Credlin | 25 June

Donald Trump discusses the successful strikes on Iran at the NATO Summit, Sussan Ley effectively apologises for the Coalition’s catastrophic election loss.   

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:02):
Peter Krandland live on Sky News Australia.

Speaker 2 (00:08):
Good evening, Welcome to the program. Here's what's coming up
on the show tonight. We'll watch too at NATO to
see if we hear from Donald Trump, but overnight to
use the F word publicly. I think a few leaders
say it behind closed doors, but this points to a
broader frustration he clearly has with the Middle East as
the current ceasefire looks tenuous at best. If he speaks

(00:29):
at the NATO summit, I'll bring you that live. A
major blow two to the public broadcast today Antoinette La
two wins a un lawful termination case in the Federal court.
So how do you oversee get it so wrong? I'll
get you an update in a moment. Plus Richard Miles.
He's there at NATO and yet more pressure on Australia
to increase our defense spending in line with the other nations.

(00:49):
They're now edging up to five percent. Miles says this
is just tricky accounting, Well is it.

Speaker 3 (00:56):
Greg Sheridan coming out and Susan Lee.

Speaker 2 (00:59):
Puts into work is what every Liberal supporters already acknowledged
out of May's federal election.

Speaker 4 (01:05):
We didn't just lose. We got smashed, totally smashed.

Speaker 2 (01:15):
We'll stay with that speech today by the opposition leader,
a big speech effectively apologizing to liberal voters and liberal
supporters for letting them down in the coalition's recent catastrophic loss,
it's worst ever.

Speaker 4 (01:29):
Over two elections, the coalition has lost thirty three seats
in the House of Representatives. We've lost eight seats in
the Senate. Our primary vote has fallen by more than
nine percent in the House, our two party preferred vote
is down more than six percent, and we hold now

(01:51):
just two of forty three inner Metro seats and seven
of forty five Outer Metro seats. These numbers reflect a
deep and growing disconnect. We respect the election outcome with humility.

Speaker 2 (02:09):
It was the speech she had to make, the first
big speech from a new leader after a heavy loss,
promising to listen, promising that the party will do better now.
Boiler Plate, Yes, in many respects, but certainly not boiler
Plate was her life before politics.

Speaker 4 (02:26):
I was born in Nigeria to British parents. Between graduating
from school and becoming, as I described myself, a farmer's wife,
I worked my share of the tough jobs, cleaner waitress,
short ordered cook rous about and out back pilot. I
was not taken seriously in pilot training. I lived in

(02:48):
a bedsit under the bridge in Queenbean, and my clothes
were from Vinie's. Because every dollar I made went towards
flying lessons. I was told I couldn't get a crop
dusting rating because the chemicals wouldamage my unborn children. I
was yelled at, hit on and then ignored. I soon
found myself working in the shearing sheds, picking up eight

(03:09):
hundred fleeces a day, cooking for a team of twenty
on woodstoves in high summer, with kerosene fridges and pit toilets.
I learned the value of a hard day's manual labor,
often in the scorching heat of western Queensland.

Speaker 2 (03:25):
Eight hundred heavy fleeces in the heat and queens on
a tea, that's no mean feat. Later on in life,
for mum of three, by this stage the farmer Susan
Lee changed course.

Speaker 4 (03:35):
Balancing the family budget was becoming too hard, so I
made a decision that many mums have made before and since,
get new skills and bring in extra income. So as
I raised my own family, I went to university for
the first time age thirty. I still remember the day
I walked in to enroll in a Bachelor of Economics
at Latrobe University in Woodonga. I kept thinking, really do this.

Speaker 3 (04:02):
Now?

Speaker 2 (04:02):
Part of Li's ongoing challenges that for meitting Australians, I
don't know who she is, let alone know anything about
a quite extraordinary personal story. Her problem is that despite
being in the Parliament for twenty four years, she has
had or or has almost no political identity. Even inside
the Liberal Party. Most of her colleagues had no idea
even now how to pronounce her name now in This

(04:26):
is because she's the new leader, and the reason she
is and was elected you leader is that the party
felt it had to have a woman and to overlook
her as the former Deputy of the Dutton would only
compound their electoral woes. Partly, she got the job because
most expected she won't be there long enough to lead
them back into government, acknowledging that the first leader after

(04:48):
a big loss is likely cannon fodder. And partly she
won the leadership because she's never really upset anyone enough
to make any enemies. Now, in politics where conviction matters,
that's not really a badge you want to wear with
much enthusiasm. But all of that to one side. Today's
first major speech by Lee to the Press Club was

(05:09):
a well crafted, if a little over rehearsed speech in
a bid to introduce her to Australians, and Lee definitely
deflected any really probing questions from the gallery, mostly by
being brief, because it's much easier to talk yourself.

Speaker 3 (05:25):
Into trouble than out of it.

Speaker 2 (05:28):
Now for me to be honest, it was not nearly
enough economic narrative in what she had to say, and
too much focus I thought on social policy areas that
sold her short, unfortunately as a woman leader rather than
simply the leader. Now that's not to say she should
ignore the qualities that women bring to leadership or apologize
for them, but I want to see leaders almost stand

(05:50):
apart from their gender, as that you did. A great
leader who happened to be a woman, definitely not someone
defined first and foremost by her sex. Lee's speech today
was good start, but there's a huge amount of climb
if the coalition and the Liberal Party in particular, is
to be competitive at the next election.

Speaker 4 (06:08):
We will do the hard work to regain your trust
and earn your support. In three years time, the Liberal
Party will have the honest conversations we need to.

Speaker 2 (06:20):
And to create the contest with labor that's needed to
win elections. She did very well to humanize herself and
to let the public know the kind of person she is,
especially alluding to some of the family challenges she's faced.

Speaker 4 (06:33):
I want the women of Australia to hear me when
I say to them, as a national leader, I understand
the fear you feel when you go for a walk alone,
because I have felt that fear too. I understand the
pain that comes with coercion and control because I have
felt that pain too.

Speaker 2 (06:56):
Now, in terms of policy, there won't be just the
standard review of the election. She said that we are
much more fundamental review of what the Liberal Party stands
for and who it represents. Bluff cellby an Energy and
an Admissions Reduction Working Group.

Speaker 4 (07:11):
As part of that policy development process, we will establish
a dedicated coalition Working Group on Energy and Emissions reduction policy.

Speaker 3 (07:19):
This group.

Speaker 4 (07:21):
This group will work directly to me and to David
little Proud and over the course of this term, our
task will be to develop a plan underpinned by two
goals having a stable energy grid which provides affordable and
reliable power for Australian households and businesses, and reducing emissions

(07:41):
so that we are playing our part in the global effort.

Speaker 2 (07:46):
But she didn't ask the obvious question, namely, are those
two objectives having affordable and reliable power and reducing emissions
actually compatible? And my fear is that the Liberals will
try and bury the debate via this review, given Lee's
statement today that she expects it to run right up
until the next election, so beware. It doesn't look like

(08:11):
zero's even up for debate under Susan Lee.

Speaker 3 (08:15):
But it wasn't all reviews and studies.

