I do think
a part of the problem here is not just as
we've discussed how weak and soft the Allen government is
on crime, but the fact that people aren't putting their
hand up to sign up for the police because they're
not respected in the community in a way they once
used to be. And these are the real world consequences
of that.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
Peter, let's talk about staffing, because it might sound like
a camera bubble issue, James, but if you don't have
a strong opposition, you don't get good government. And it's
taken almost two months for the Prime minister too, because
all the staff are vested in the Prime minister under
the Act for the Prime Minister to tell the opposition
how many staff they're going to get. Now, traditionally, this
(21:56):
ratio goes back to the Howard era and it's been
honored by every single prime minister, Labor or Liberal since
that time. The opposition gets twenty one percent of the
overall government staff pool. Well, this prime minister slashed it
down to seventeen percent, which means about twenty senior staff
in the coalition will lose their jobs. So you end
(22:19):
up with the equation of the government having eighty three
more staff in their ranks than the opposition. The opposition
will get about sixty. The government will be over about
five hundred and fifty plus they've got three hundred and
sixty thousand public servants. Now, as I said, if you
want good government, you need a strong opposition. But I
(22:40):
think this is absolutely below the belt. It's never been
done before that I could remember, in about thirty thirty
five years. And this says a lot about the Prime
Minister's character.
Speaker 11 (22:53):
Yeah, Peter, look, you're exactly right. This is an issue
of character. This shows the Prime Minister, I think, to
be a weak man. I think it shows him to
be a small man. I think he is a man
who does not want to brook any opposition. You know,
here's a guy who goes on and on about threats
to our democracy. You know, as the saying goes, Well, this,
(23:15):
as you suggest, Peter, really is a threat to our democracy.
I mean, do you want a functional opposition or do
you want a one party state? And of course not
just a coalition that's had to suffer this blow here
as well. Paul Enhans has come out today talking about
the staffing hit that her One Nation Party is going
to take as well. It looks to me like this
(23:35):
is a government that does not trust itself to even
go up against an opposition that has decent staffing. I
mean just decent staffing. You know, answer the phones, deal
with correspondence, you know what it's like in these offices.
You know, much less come up with policy. A confident
prime minister who had just won a thumping majority, which
(23:55):
he did last month, would not behave like this. I
think it shows petty, small minded vindictiveness and a lot
of people who've come up behind the scenes with the
Prime Minister and crossed him in different ways would know
that the warm, cuddly album that you see out there
on your screens, that's not all there is to them.
Speaker 2 (24:18):
It's straight out of the Daniel Andrews playbook in Victoria.
So when they had their boozy lunch the other day,
the Prime Minister and Daniel Andrews at a very fancy
Melbourne restaurant. I suspect this was part of what was
discussed and now implemented in Canberra. Thank you, gentlemen. Let's
go down to the tailor of two cities today in
relation to decisions on gas in Melbourne and across Victoria.
(24:39):
More broadly, the government has been forced to back down
and after controversial reforms I aimed at cutting out the
use of domestic gas, it will now allow gas appliances
for heating in owner occupied homes, while businesses can keep
gas running in existing commercial buildings but not restaurants in
(25:00):
a raft of new places. Of course, if you replace
some appliances like hot water, you must move to electric,
but in a BAFTE move. In Sydney, given what's played
out in Victoria, they've done the reverse. They're bringing forward
bands on gas appliances and that will hit hard in
new homes from next year. The motion passed the Council
(25:22):
last night. Clovermore proposing the ban also is in relation
to officers, hotels and serviced apartments. Joining me now to
discuss this. MST Financial Senior Energy analyst Saul Kavonic, Well,
a bit of a backflip in Victoria. It's still though
gas on the way out. But it's absolutely on the
(25:45):
way out in Sydney, and a hell of a lot faster.
As Sydney chef Luke Magnan, he has been one of
the huge critics. He says, you need reliable gas to
cook from and cook with in these big restaurants. What's
going on here is that we're running out of gas
so much that we're panicking, we're ripping heaters out of homes.
Is that what it is?
Speaker 3 (26:05):
Soul.