Speaker 2 (08:17):
She committed, she said to retaining the policy to spend
three percent of GDP on defense, even though this quantum
later as it was announced in the election campaign, has
already been superseded by the Trump's administration demand that key
allies spend at least three point five percent of GDP
on their military. Indeed, today around the NATO table that's

(08:38):
now up to five percent of GDP once cyber defense
and intelligence is included. Understandably, the new Liberal leaders trying
to be as inclusive as possible, repeatedly stressing that she
wanted the party to quote, respect, reflect and represent modern Australia.
And look, I agree with her that the Liberal Party
needs much more women in its ranks, but in the end,

(09:01):
what the Liberal Party needs most is strong policy and
strong personnel, regardless of the candidate's gender. Take the example
of the seat of gold Stein that.

Speaker 3 (09:11):
The Liberals won.

Speaker 2 (09:12):
In fact, it was the only seat they won at
the May election. Tim Wilson won that seat. He's a
bloke against a teal woman, up ending the idea that
only a Liberal woman can beat a teal woman, and
he didn't by engaging with local people and running hard
on the coalition's nuclear policy and against Labour's policy to

(09:32):
tax unrealized capital gains.

Speaker 3 (09:35):
On quotas.

Speaker 2 (09:36):
For pre selecting women, for instance, Lee said that if
some state divisions have them, that's fine, If some don't,
or that's fine too.

Speaker 4 (09:45):
We must be a Liberal party that is proudly for
women and made up of women. Our party must pre
select more women in winnable seats so that we see
more Liberal women in federal Parliament. Now I'm agnostic on
specific methods to make it happen, but I am a
zealot that it actually does happen. Current approaches have clearly

(10:09):
not worked, so I'm open to any approach that will.
The Liberal Party operates as a federated model, meaning that
each state division determines its own preselection rules. If some
state divisions choose to implement quotas, that's fine. If others don't,
that's also fine. But what is not fine is not

(10:31):
having enough women.

Speaker 2 (10:35):
I might add she was the Shadow Minister for Women
and the party's deputy leader, and none of this changed
under her watch. So let's hope there's movement here. I'm
all in favor of targets with credible mechanisms to achieve them,
so targets with teeth, transparency and accountability.

Speaker 3 (10:52):
But I'll tell you what manatory quota is.

Speaker 2 (10:54):
Where some seats are only open to women, Well, I
regard them as an affront to the merit principle that
the Liberal Party is built on. Now, for a brief time,
new opposition leaders can get away with sitting on the fence,
but well before the next election, the coalition will have
to deliver credible policies on difficult issues. Now that'll mean
upsetting some colleagues and disagreeing with vested interests and being

(11:17):
prepared to have fights rather than just an agreement. Some
of them will be big internal fights too, because you
can't be all things to everyone and stand on principle.
Sooner or later leaders have to take sides, something Susan
Lee was scrupulous today not to do. Indeed, today's first
question was about the federal factionalism that's currently tearing apart

(11:41):
the Liberal Party.

Speaker 5 (11:43):
Here and now, can you tell us how destructive you
think this factionalism is, especially in your state organizations, and
what you intend to do about it?

Speaker 2 (11:59):
And look, Lee, as part of the leader, had surprisingly
little to say today about this, except that she'd extended
the intervention into faction Riven New South Wales.

Speaker 4 (12:08):
I supported the intervention that my predecessor put in place.
Good work was done by that panel. We've now got
a new committee that is taking that work forward with
a new constitution rules.

Speaker 2 (12:24):
But the first committee that she's now replaced, well, they
have drafted a new constitution, one designed to give the
party back to its members. It's top branches from arbitrarily
excluding new members, it stopped conferences from arbitrarily veto and
new branches, and it's given all members the right to
speak and vote at State Council. Now, essentially, this draft

(12:47):
constitution allows all members to say on everything, which is
the only way you can beat the factional string pulling.
A lot of discouraged members would be more inclined to
renew the Liberal Party membership if that heard.

Speaker 3 (12:59):
The leaders say.

Speaker 2 (13:01):
Clearly and unequivocally today that she backs internal party democracy,
particularly given many things she's a wholly owned subsidiary of
a left faction out on your South Wales. But on
speaking out against factionalism today, Susan Lee squibbed it, the
best way for a Liberal leader to earn the job
of leading the country is to successfully lead the Liberal Party,

(13:25):
and that most emphatically does not mean waiting for some
committee to tell you what to do. So marks today
for effort and plenty of marks two for her personal backstory.
But policy substance is where the voter's judgment will be
made and that's the big job ahead for the Liberals.

(13:47):
Or I'm just keeping an eye there on NATO. In
the corner of your screen, let's go to canber Tho
over the headlines, Skyninges political reporter Trudy McIntosh.

Speaker 6 (13:55):
As he departed the White House President Donald Trump had
this message to run and Israel amid the shaky ceasefire.

Speaker 7 (14:03):
We basically have two countries that have been fighting so
long and so hard that they don't know what they're doing.

Speaker 8 (14:11):
Do you understand that?

Speaker 7 (14:12):
I think that he stated his views pretty abruptly and
I think they were very clear.

Speaker 9 (14:19):
The Prime Minister chose not to attend the NATO summit
alongside Donald Trump. Richard Miles there in his place for.

Speaker 10 (14:26):
Richard will do a terrific job representing Australia and as
interest Jim, it is a little bit other opportunities for
us to engage with the American.

Speaker 3 (14:33):
I mean, Donald Trump's just not that into albo is he.

Speaker 10 (14:36):
I don't know how you want me to respond to that, Carl.

Speaker 8 (14:38):
I doubt that's the case.

Speaker 6 (14:39):
Meanwhile, more than one hundred Australians have been evacuated out
of Tel Aviv on assisted government flights. Thousands made stranded
in Iran.

Speaker 8 (14:46):
The situation is obviously very volatile there.

Speaker 1 (14:49):
Our hope is that Australian so kept safe.

Speaker 2 (14:52):
We've got consul staff who are in Azerbaijan providing assistance
for those who cross that border.

Speaker 8 (14:58):
By land out.

Speaker 9 (14:59):
Of and growing hope for further interest rate relief. Inflation
fell to its equal lowest rate in almost four years,
the headline rate two point one percent in the year
to May, down from two point four percent.

Speaker 10 (15:12):
Well, I'm reluctant to say it's mission accomplished, but we
are certainly making more progress than was expected.

Speaker 3 (15:21):
All Right, plenty to get across. Let's bringing my team.

Speaker 2 (15:23):
Send your political reporter Tritty Macintosh and send your political
reporter Carolyn Marcus out of Sydney, will go if we can.
To start off with Susan Lee's speech today at the
Press Club. Not a lot of detail there in terms
of reform. She talked about a number of reviews of
the party. She skated across affair about a policy detail,
but she really did open up about her personal story

(15:45):
and I thought, Trudy, she did a best to take
on the Liberal Party is shocking loss and make no
bones about how devastating it was. You've got to give
this sort of speech after a loss of this magnitude.

Speaker 3 (15:57):
I thought she did well too.

Speaker 2 (15:59):
As I say, intra use herself because the vast majority
of Australia's have got no idea who she is.

Speaker 3 (16:05):
How did you think she went.

Speaker 8 (16:07):
Yeah.

Speaker 9 (16:08):
I think it was a fairly good outing for Susan Lee,
as good as you could have hoped from her perspective.
The difficulty at this time is what level of political
oxygen there is there for the Australian people to be
watching these sort of things very closely. There's a lot
going on in the world. They just had a huge
resounding defeat. I thought the unanswered policy questions is the
big thing in terms of this opposition over the next

(16:28):
three years. What does the Liberal Party stand for? How
does it resolve the big tension points with the junior
coalition partner, the Nationals on that we were never expecting
policy answers. Really today it's been kicked down the road
in terms of what's going to happen the rest of
this week. Tomorrow there's going to be the Shadow Cabinet
meeting here and then on Friday the full Liberal Party
room's going to come together.

Speaker 3 (16:49):
I'm told there the MP's.

Speaker 9 (16:50):
Are going to get this briefing about how they can
be more involved in actually coming up with the party's
policies going forward. The lead team believes that there was
too much top down the Dutton side in the last
three years that more needs to come that MPs should
be able to come up with proposals and actually funnel
them up to the leadership team.

Speaker 2 (17:10):
Well that's why I used to work these three things
called backbench policy committees. They clearly must have been that
jump somewhere along the way between Morrison, Dutton, maybe turmberl
I don't know, but I hope those things come back
because they are critical. Let's go to the Federal Court today, Caroline,
you were there when the judge brought down that decision
between former ABC journalist Antoinette Latouffe and our public broadcaster.

(17:31):
The Australian's legal contributor Chris merritt wiged in a little
earlier in the day and what it means for the ABC.

Speaker 11 (17:38):
So slap on the face for the ABC, particularly for
its management systems. The absolute killer point was that the ABC.
The basis for removing miss Latouh from here was the
assertion by the ABC that it had given her a
direction not to post the ABC. During evidence, an official

(18:01):
who delivered that instruction actually conceded that it was not
a direction, it was a suggestion. So that undermined that
very very strongly.

Speaker 3 (18:14):
Caroline.

Speaker 2 (18:14):
The ABC is make a bit of a habit of
spending taxpayers money on legal cases, it loses what's going
on here.

Speaker 12 (18:22):
Well, in this case, it's been ordered to pay Antoinette
Latouf seventy thousand dollars in damages for the hurt, distress
and humiliation it caused her over unlawfully terminating her contract.
But it will pay much more than that in legal
costs and pecuniary penalties that the judge is going to
impose at a later date, that is penalties for breaking

(18:44):
the law. Now, its current managing director, Hugh Marx has
already gone on air today on the ABC saying they
should not have spent many millions of month dollars defending
this case, but they had, as miss Latou's lawyer point
outside court declined to settle with her for eighty five
thousand dollars last year, so taxpayers will have a very

(19:07):
big bill to pay. But in terms of the court case,
the judge was very strong on the point that he
found the ABC had breached the Fair Work Act by
unlawfully sacking mislatoof for political opinions. Now, she had been
employed at the ABC for just a five day stint

(19:29):
to present their morning's radio program, over the December period
in twenty twenty three. Two days into that stint, she
posted to her Instagram page a post saying Human Rights
Watch is reporting starvation as a tool of war about
the Israeli military action in Gaza, and the next day,

(19:51):
after her shift, she was hauled into a meeting with
management who told her to pack her bags and leave. Now,
the ABC had argued in the case they'd give in
her a direction not to post. As you heard Chris
Merritt explain there, the evidence that was born out showed
it was more advice, and that's what the judge accepted.
But he also was critical of the post itself. And

(20:13):
I think it's important to show your viewers this, Peter,
because not only that, he also dismissed miss Latouff's claims
that another reason she was let go by the ABC
was due to her race and the fact that she's
of Lebanese Arab descent. This is what the judge had
to say.

Speaker 13 (20:32):
The HRW post was bound to be controversial. It was
Latouf's making of the HRW post was ill advised and
inconsiderate of her employer. I have no hesitation in accepting
the evidence of those witnesses that their actions were not
motivated to any extent by miss Latouf's race or national extraction.

Speaker 2 (20:52):
Thank you, Carolyn more for that will come from that
when the judge gets back into the courtroom and finishes
the pecuniary penalties.

Speaker 3 (20:58):
As you've just said, let's go to the treasurers.

Speaker 2 (21:01):
Well, I want to say it's a productivity around table truty,
but it's sort of morphed away from that.

Speaker 3 (21:05):
That's what the.

Speaker 2 (21:06):
Prime Minister announced. It's now nothing to do with productivity.
It's about tax reform, which for labor means tax hikes
or tax increases, changes to taxation, let's call it. But
he's been worn in the States already. Do not get greedy,
he says, when it comes to the GST.

Speaker 10 (21:24):
That's not unusual for the states and territories to put
their hand up for a bigger revenue base or for
more commonwealth support, more commonwealth funding.

Speaker 8 (21:34):
That's been a.

Speaker 10 (21:36):
Pretty frequent occurrence over recent years, in recent decades, since
the GST was introduced.

Speaker 3 (21:43):
They'll push and shava tell you what.

Speaker 2 (21:45):
But he's clearly laying the groundwork for some sort of
tax hike across the board, isn't he.

Speaker 6 (21:52):
There's these twin.

Speaker 3 (21:53):
Tracks going on at the moment.

Speaker 9 (21:54):
The States always want more share of the GST pie
that's to one side really of this round table. Will
that states, to my understanding, won't have a seat at
the table. This is more about federally, whether there is
an appetite for changes to the GST, say either broadening
it or lifting the rate in terms of then compensating
for that in the form of income tax cuts.

Speaker 6 (22:17):
There has been a shift in the last week.

Speaker 9 (22:18):
When I was at press club with Jim Chalmers about
a week ago, he seemed to indicate that he wasn't
really open to the idea that he's never been comfortable
with how you compensate people for the GST change. And
now the language is that they are don't want to
artificially limit, in his words, the contributions that we will
see at this closed door round table. So watch this
space as to whether they actually do have the appetite

(22:40):
to go down the past of GST reform heard it
all before under previous coalition governments, and they all found
it was too hot, all right, Well.

Speaker 2 (22:50):
They were just picking up their President Trump there and
Mark Rutter, who's the Secretary General of NATO let's have
a listen to five for.

Speaker 8 (22:57):
A number of years, and they're going up to five percent.

Speaker 7 (23:01):
That's a big from two percent, and a lot of
people didn't even pay the two percent.

Speaker 8 (23:06):
So I think it's going to be very big news later.

Speaker 7 (23:09):
It's going to become very strong with us, and I
appreciate doing it.

Speaker 8 (23:14):
Perhaps you want a job, yeah, absolutely. I mean first,
before I go to spending, I just want to recognize
you are the size of extra all you are. You
were men of strength because you're also a man of peace.

Speaker 1 (23:27):
And the fact that you are now also successful in
getting this ceasefire down between Israel and Aram. I really
want to overcommend you for it, and I think this
is important for the whole world. Then on spending, it's
absolutely true. I want to state here, without President Trump,
this would not have had in three stages. And you
became presidents in twenty sixteen twenty seventeen. You force your

(23:50):
beers a Canadian tobay more. At this moment, the result
of dead face is one trillion extra agricut defense spending by.

Speaker 8 (23:58):
The Canadians and the Europeans. Then game phase two and
you became pleasant than.

Speaker 1 (24:02):
January laws year Pax two is that all the countries
not yet on two percent have now committed to the
two percent. This is the old goal from Wills in
twenty forty seven.

Speaker 8 (24:11):
We're not on two percent.

Speaker 1 (24:12):
Some are saying somewhere in the twenty thirties. Now this year,
all of them, including Canada, including Italy, including Belgium, they
have all now committed to the two percent, and now
comes to big splash. Today we will decide to go
to five percent. We have to keep ourselves safe for
our exverciies, but also because it is fair to equalize
with the United States.