Speaker 7 (26:07):
I don't think we're at that point yet, Peter. I mean,
I don't think anyone is really going to be accusing
local councils of brimming with energy market expertise to understand
the ramifications of what they're doing. But what is telling
is this backtrack in Victoria, and a big part of
it is what's starting to dawn on the Victorian government
(26:30):
is if they actually were successful in going down their
path of reducing gas usage for heating, what it actually
does is it starts to drastically increase the network costs
on the manufacturing base, who then have to cover a
much larger portion of that fixed infrastructure analytization, and so
then you'll see an even further hastening of the deterioration
(26:54):
of the manufacturing and small business sector in Victoria. A
lot of industry folks just over the last kind of
twelve hours have been questioning if the Energy Minister in Victoria,
Lily Denbrosio, has effectively been overruled by her own party
in this because she's been one of the big advocates
of demonizing gas use and getting our customers off gas.
(27:21):
What's really important is if Victoria actually wants to fix
their gas supply security issue, they need to have a
very clear statement backed up by actions that they see
a role for gas in the future. And because they're
still ultimately sitting on the fence here and only partly
walking it back, the appetite for investment in their gas
security is still not going to return.
Speaker 2 (27:44):
Very good point about the commercial players. Manufacturing obviously had
been a big part of the Victorian economy when it
had a cheap coal out of the Latrope valley that
has obviously fallen away. Poulsters said to me saw that
one of the reasons why the government was looking to
walk this back before they formerly did today was because
the Indian voter and the Chinese voter and other sort
(28:09):
of Asian ethnic communities. They love gas in the home
and it was hurting labor politically. I think that's a
fair point.
Speaker 7 (28:17):
I think it's very fair. The Victorian government and Energy
Ministry in particular continue to make the case that it
is cleaner and cheaper and better to get off gas
and electrify. And the thing is, if their case was
being made well, then the public would be listening and
wouldn't be wanting to install gas heaters and gas cookers anymore.
(28:37):
The fact that they felt the need to ban it
actually shows that they realized their argument wasn't witting people over.
Speaker 6 (28:45):
Right.
Speaker 2 (28:45):
Okay, I can see you in London tonight. Talk to
me about the Straits of Hormuz and any play out
that we might have given the bombing in Iran and
oil supply internationally, particularly in the case of Australia. Are
the price of petrol? Anything you can tell us here
about discussions at an international level.
Speaker 7 (29:07):
Well, in the space of a few hours, we went
from the brink of World War three narrative to peace
in the Middle East with a ceasefine. We'll see if
that holds and that seen oil prices come down again.
But the overall risk situation in the Middle East remains
quite elevated. Remember, we still don't actually have a nuclear
deal with Irad here. The scope for that is still
(29:29):
highly questionable, and we could end up with a period
of ongoing low intensity conflict like we've seen in other
parts of the Middle East and also in Ukraine, with
the scope for things to flare up. Bearing in mind,
twenty percent of the world's oil and twenty percent of
the world's liquefied natural gas all passed through the straight
up home was right next to Iran, and so any
(29:49):
kind of development there, any kind of escalation, is going
to see these spikes in prices. So I think we're
looking at much high increase voluntility and risk of prices
sparking to the up side for the foreseeable future.
Speaker 2 (30:04):
Yes, I took some precautions and put diesel in my
car just the other day, thinking this might be the
end result. But we'll see, we'll see, Thank you, Saul.
After the break. Given where we are tonight with a
ceasefire we had that looks like it is already being
broken on at the latest with US expert Tom Switzer
after the break, welcome back. Still the calm White. It's
(30:28):
not just Iran's nuclear capacity that should alarm us, but
also it's pushed for a caliphate. The brilliant I and
Hersiali coming out. But first the Australians. Foreign editor Greg
Sheridan has today slammed Anthony Albanese's delayed response to the
US strikes in Iran, saying the Prime Minister's confusion, passivity
and weakness has made us irrelevant. Here he was talking
(30:51):
a little earlier about the government today on Sky.
Speaker 14 (30:55):
It likes either the courage of its convictions to support
it properly, and it lacks the courage of its lack
of convictions to oppose it properly. So I don't think
the Australian government has ever been more comprehensively irrelevant than
it is today.
Speaker 2 (31:10):
Jonavan now the executive director of the Center for Independent Study.
Is Tom Switzer, Well, it doesn't mince his words there,
both in print and on camera. Do you think he's
right to say that Albaneze has made us irrelevant on
the world stage?