Speaker 8 (24:33):
When is this five percent? The Europeans and the Canadians
will equalize their defense spending.

Speaker 1 (24:39):
With the United States. So this is not about American
text players paying more. This is about Europeans Canadians paying more.

Speaker 8 (24:46):
And again, this would not have happened.

Speaker 1 (24:48):
I'm really saying this year, and some people might criticize me,
but then when I speak with them, they all say, yes,
you're right. This would not have happened if you would
not have been elected to twenty sixteen and re elected
last year and beckon to office.

Speaker 7 (25:01):
In general, think, well, thank you very much. It's a
great victory for everybody. I think, and we will be
equalized very shortly. And that's the way it has to be.
It's going to be a lot of money too, a
lot of DEFENSE'SI yeah, we have we have a great relationship,
and we've had a great relationship from the beginning.

Speaker 8 (25:18):
Highly respected man.

Speaker 7 (25:20):
And yeah, we appreciate you being here too, everybody, We
really do. We have a tremendous group of people on
my left and a tremendous group of people on my right.

Speaker 8 (25:29):
They might be even better than my people.

Speaker 7 (25:33):
Let's have a fight, let's figure it out anyway, but
we appreciate it. And we've had a tremendous relationship, Mark,
and we've really worked on this subject for.

Speaker 8 (25:43):
A long time. When Biden was here, it just died,
just died, like everything else died. And now it's you're
gonna take I guess I'll go today. So today we
will decide for none of us to do this.

Speaker 1 (25:55):
That's my absolute So we.

Speaker 7 (25:58):
Can't we can't talk about it until the book's taken,
because sometimes you know, strange things happened to the good.

Speaker 8 (26:04):
But I think you did. I think you're going to
do very well. Everyone's very happy. Go ahead, Yes, how
is the Iran Israel ceasefire going in your opinion on it,
I think very good. I think very good.

Speaker 7 (26:15):
Israel came back yesterday. I was so proud of them
because they came back. You know, they went out because
they felt it was a violation, and technically they were right,
but it just wouldn't have worked out very well. And
they brought the planes back. They had gone on to
another journey because it was a little bit of.

Speaker 8 (26:32):
A violation, and I said, you got to get him back.
And they came back and it was a great thing.

Speaker 7 (26:37):
And it's going very well.

Speaker 8 (26:40):
Plenty is a response to for our minister that you
still want to enrich you appear. I love Katie, She's
so great. This well, any question, she asked, I'll answer, well,
maybe I better less her. What was your question? What
is your response to the Uranian Foreign minister continued to
say about the enriched uranium and for Senior Clear uppons, well.

Speaker 7 (26:59):
I don't know if they've said that, but I'll tell
you the last.

Speaker 8 (27:00):
Thing they want to do is enrich anything.

Speaker 7 (27:02):
Right now.

Speaker 8 (27:02):
They want to recover, and we won't let that happen.
Number one, militarily, we won't.

Speaker 7 (27:08):
I think we'll end up having somewhat of a relationship
with a run and see it. Look, I've had a
relationship over the last four days. They agreed to the
cease fire, and it was a very equal agreement. They
both said that's enough. They both said it. But no,
they won't do that. The last thing they want to do,
Katie is enriched.

Speaker 8 (27:25):
They're not looking to. Can you imagine after all of
that they say, oh, let's go and do a bomb.

Speaker 7 (27:33):
You know, there could be a day in the future
will and then somebody else taking our place will be
saying don't do it, and maybe they won't do it
as well.

Speaker 14 (27:41):
I don't know, but they're not going to have a
bomb and they're not.

Speaker 8 (27:44):
Going to enrich. And we believe all of the stuff
is down there. We don't think they had nearly the
time because to get that out is a very difficult thing.
It's not like it's.

Speaker 7 (27:52):
Not like moving a package or taking this carpet.

Speaker 8 (27:54):
Up and moving it. It's very difficult, it's very dangerous
to do. We believe it's all down there.

Speaker 7 (28:00):
We had a tremendous victory, a tremendous hit, and because
of that they I don't.

Speaker 14 (28:06):
Think they would have been down there because they knew
we were coming. When they know we're coming, they're not
going to be down to that, you know, thirty stories underground.
So no, I think it was just a tremendous victory
for everybody.

Speaker 8 (28:18):
Including a red Look. You know, they've got.

Speaker 7 (28:20):
A country and they've got oil, and they're very smart people.

Speaker 8 (28:24):
They can come back.

Speaker 7 (28:25):
Israel got hit very hard, especially the last couple of days.
Israel has hit really hard. Those ballistic missiles. Boy, they
took out a lot of buildings and they've been great.

Speaker 8 (28:36):
Bbing At Yaho.

Speaker 7 (28:37):
Should be very proud of themselves, and they've really been great.

Speaker 8 (28:41):
But they're not going to be building bumps for a
long time.

Speaker 15 (28:45):
Your reaction to the intelligence reports saying.

Speaker 16 (28:48):
That the Iranian Hussites were only partially.

Speaker 7 (28:53):
Devastated, not entirely, Well, they said it was actually the
report said it could have been very They don't know.

Speaker 8 (28:59):
I mean they did a report. I could have Pete
talk to it because his department.

Speaker 7 (29:04):
Did the report. They really don't know. I think Israel's
going to be telling us very soon because BB is
going to have people involved in that whole situation. We
hear it was obliteration. It was a virtual obliteration. When
you take a look at the ground above, don't forget
the flame is all underground, but everything above. If you
look at the before and the after picture, everything above

(29:26):
is burned black, the trees, everything. There's one building, but
that's a building that sunk substantially into the granite so
that the fire goes right over it. It was I
believe it was total obliteration. I believe they didn't have
a chance to get anything out because we acted fast.
If it would have taken two weeks, maybe, but it's

(29:46):
very hard to remove that kind of.

Speaker 8 (29:48):
Material, very hard and very dangerous to them. They're remove it.

Speaker 7 (29:51):
Plus, they knew we were coming, and if they know
we're coming, they're not going to be down there. There
aren't too many people that are going to be down there.
You have something to say about.

Speaker 17 (30:01):
It, MS President, when you talk to the people who
built the bombs, understand what those bombs can do, and
deliver those bombs. They landed precisely where they were supposed
to do. So was a flawless mission, flawless right down
where we knew they needed to enter. And given the
thirty thousand pounds of explosives and capability of those munitions.
It was devastation underneath Fordell and the amount of munitions

(30:24):
six per location. Any assessment that tells you it was
something otherwise is speculating with other motives. And we know
that because when you actually look at the report, by
the way, it was a top secret report, it was preliminary,
it was low confidence, all right, So this isn't you
make assessments based on what you know that it said
it could be very devastating very soon, moderns severe and

(30:47):
we believe far more likely severe and obliterated.

Speaker 8 (30:51):
So this is a political motive here investigation.

Speaker 17 (30:53):
Of course, we're doing a leak investigation with the FBI
right now because this information is for internal purposes. Battled
amage assessments and CNN and others are trying to spin
it to make the president look bad when this was
an overwhelming success.

Speaker 7 (31:06):
We had a tremendous success. And this is the New
York Times. I call it the failing New York Times.
It's gone to l and CNN, which is, you know,
very few people are watching, and you would think they
do the opposite. You would think they'd want to say
this was an unbelievable success.

Speaker 8 (31:22):
And the thing that hurts me is it's really.

Speaker 7 (31:24):
Demeaning to the pilots and the people that put that
whole thing together, the generals.

Speaker 8 (31:29):
That was a perfect operation. And when you look at
the holes and this.

Speaker 7 (31:33):
Was done from fifty two thousand feet there was no moon,
there was no light, and those three holes are right together.
And also, and nobody talks about this, we shot thirty
tomahawks from submarines. In particular was submarine, but that was
four hundred miles away and every one of those tomahawks

(31:53):
hit within a foot of where it was supposed to hit,
took out a lot of buildings that Israel wasn't able
to get, took them out with tom hawks.

Speaker 8 (32:01):
We don't even talk about that.

Speaker 7 (32:03):
This was a devastating attack and it knocked them for
a loop. And you know, if it didn't they wouldn't
have settled. If they had if they had won, if
we didn't take it out, they wouldn't have settled. Somebody
mentioned that to me day. If that thing wasn't devastated,
they would have never settled.

Speaker 8 (32:19):
Market do you have something.

Speaker 16 (32:21):
First of all, all the stuff about the intelligence, this
is what a leaker is telling you.

Speaker 8 (32:25):
The intelligence says, that's the game. These people play, They
read it.

Speaker 16 (32:28):
And then they go out and characterize it the way
they want to characterize. And their leakers this is the
game they play.

Speaker 8 (32:33):
So that's number one.

Speaker 16 (32:34):
Number two, here's a fact, the conversion facility, which you
can't do with nuclear weapon. Without a conversion facility, you can't.
We can't even find where it is where it used
to be on the map.

Speaker 8 (32:43):
You can't even find where it used to because the
whole thing is just blackened out. It's gone, it's wiped out,
it's wiped out.

Speaker 16 (32:48):
Then we dropped twelve of the strongest bombs on the
planet right down the hole in two places. Everything underneath
that mountain is in bad shape. And I refer you
to the statement of the IEA, mister Grossi, you know
what he said.

Speaker 8 (33:00):
He said there was.

Speaker 16 (33:00):
Iran the way it looked the day before the attack,
and what their nuclear program looks like now two very
different things. They are way behind where they were just
seven days ago. Now, anything in the world can be rebuilt,
but now we know where it is, and if they
try to rebuild it, we'll have options there as well.
But all this leaker stuff, these leakers are professional stabbers,
that's what they are. They go out and they read

(33:21):
this stuff and then they tell you what it says
against the law, but they characterize.

Speaker 8 (33:26):
It for you in a way that absolutely faults. There's
no way.

Speaker 16 (33:29):
Iran comes to the table of somehow nothing had happened.
This was complete and total obliteration. They're in bad shape.
They are way behind today compared to where they were
just seven days ago because of what the President did.

Speaker 1 (33:40):
Michael alerts you to among other aspects.

Speaker 8 (33:43):
So the great thing is you took out your capability
of your helm. This was crucial. You did it in
a way which is extremely impressive.

Speaker 1 (33:51):
But the sacred sense to the rest of the world,
the disc presidence when it comes to it, Yes, he's
a mental speech, but if necessary, he is willing to
use strength enormous strengths of the American military. I think
that signal to the rest of the world, this is
far beyond you run is extremely important. So that we
also port those student debts aspect of what happens.

Speaker 8 (34:11):
And they went down. Iran went down to the site.

Speaker 7 (34:14):
Afterwards, they said, it's so devastated and they settled when
they saw what we did to it, and frankly, if
we didn't do that, they would have had a lot
of ammunition to keep going.

Speaker 8 (34:24):
They wouldn't have settled.

Speaker 7 (34:26):
Somebody brought that up and two Iranians went down to
see it, and they called back and they said, this
place is gone. So it's just fake news by CNN,
which has got no ratings.

Speaker 8 (34:36):
It's a failed network.

Speaker 7 (34:37):
Anybody here from CNN by the way.

Speaker 8 (34:39):
Because you're really disgraceful network. MSNBC I think is actually worse,
but they're all pretty bad producers. Good Katie, I'll tell
you you know what.

Speaker 7 (34:49):
Marco reminded me that you did such a nice job there.
It was nine years ago. I had to debate this guy.
It was not easy.

Speaker 8 (34:57):
I think he even got better. You were into your
little thing. I said, this is when I had to
to bake this guy.

Speaker 17 (35:03):
You think it's how long do you think that the
IRNA NUCID program has been got back.

Speaker 8 (35:09):
By these by these strikes? Y.

Speaker 7 (35:13):
I think it's basically decades. Because I don't think they'll
ever do it again. I just don't think they're going to.
I think they're going to take their oil, they're going
to have some missiles and they'll have some defense. I
think they've had it. I mean, they just went through hell.
I think they've had it. The last thing they want to.

Speaker 8 (35:30):
Do is enrich. They've been trying to do it. By
the way, it's hard to enrich.

Speaker 7 (35:34):
And you know, when you look at a site like that,
very very hard to build, very very hard, very expensive.
If they spent trillions of dollars trying to do this
thing and they didn't come up with it, and we're actually.

Speaker 8 (35:46):
Getting along with them very well right now.

Speaker 7 (35:49):
But had we not succeeded with that hit, that hit
ended the war. That hit ended the war. I don't
want to use an example of Hiroshima, I don't want
to use an example of Nagasaki, but that was essentially
the same thing that ended that war. This ended that
with the war. If we didn't take that out, they
would have been they'd be fighting right now.

Speaker 8 (36:10):
Mister President. Yeah, it's the arrangiance to rebuilt. If they
rebuilt within the United States, strike again, and I've but
I'm not gonna have to worry about that.

Speaker 7 (36:20):
It's gone for years years, very tough to rebuild because
the whole thing is collapsed. In other words, inside it's
all collapsed. Nobody can get in to see it because
it's collapsed. You can't go into see a room that
has you know, ten million tons of rock.

Speaker 8 (36:36):
In it and the tunnels are totally collapsed reuilt. Well,
they've already looked at the tunnels, said this was.

Speaker 7 (36:44):
An unbelievable hit by genius pilots and genius people in
the military, and they're not being given credit for it
because we have scum that's in this group and not
all I v are.

Speaker 8 (36:55):
You have some great reporters, but you have scum.

Speaker 7 (36:58):
CNN is scum, MSDS is scum.

Speaker 8 (37:01):
The New York Times is scum. They're bad people, they're sick.

Speaker 7 (37:05):
And what they've done is they're trying to make this
unbelievable victory into something less.

Speaker 8 (37:11):
Now even they admit that it was hit very hard, okay,
but it wasn't hit. It was hit brutally and it
knocked it out.

Speaker 7 (37:19):
The original word that I use, I guess it got
us in trouble because it's a strong word. It was obliteration.
And you'll see that and it's going to come out.
Israel is doing a report on it now I understand,
and I was told that they said it was total obliteration.
You know, they have guys that go in there after

(37:39):
the hit and they said it was total obliteration.

Speaker 8 (37:43):
And you know, I don't want it for me.

Speaker 7 (37:44):
I wanted for the pilots. I wanted for the military.
They did such a good job. If you were in
the situation.

Speaker 8 (37:48):
Room with me, with the generals and all of the
people that did such a good job.

Speaker 7 (37:53):
And then they get demeaned by these idiots at CNN
who can't get ratings of places dying. Nobody wants to
even waste their time going on it shows, So they
formed with the New.

Speaker 8 (38:02):
York Times Who's Dying? Also, without Trump, you wouldn't have
a New York Times. And then just Jijiors.