Speaker 15 (31:22):
Tom, Well, bear in mind, Peter, many nations around the world,
including US allies Japan, South Korea, have not given unqualified
and unconditional support to these US strikes. I mean they
were unilateral, that is a fact. They didn't have a
UN mandate, nor do they have US congressional authorization. And
(31:45):
many Americans from left to right, Democrats and Republicans, are
highly anxious that this could drag the United States once
again into a forever war. So I don't think that
Canberra's stance really damages australia credibility or isolates us in
the world, especially if and it is still and if
(32:05):
there is a ceasefire.
Speaker 2 (32:08):
Yeah, we'll get to that at the moment. Do you
think the Prime Minister shouldn't be at NATO rather than
send his deputy?
Speaker 15 (32:16):
Well, the Japanese and the South Korean leaders are pulled
out of NATO, not that they're part of NATO, Nora
is Australia. I mean, remember, Australia is one of many
countries that are desperate to meet with the new president.
Albo is not alone.
Speaker 2 (32:30):
Do you think we should be there at the table
because when he was stood up at the G seven
that was certainly on the cards last week.
Speaker 15 (32:39):
Yeah, you know, it's Donald Trump's only been in the
White House for five months, and I think it's usually
six months before a new president or a new prime
minister meet for the first time, and I think the
record was in early nineteen sixty one when Sir Robert
Menzies met with President John F. Kennedy and James and
(33:00):
the prominent diplomatic historian highlights that GoF Whitlam was frozen
out of the Nixon White House in nineteen seventy three,
and yet Nixon and Kissinger were supping with the Soviet
dictator Breshnif So you know, bear that in mind. It's
important for the Australian Prime minister have a good relationship
with the US president, and it's incumbent on Cambridge to
(33:21):
make that happen. After all, China, not Iran or Russia
for that matter, remained the greater threat to Australia and
the United States. So it's in Canberra's interest to make
this happen. But I don't think we should get two
worked up about it for now.
Speaker 2 (33:37):
I think the problem though all those former prime ministers
hadn't ventilated so publicly about incumbent presidents. I think part
of the problem is our ambassador, our Foreign Minister, and
our Prime minister have all been pretty negative about a
bloke that's got a glass jaw and a lot of power. Yeah.
Speaker 15 (33:55):
Well, look, I think Donald Trump is a unique case
to be frank. I mean, he's an exceptional president in
the sense that he's highly sensitive to criticism. Look, there's
a danger here for the Prime Minister and the Foreign
Minister for that matter, to look like they're bending over
backwards for Trumpet. But at the same time I think
there are appropriate channels underway for them to maintain a relationship.
(34:16):
And remember Australia is not alone here, you know. And
as I say, the main game is not Iran. The
main game is China and Asia. And it's incumbent on
our leadership to have a close relationship with Washington to
hedge against the rise in China.
Speaker 2 (34:32):
Particularly because Washington's more switched on to China as a
threat than our mob appeared to be. Let's go to
this ceasefire, which looks in the last half an hour
or so to be over earlier today, Former US Army
major Mike Lyons was on Sky. He seemed pretty skeptical.
Then it was a year innilateral announcement by the US
President that the ceasefire was there, yet then to be
(34:55):
confirmed by Iran or Israel. But this is what he
had to say about the President's announcement.
Speaker 16 (35:02):
I think it's not Franklin Israel's best interest to stop anything.
Right now, we don't know whether exactly the United States
did act and did eradicate the Iranian nuclear capability or not,
so there's a lot of unknowns there.
Speaker 4 (35:18):
Yeah, when I.
Speaker 2 (35:19):
Listened to his comments, I felt it was pretty premature
to call the thing over until we've got confirmation that
those three sites and others genuinely were taken out. Is
that fair.
Speaker 1 (35:31):
Well?