Speaker 9 (38:08):
Your meeting with Zelenski later today, can you give us
any preview?

Speaker 8 (38:13):
What was sho we might be discussing. No, well, we'll
discuss the obvious. We'll discuss his difficulty. He's got a
little difficulty, U Zelenski. It's a nice guy. I mean,
I'm going to meet him today. I don't know. I said,
we're going to be discussing Ukraine. Yeah, it seems like
any be starved house there or anything that you might do. Well,

(38:33):
we're going to see.

Speaker 7 (38:34):
I mean, I've spoken to putin a lot and he
actually was very nice.

Speaker 8 (38:37):
He volunteered help on as you know Iran. I said, no,
I don't need help on in Iran. I need help
on Russia.

Speaker 7 (38:45):
Okay, I said it could be a favorite, help us
on Russia, not on Iran.

Speaker 8 (38:49):
But he was very nice. We're going to talk about that.
We're going to talk. I think progress is being made.
I think great progress is being made on Gaza.

Speaker 7 (38:58):
I think the because of this attack that we made,
I think we're.

Speaker 8 (39:02):
Gonna have some very good news. I was talking to.

Speaker 7 (39:04):
Steve Whitcoff, who, by the way, is terrific and who
knows more about this subject than anybody, the subject of
what we were just talking about. It was on last
night with Jesse and with Laura and with Sean and
boy Susan. He has a great take on it. He
just explains it so easily. He's really very knowledgeable. But

(39:25):
he did tell me that Gaza is very close.

Speaker 16 (39:32):
One follow up on around booth, you and Secretary of
Ruvio and Hesseth.

Speaker 17 (39:36):
Mentioned the lead but can you clarify is the intelligence
correct for the intelligence wrong?

Speaker 7 (39:41):
Well, the intelligence was was very inconclusive.

Speaker 8 (39:44):
The intelligence says, we don't know.

Speaker 7 (39:46):
It could have been very severe that's what the intelligence says.

Speaker 8 (39:51):
So I guess that's correct. But I think we can
take that. We don't know. It was very severe. It
was obliteration.

Speaker 7 (39:59):
Uh and you think that a media outlet would say,
isn't that a great thing?

Speaker 8 (40:04):
I mean, more importantly for the pilots, for the military.

Speaker 7 (40:07):
You take their guts out, you take their absolute guts out.
They had a tremendous attack. It was a complete obliteration.
The other team, the other group, Iran said let's stop this,
and you know what is Reel said it too, very smart.
They fought like hell, and then they said let's stop,

(40:28):
and they're going to build themselves. And I really see
it as thinking, I mean, we may do papers on it, Marco.

Speaker 8 (40:33):
Maybe we're going to do papers. I don't even know
if you need them. They're not going to be fighting
each other. They've had it.

Speaker 7 (40:39):
They've got a big fight, like two kids in a
school yard. You know, they fight like hell. You can't
stop them. Let him fight for about two three minutes.
Then it's easier to stop them.

Speaker 8 (40:47):
And then Betty has sometimes strong language. Strong everyone said,
all you have to use a certain word. I think
you have to. Yes, we're going to join some other
gu Yes, thank you Katie.

Speaker 7 (40:57):
One question, do you thank you so bad?

Speaker 8 (41:03):
She used to be very difficult.

Speaker 9 (41:06):
Do you believe that this Irani nuclear program will lead
to the release.

Speaker 8 (41:10):
Of the hostages?

Speaker 7 (41:11):
And I think that it helped a little bit and
showed a lot of power. Yeah, I think it helped.
But we're going to get separately. Even before this, we
were very close to making a deal on Gaza. I
think this helped. Yes, thank you, thank you.

Speaker 8 (41:26):
Thank you everybody, and thank you, thank you, thank you.
Than be very good work.

Speaker 3 (41:44):
All right, we're coming out of that now.

Speaker 2 (41:45):
That's clearly a bilactual press conference there with Mark Rutter,
who is the Secretary General of the NATO Group, but
also of course he was the former Prime Minister of
the Netherlands and we had a lot to do with
him here in Australia when MH seventeen went down ten
or fifteen years ago now. And also they're obviously Donald
Trump questions from journalists in the room in miss though

(42:07):
when he got to some of them the New York Times, CNN,
MSNBC and others. But a lot to get through there
with the foreign editor of this Radian, Greg Sheridan, who timely, timely, timely.

Speaker 3 (42:18):
You join me here in the studio.

Speaker 8 (42:19):
It great to be with you.

Speaker 3 (42:20):
Quite a bit.

Speaker 2 (42:21):
I want to unpack out of that. Let's just start
with the clarity we got there from the President with
the admission that that leaked intelligence put out there principally
by CNN and the New York Times, where they revealed
that it was inconclusive whether these nuclear assets had been obliterated.

(42:42):
They make the point they say it was low confidence information,
it was preliminary. The President kept saying, it looks like
they've been obliterated. That's not yet formally known. But he
did say, think this was interesting. It will be up
to Israel to conclude what they think.

Speaker 3 (43:01):
That everything's gone.

Speaker 15 (43:02):
Yeah, Peter, So, look, I thought that was a pretty
good performance by Trump and Rubio and hegseth. I wish
you wouldn't call journalists gun, but there you go.

Speaker 1 (43:10):
You know.

Speaker 15 (43:12):
So, I've read a lot of intelligence reports, not quite
as many as you I suspect, but a lot of
them follow a chain of suppositions. If we weren't entirely
successful in completely staving in the whole cave, and if
they took the uranium out first, and so on, and
if you went through a whole lot of if worst cases,

(43:33):
the worst case scenario might be that we've only set
them back by six months or something like that. I
thought Rubio made a very powerful point when he said,
the leakers have characterized the intelligence, so they're not giving
you a fair report of it. The intelligence was speculative
and low confidence, and it had a range of possibilities
from a few months to devastating. So I think the

(43:56):
truth is we don't know for sure that a lot
of things we don't know about this situation. If you
get amount of criticism of Trump, maybe it shouldn't have
been just a one night show. Maybe it should have
gone on for a few days until he was absolutely
sure the job was done. But I thought he answered
pretty effectively that intelligence.

Speaker 2 (44:13):
Report there, you're right, So it always does look like
this is a bit of backside covering until they have
human intelligence and other sources on the ground, which is
what he indicated, Israel will provide to conclusively demonstrate that
what they hope has happened has in fact happened. But
if you look at the volume of ordinances dropped over
that twenty four hour period, you have to think they're

(44:37):
close to getting the objective done. I guess the will
will want this to be the wipeout that we all
want to see of Iran's nuclear capability. We won't just
want them wounded, we'll want this gone.

Speaker 15 (44:48):
Yeah, you're absolutely right, Peter. It's impossible to believe anything
survived inside FODO. I mean, I say it's impossible. It's
theoretically possible, but it's so unlo likely because they dropped
repeated bunker buster bombs, one on top of another, and
the International Atomic Energy Agency had himself said the centrifuges

(45:13):
can't survive any significant disturbance. Well, if you know, if
six bunker buster bombs on your head doesn't constitute sinevy disturbance,
where I'm just marginally less sanguine is. I don't know
if they got how much of the four hundred kilograms
of enriched uranium out they got out in advance where

(45:34):
they've dispersed it to, and I don't know how many
other secret sites they have. The Israelis have excellent human intelligence.
But you know, I covered the North Korean thing very
very closely, and the North Koreans said they'd given up
all their nuclear programs. They even blew up the Young
Beyond reactor, but at the same time, deep inside a

(45:56):
mountain they were going with a parallel program. And then
it's tests and weapons. So I would be surprised if
we ever know definitively that it's all gone. But it
has sustained, in my view, massive damage.