Speaker 15 (35:31):
Preventive wars history shows are fraught with the danger of
unintended consequences. But the thing about this Iranian strike, retaliatory
strike against the US base in Qatar overnight our time,
is that it was pretty limited. No one was killed,
there was no serious damage. And my sense is that
(35:53):
to this indicates if these attitudes prevail in Tehran, and
we're still at the very early stages of this conflict,
but to the extent those attitudes prevail in Tehran, that
would indicate that Iran's mullers are more bent on survival
than martyrdom. And also, let's not forget Iran has been
(36:13):
seriously diminished since October seven. You know, the sa crescent
is really no more. Hesbla's really been diminished in Lebanon,
so too has the Shia militia in Syria. This hard
regime's gone in Sirius, so Iran is really on the
back foot. Is it really in Tehran's interests to provoke
(36:34):
the Americans? And it would be the easiest thing in
the world, getting back to your original point, Peter, to
taunt and go this president out of his sense of restraint,
and who knows where we might end up. But my
sense is that the Mullers in Tehran have a lot
more to lose by being deliberately provocative in this environment.
Speaker 2 (36:55):
Right well over it there, I'm suggesting it probably will
change by the hour, Tom Switzer, thank you. The military operations,
we'll get to those in the moment. We'll talk to
Iron Hersey Ali after this break. Welcome a back coming up,
the scandal of government funded charter flings will only fly
(37:18):
indigenous children and leave non indigenous kids in remote areas
on the tarmac even if there's a seat that's empty.
The first let's bring in global commentator and Skinny's regular
Iron Hersey Ali to commentate to with us now on
the events in the Middle East. It's been a remarkable
forty eight hours or so. It's still moving fast tonight,
I am. I'm sure you're across the latest talk that
(37:41):
there's been already a breach in the ceasefire. I want
to get your thoughts though. You know this region better
than anyone. You were raised a devout in Muslim so
you understand what's at stake here better than anyone I
can talk to on the program. Where does the region
go now? Not just dear but particularly Iran, because we
(38:02):
know their long term aim isn't just acquiring nuclear weapons.
They want to caliphate. They want jihad not just togetinst
Christians and Jews, but also against their switting Muslim neighbors.
Give us your sense of things.
Speaker 5 (38:18):
So you know how in the West we have this
cleavage where we say there are people on the left
and there are people on the right. In that region
in the Middle East, the prevailing cleavage is that there
are people who want the caliphate back, the radical Islamists
like this, like the Iotolahs, and there are people who
wanted to move forward. They don't want a caliphate, they
(38:40):
wanted to be modern nation. States like the United Arab Emirates,
and maybe it looks as if, you know, the Sodi
government may be willing also to let go of the
promise of the caliphate and move on and become a
modern nation state. So the reason why it's really important
in my view to bring this particular regime down is
(39:00):
because it's explicitly committed to exporting the Islamic Revolution beyond
Iran's borders, and it explicitly says in their constitution that
they have to use subversion, terrorism, civil wars, proselytization and
other means. And these other means that is, this development
of a nuclear bomb. And they regard America as a
(39:22):
great Satan, Israel as little Satan, and the Sunni governments
like the Saudis, the Jordanians, the Egyptians and so on,
they regard them as Sunni apostates. And so this is
this is a regime that is committed to repression at
home and terror and expansion beyond its borders. And at
(39:43):
this very moment, it is weak. And I think we
have been doing for many decades. We've been sort of
a half you know, a half done job. We would
go into places and not really finish the job. And
I think I'm of the viewpoint that to bring this
regime down.
Speaker 2 (40:02):
Arm of the view when you got your foot on
your opponent's throat, you keep it there. And I was
a bit perturbed, I have to say, about how quickly
the US President wanted to call the job done without
any documented evidence, at least publicly, that all those nuclear
sites and those assets have been completely wiped out. Give
us a sense of what a caliphate really means, what
(40:24):
a caliphate would look like iron particularly, Let's assume they
keep the bomb or keep the bomb making capacity. If
Iran and the mull has had the bomb, how would
they use the bomb to deliver a caliphate.
Speaker 5 (40:40):
Well, first and foremost, they would wipe Israel off the map.
There was one of their leadership was as they were
doing this and richment. It was about maybe seventeen years ago,
and this leader, it may have been Estralla, he said, yes,
we will use the bomb to wipe Israel off the map.
And then he was confronted with the reality that Israel
would be taliate and he said, well, there are only
(41:02):
ten million of them, and there are eighty million of us,
meaning eighty million Muslims in the region and we will survive.