Speaker 2 (46:10):
And look, look what happened with all the capability of
Israeli intelligence and US intelligence. What we saw happen on
October seven occurred under the noses of everybody. So I
think there is we're right to be a bit not skeptical,
but wanting to have concrete assurances given the gravity of

(46:31):
what could happen with these weapons in the hands of
the wrong people.

Speaker 3 (46:35):
I took some other notes I thought was interesting.

Speaker 2 (46:37):
So Rutter obviously looks like he said in a very
private message to the president, you know, stroking the Trump ego,
prior to his departure across over to the Netherlands. But
he reiterated some of that language there today he made
it clear that he was he said, a man of peace,
he said that a number of times, but also a
man of strength. And that's been obviously parleyed into the

(46:58):
room today because they haven't an now answer to come.
He said it will be unanimous. This is Mark Ruter
that NATO members will go to five percent of GDP
expenditure on defense. It's not just military capability though, it's
a little bit. You know, there's an extra two percent
or one and a half percent in there for capability
in cyber and intelligence that will be for a vote.

Speaker 3 (47:18):
But that's where they're headed.

Speaker 2 (47:19):
That's an extraordinary move if that's what's occurred under this president.

Speaker 15 (47:23):
Yeah, it is, and it makes Australia look just as
pathetic and pitiful as we deserve to look.

Speaker 3 (47:30):
So Ruter, you're pretty strong the other day.

Speaker 15 (47:32):
Yeah, well, I think you know, we're going through a
national security crisis and neither side of politics in Australia
seems to be aware of it. You know, they don't
even read the newspapers apparently, least of all the government.
So Ruter, first of all, his tone with Trump is
very good. Why not flatter a guy who's an egomaniac.
I mean, you want something out of Trump, someone who has.

Speaker 2 (47:52):
Done what no one the president has done. They've all
talked about it. But if he has achieved what he's achieved,
he deserves that credit.

Speaker 15 (47:58):
Well, yeah, I'm not quite so sure about that, because
I think he's also been disgraceful on Ukraine. And I
hate the way.

Speaker 2 (48:05):
Relation to Iran. I ran clips all the way back
to Clinton the other night. They've all said the same promise,
made the same promise in relation to Iran. But he
looks like he's actually delivered.

Speaker 1 (48:16):
Yeah.

Speaker 15 (48:16):
Absolutely, he deserves credit for Iran. I totally agree with
you there. But Trump is good and bad. He's a
mixed grill.

Speaker 3 (48:21):
You know, he gets leaders are greg. I tell you he's.

Speaker 15 (48:24):
More mixed than most. I mean, he even today is
saying he's not sure about the Article five of NATO
and so on, and saying all that, you know, hits
at the credibility of the Alliance. Now you support the
credibility alliance by taking military action in Iran. That shows
you willing to take military actions. So that's great. So
I think he's good and bad. At his best, he's
better than most. At his worst, he's absolutely terrible. I

(48:47):
think when he cut off aid to Ukraine and wouldn't
give them intelligence to cite their weapons and so on.
But in any event, I don't care. I don't care
if Ruter is completely instance. See I don't care if
he's never spoken to his wife in those terms.

Speaker 8 (49:02):
It doesn't matter.

Speaker 15 (49:03):
He's trying to get a result out of Trump. He's
acting in NATO's interests, just as any Australian Prime minister
with an IQ above room temperature would act in Australia's interests.
You wouldn't go in and say, hey, mister President, I
hate your language. You'd you know, look at Nakasoni, the
Japanese Prime minister. You get two feet from the hole
and he four put so that Trump could win the hole.

Speaker 3 (49:24):
You know.

Speaker 15 (49:25):
I mean, that's smart on Rud's part. But the NATO
defense figures are very important. So Rud said, everybody now
has got to two percent. Everybody Australia is still just
at two percent. Most of them have committed to three
point five percent, and most of them are way above
two percent. Britain is already at two point five and

(49:46):
committed to three. Germany has committed to three point five.
Now five percent is slightly dodging course. It includes not
only intelligence and cyber but also border control and defense infrastructure,
but that doesn't matter. Three point five would be a
fantastic revelation. Now Britain has committed to three point five

(50:06):
by the early twenty thirties, we are committed to two
point three by the Earth. And a further point on that,
when you reach that defense expenditure year after year after year,
you acquire a kit, so it has a cumulative effect.
We've never got anywhere near that level, so we don't
have any of that cumulative effect. Albo is lucky he

(50:29):
didn't go to NATO because he would look at disgrace.
At NATO, he would look the most.

Speaker 2 (50:34):
And that's why it didn't go in the end. I
think some have said lack of confidence is actually getting
meeting with Trump couldn't be snubbed twice. I'm sure that
was a factor. But also I think given the tone
of the debate now in Australia really is focused on
this percentage of expenditure.

Speaker 3 (50:50):
In a way it has not been before.

Speaker 2 (50:51):
I think he would have been shamed in the room
and it would have been significant embarrassment here at home.

Speaker 15 (50:56):
I think you're right, and you know, Albertazi, I mean,
I'm really this sounds grotesque, but I like Albot. I
think he's a nice bloke. You know, he's a Christian brothers,
old boys, a rugby league fanatiiciant, you's.

Speaker 3 (51:07):
Your software shares and come on hard up. He's got
a lot of the world is a dangerous place.

Speaker 15 (51:10):
He's got a lot of money in the bank with me.
But his performance on national security has been utterly abysmal.
He plainly has no interest in it. He can't go
beyond his talking points, and he's not doing anything for it.

Speaker 3 (51:22):
In an interview with.

Speaker 15 (51:23):
Me before the election before last when he was opposition,
later he said, we'll go beyond two percent. We'll go
to whatever is necessary to defend Australia. No one in
the world thinks that our pitiful two percent is adequate.
And what conversation could he have with Trump? What positive
thing can he say to Trump? He can say, Hey,
I've got an economy where per capita income is falling. Hey,

(51:46):
I've got an economy where productivity is falling. Hey, I've
got the lowest defense budget of any developed country in
the world. Hey, I've got an economy with the lowest
manufacturing sector in the world and one of the least economy,
you know, the least complex economies in the world. So
I mean, he is lucky not to have a meeting
with Trump because he'd have nothing to say to Trump.

(52:07):
And the minute a journalist asked Trump, do you think
the Australian defense budget is at it correct, he'd albanize,
would Coppy pasting, and you know he'd probably have a
nervous breakdown collapse.

Speaker 3 (52:18):
I think it's extraordinary.

Speaker 2 (52:19):
It's really critical on Monday night that we didn't get
a heads up. I agree we were not likely to
get one. I'm not critical that we didn't get a
heads up. I understand the UK did because they had
an asset in the region. But the idea that the
Prime Minister, like we all were there on Sunday watching
this unfold, and he says he was not worn so
he was as blind to the bombing.

Speaker 3 (52:39):
Raid as Australians were.