And so they are committed to this goal, which they
think of as a divine mandate. And it is apocalyptic
and I think the Western mind has a very hard
time understanding what that is like. But the people of
(41:23):
Iran who lived under this regime, they understand what it
feels like, what it is like to live under Sharia
law and under a caliphate. But the quest for the
caliphate never stops. It is to change your society, to
change your region, and then to change the whole world.
That is why I think it is delusional for anybody
(41:44):
to think that, oh, well, the Ayatola is going to
come passionately to his senses and that this is why
is going to hold. No, it's not going to hold
because it goes against their commitment.
Speaker 2 (41:57):
So you've written a wonderful pace where you call the
action by Ronald Trump as a civilizational moment. And I
think that in itself, that form of words stops you
when you tracks for people to understand that's exactly what
we're looking at here. So regime change, is it possible?
And if we have regime change in Iran, is this
(42:20):
threat weakened?
Speaker 6 (42:24):
The regime.
Speaker 5 (42:24):
Change is going to come from the Iranian people. They're
ready for change. I was just listening to and following
Reza Pahlavi, who is the son of the shaw who
was hosted in nineteen seventy nine by the Mullahs and
by radical Marxists. They're desperate for change. They just need
a little bit of help from US. Iran is different
(42:45):
from Libya and Syria. It's an all ancient civilization and
the leadership in the diaspora of Iran and the people
of Iran who reject this regime. But I think the
last time I had the number eighty percent. They want
to rid themselves of this and all we need to
do is help them. And I hope that that Donald
(43:07):
Trump and Bibbin Netanyahu that they rise to the occasion
and that they don't stop at this moment where we say, oh,
we've destroyed the facilities and so now we can move on.
We can't move on. They're going to regroup, They're going
to use terrorism in the region and beyond, and they
are determined to build this bomb, even if it takes
them another ten decades. They're absolutely determined, and that is
(43:30):
why they have to be completely removed. The people of
Iran want to do it. We just need to help
the people and instead of giving throwing the Iotola lifeline.
Speaker 2 (43:42):
This will be a continuing conversation. Ian hesse Ali, thank you.
All right, after the break the Indigenous Flights scandal and
the red tape drowning Australian businesses, all right, let's just
jump in now with my Tuesday nine panel IPS and
your fellow and chief economist Adam Crichton skin used regular
(44:06):
Terry Barnes News today Adam, five thousand new regulations have
been added by the Albanezy Governor. No excuses as to
why business in this country is failing and insolvencies are
through the roof. Red tape is what they are drowning in.
And also to a friend of mine's posted something in
relation to the new Industrial Relations Legislation and the acts
(44:30):
the abalgamated legislations out. It's two hundred and two thousand,
two hundred and thirteen pages long, and when the ir
AT first came out in nineteen o four it was
thirty pages long. Poor old business. This is why we
can't have productivity in this country.
Speaker 10 (44:45):
Yeah, look certainly that's true. I mean we rightly talk
about energy regulations all the time, but we don't talk
enough about ion regulation anymore. I mean, it certainly throttles
small businesses around the country. It's only the biggest businesses
that can really deal with it. And just in terms
of regulation in general, the increase in regulations, those five
thousand new regulations under the Labor government, it's also the
(45:05):
bureaucrats that enforce the regulations. They have grown by nineteen
percent just in the last three years. There's some one
hundred and seven thousand federal bureaucrats now whose whole job
is to enforce regulations and they alone cost fifteen billion
dollars a year. That's according to recent IPA research. So
it's a huge problem, whether it's energy, whether it's ir
We really do need to pair it back.
Speaker 6 (45:25):
Let's hope that happens.
Speaker 10 (45:26):
But I must say I'm not particularly confident with this government.
Speaker 2 (45:29):
We've got the Productivity love In coming up pretty shortly,
and the former head of the Productivity Commission, the chair
Michael Brennan, says we must fix Australia's broken GST. He
says we should a genuine tax reform on the table.
It'll come down though one and Terry for the states
to actually advocate. They are the ones that all must agree.
(45:50):
Correct me if I'm wrong on the old legislation. But
they've all got to agree in order to change the
mix of or the rate of the GST. They'll all
benefit from it, but politically most of them are pretty guardless.
Speaker 17 (46:04):
That's correct about all states are required to sign on
to any change the GSC. And certainly I think well
tax report was on the table according the Treasurer.
Speaker 6 (46:14):
But all he is concerned about, isn't he is.
Speaker 17 (46:17):
Raising revenue, raising war revenue, beating the beats. He's not
actually talking about the other side. You know what the
tax is paid for. There's no going to be any
rationalization reform there really that the government has just once
more of our money.
Speaker 6 (46:31):
But when it comes to the GSC, it was broken
from the start, wasn't it, Because that was the.
Speaker 17 (46:34):
Political compromise that John Howard and Peter Costello had to
do way back go those thirty years ago now with
the Australian Democrats to get it through.
Speaker 6 (46:42):
But certainly I think we do have to look at
what the tax mixed. I think indirect tax GSC is
the sexual part of it.
Speaker 17 (46:49):
But the way the States use the GSC and why
it's carved it is very important.
Speaker 2 (46:53):
To just a big jumping adam.
Speaker 10 (46:57):
Yes, So just a very brief point on the GST.
And it's often sold in Australia that it's a negative
that the rate is so low, but if you look
at Europe you'll see exactly what happens when they lift
that rate. That gets lifted again and again and again,
and you end up with a twenty percent GST. So
I'd be very reluctant to recommend to lift the rate
of the GST. It just gives government vastly more money
if they have to do anything with it. I would
broaden the base, but you know we have a spending problem,
(47:20):
not a taxing problem.
Speaker 2 (47:22):
All right, absolutely, just let me jump in there if
I can. When you came back at them from overseas,
you'd had that time lob seeing in the United States,
you just said, what the heck has happened to my country?
You've all gone woke, you've all gone off the deep
end a whole lot of issues, and that the battle
around race had really heightened in your time away. Have
listened to this one in remote Queensland, you've got kids
(47:44):
who are non Indigenous. It takes six days for them
to get home from boarding schools because they're not allowed
to get on any of these government funded Charter flights
because they're for Indigenous children only. So the white fellas
and the non indigenous kids they have to stay behind
and go home on a bus, I presume, because there
are seats going begging if they're not filled. Here's what
(48:06):
a pilot had to say.
Speaker 9 (48:09):
Your two sons who bored at school in Charter's towers.
Speaker 1 (48:12):
They're not allowed to get on the planes.
Speaker 7 (48:14):
No, they're not.
Speaker 4 (48:15):
Why of cause they don't fall under ab study.
Speaker 9 (48:19):
So the flights are only available to ab study recipients.
Speaker 6 (48:24):
Yes, Adam Crime.
Speaker 10 (48:27):
It's just absolutely shocking. This would never fly in the US.
And it's a mean, it's obviously reverse racism. It's blatant racism,
and it shouldn't be happening. I mean, there's probably a
strong case for these flights, but they should go to
all students, regardless of what the color of their skin is.
Speaker 8 (48:40):
It.
Speaker 10 (48:40):
I mean, it frankly shocks me that this is that
this sort of stuff is still on the books. I
actually thought that they got rid of ab study but
it's you know, it's obviously not the case. Very disappointing.
Speaker 2 (48:49):
Let's go to something you've written in the Financial Review, Terry.
You describe the Victorian their rules as a political circus
run by clowns. You've called them underperformers, time servers and
extinct volcanoes. Tell us what you really think.
Speaker 17 (49:03):
Well, look, I only gave me what eight hundred words,
so I couldn't really sort of go up.
Speaker 6 (49:07):
A long run, could I.
Speaker 17 (49:08):
Look, I was so cheesed off last week the settlement
of the John Desnuto situation, the bailout.
Speaker 6 (49:15):
That he was given by the Liberal Party. I just
decided to let let.
Speaker 17 (49:18):
Light I mean, effectively the Liberal Party down here Victoria.
I could say the same probably about every state Liberal
opposition around the country. Not fit for purpose. They've gotten
to people who have been there for too long, non contributors,
as I said, time servers and second rasers.
Speaker 6 (49:34):
But more to the point, there's no there's no plan,
there's no alternative vision to actually sell Victorians. And if
they don't get no fingers out, I'm mad at.
Speaker 2 (49:44):
I'm out of som tery. I gotta leave it there,
but we will. It'll be an evergreen topic. I am
sure we will come back to it again. That's it
for me everyone. Andrew's on leave, of course, sent up
next to wonderful Steve Price
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.