Speaker 2 (52:40):
The fact that he did not have an NSC, that
he didn't have a briefing, that he didn't bring in
the CDF, that all waited to Monday, I just find
extraordinary greek. I can't hazard that Kim Beasley, if he
was there as Prime Minister, or Tony Abbott or John
Hallward or Bob Hawk, Bill Shorten would have left it
all day Sunday being blind to what was happening in

(53:02):
the region for no other reason that there are tens
of thousands of Australians there as well. And this is
our biggest ally, This is the ally that we all
fingers crossed, if the worst thing happened, would expect to
come to our aid.

Speaker 3 (53:15):
Did that surprise you?

Speaker 8 (53:16):
Oh, look, you know.

Speaker 15 (53:19):
It shocked me, But in a sense it didn't surprise me,
because I've.

Speaker 8 (53:22):
Come to that.

Speaker 3 (53:23):
I was shocked, but not surprised.

Speaker 8 (53:24):
I've had.

Speaker 15 (53:25):
I've come to have very very low expectations of this government.
Not only is the government lazy about national security you
know us work on a Sunday I heaven forfend, but
also they so lack self confidence. They are a government
without a moral or strategic compass. They had to wait
and see what their new reference group does Western European
social democratic governments, the Canadians, I mean our reference group

(53:48):
used to be the United States. It would formerly have
been that the United States would have been saying to us,
can you get your European buddies to come along with
this necessary national security action, which you understand because you're
our tightest mates in the whole world. Alberanezi has no
relationship with Trump now, we have never been further from
the inside of Washington thinking. So my guess is I

(54:11):
have no information on this that the Alberanzi government, if
it did anything on Sunday, it spent Sunday seeing what
France and Canada trying to.

Speaker 3 (54:20):
Read the room from everybody else.

Speaker 2 (54:21):
I think that was right because of the middle of
the night for them, and I think they were waiting
for someone else to take the lead and that we'd
come in and follow.

Speaker 3 (54:28):
Just this is relevant.

Speaker 2 (54:31):
We've not had the meeting with Trump, but it's very
likely the Prime Minister is going to go to Beijing
in July, meaning we will have our fourth meeting with
President g before we've had any meeting with President Trump. Now,
the optics also of our prime minister going to Beijing,
I think is uncomfortable given where things are in the world.

(54:53):
I think it's good that we're have in the meeting.
I do think dialogue with China is important, but it
seems like we're preferencing China way.

Speaker 15 (55:00):
Yeah, I think that's right. So Alberanezi now is almost
completely compliant with Chinese wishes. He never criticizes them in public.
They send to use the China word. He doesn't even
like to use a China word. They send ships down
disturb aviation, have live firing drills between Australia and New Zealand.
Our planes have to dodge their live fire drills. They

(55:21):
humiliate us by circumnavigating Australia. Our pitiful navy can't even
follow them because you know, it has to get the
ANRAM or the RACV to help it every time it
goes out of port. And he won't say boodh a
goose about that. But he ran during the campaign as
essentially an anti Trump candidate, so he's so scared of
China he's even going to defenestrate the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

(55:43):
That's what China wants. He does everything China wants. The
only exception is Richard Marles, when speaking in front of Americans,
will say the China word. Because Albanese's essential contradiction is
he still wants the American Alliance and all the benefits
that brings to Australia. But it is a labor government
led by the labor left, which is unique in the

(56:05):
history of labor governments since well since Whitlam say, and
it has no feeling for national security and no guts,
and it's not going to devote any resources to national security.
And it's scared of rebellion in its own base, and
it's scared of China, and it thinks the one success
it's got in foreign policy is resetting the relationship with China.

(56:26):
So you have this weird thing where the Australian government
is more compliant with Beijing's wishes than it is with
Washington's wishes.

Speaker 3 (56:33):
So who's holding the whipan?

Speaker 2 (56:35):
Because Richard Miles doesn't look like he's got any sort
of weight around the cabinet on national security and defense.
I know it comes down to the envelope of spending.
So I'm tipping here. The treasure is pretty powerful. But
it seems like the intelligence of the operations down to
Penny Wong that she's got the whippan.

Speaker 3 (56:54):
Is that fair?

Speaker 15 (56:56):
I think that probably is. I mean, I think I
think Penny Wong is the most intelligent of them, and
she's the most impressive at a human level. But I
don't demonize Penny wrong. I don't think she's a sinister
left wing person or anything. She's a person whose outlook
is that of a labor left person. So it's not
national secure, that's not the heart of her political being
mediated by and shaped by defact departmenter Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Speaker 8 (57:20):
Now they're all about.

Speaker 2 (57:21):
Process to capture their ministers Whoremer, July Bishop, you know,
free the brief and they operate inside the brief.

Speaker 15 (57:27):
And the only way say, you either have a very
strong minded foreign minister like Alexander Downer who overrules them,
or if they capture their minister, but the minister has
a strong prime minister like Abbott had a very strong
strategic outlook of his own, so did Howard. So defat
has to fall in behind that. But we've had a
series of weak defense ministers for a long time. I

(57:47):
think the last time we had a strong defense minister
was you know, maybe Brendan Nelson or Robert Hill or somebody.
And so defense hasn't given leadership. Alberanezi cares less about
national security than any prime minister I've seen since GoF Whitlam,
So you get no national leadership there. Penny Wong, she's
done good work in the South Pacific, but her sort

(58:09):
of you know, she's motivated by you know, paid maternity
leave and you know, can we get inclusive sports in
the South Pacific and say, well, she's just not thinking
about any of this stuff. And Richard Marles is a
chocolate soldier is just melted in the sun, you know.
So you've got basically a vacuum, and the bureaucracy is
imposing itself on the government. The government has in my view,

(58:32):
no strategic map in its head and simply takes the
path of least resistance at all points and doesn't want
to spend any more money on defense, is going to
acquire nuclear submarines and not spend an extra dollar except
for these pathetic incremental increases that it's already budgeted for,
most of which happened in the next term of government.

(58:53):
So you get two full terms of Albanesi government without
substantial increase in defense expenditure at a time when the
whole world can see the world is in flames, you know,
the world we've known is disappearing in front of our
eyes and our government.

Speaker 2 (59:06):
And he's got a timetable everyone talks about twenty twenty seven,
but certainly in his own lifetime to deal with what
he regards as the Taiwan issue.

Speaker 15 (59:14):
Absolutely and well, and I think the only thing I'd
say that is sinister. About the whole thing is this.
Quite a few people at the heart of our defense
establishment don't want us to have a defense capability because
they don't ever want an Australian government to make a
decision to use force them. Now that's incredibly dangerous because

(59:35):
if we ever have to look out for ourselves, they
don't want us to have a defense capacity, so that
we can't do anything to help the Americans. I remember
coalition governments wanting to deploy tanks in Afghanistan, and defense
always had an excuse why you could deploy the tanks
everywhere except in battle. But the danger is if the
Americans are ever you lose interest in defending us, we

(59:56):
have nothing to defend ourselves with. And if the Chinese
go for time I want, there's no substantial contribution we
can make to the matter one way or the other
which won't stop us from being attacked because of you know,
we're allies of America, but there's nothing we can do
about it.

Speaker 2 (01:00:10):
Olivia there, you're very generous if your time grief, but
beautiful timing to come off the.

Speaker 3 (01:00:14):
Back of that event there in Nata. Thanks, thank you
for your company.

Speaker 2 (01:00:17):
You can see the show went to hell and a handcut,
but that's good because we needed to get you across
everything out of the Netherlands tonight.

Speaker 3 (01:00:24):
That's it for me. Up next, Steve Price,