June 30, 2025 • 48 mins
Mushroom trial jury begins deliberations, Donald Trump’s tariffs pause set to end, Albanese yet to secure Trump meeting. Plus, government to spend $10b on new warships.
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 (00:05):
Peter Krendland live on Sky News Australia.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Good evening, Welcome to Credlin steep Price, sitting in for
Peter all this week. Here's what's coming up on the
show tonight. Despite a resounding no vote at the Voice
referendum twenty months ago, the socialist left Victorrect government intends
to establish its own version even though that state voted
heavily against it. I'll have more to say on that shortly.
(00:31):
And despite a resounding no vote at a Voice referendum
twenty months ago, well it's going to come around again,
so we will get into that and i will tell
you some things that you will not believe in how
this is being funded. Plus anti Semitism hits a new
low in the UK at that Glastonbury Music festival, disgusting
anti Israeli chance that we're live on BBC Television. The
(00:54):
President of the Executive Council of Australian Jury will join
us later. And the largest in hydrogen project plan for
Central Queen's label Let's Go Belly Up, joining around one
hundred billion dollars of green schemes that have fallen over nationally.
And I'll also have the latest from the trial of
Aaron Addison's the Mushroom murder trial. As the jury has
(01:16):
sent off to consider their verdict. We have a reporter
in more Well. We'll cross there shortly, but first, and
I'm not too sure why anyone in Victoria is surprised
at the headlines today in the Herald Sun suggesting the
most left leaning state in Australia, led by Premier to
Center Allen, is going down the path of creating its
(01:38):
own voice to Parliament for Indigenous Victorians. Now. The Victorian
Labor government campaigned heavily to try and get the Original
Voice referendum across the line back in October twenty twenty three,
but like their federal counterparts, they failed with a resounding
no vote. Despite this, the Victorian government has established what
they call a First People's Assembly. Now listen to the
(02:01):
numbers here. It's made up of thirty three members, taxpayer
funded and elected every three years. Each member of this
racially selected assembly is paid, according to the Herald Sun
today almost one hundred thousand dollars a year in salary,
thirty three of them all on one hundred grand. And
on top of that expense, this mob oversees something called
(02:23):
the self Determination Fund that was set up in twenty
twenty two with wait for it, sixty five million dollars
of Victorian taxpayers money. And remember Victoria's broke to bankroll
what's called treaty negotiations. A treaty negotiation by the way,
that the state government refuses to tell the people of
(02:45):
Victoria what is actually in the treaty. I mean Daniel Andrews,
the widely despised ex premier, he set this all up
back in twenty eighteen. This Assembly already uses State Parliament
to meet and it's expected this Assembly will become a
permanent body protected by legislation. Now, this is all happening
(03:05):
under the noses of a majority of voters in Victoria
who voted no to the voice referendum. But they'll get
one whether they like it or not. And what will
it do well, that's the really frightening thing here. If
legislated and labor have the numbers, it will advise on
the impact of laws and policy affecting all Victorians, but
(03:27):
just indigenous ones. It will work across issues such as
law and order, health, education, even child protection, advising the
government on how these things should or would impact that
one group Indigenous Victorians a voice, in other words, for
one group and not anyone else. Should all Australians that
(03:47):
voted no in twenty twenty three be worried about this, Well,
you bet you should. If one labor government can do it,
what's to stop other labor governments doing the same thing. Indeed,
South Australia's going down the track ready. Queensland under labor
when they were in power, were looking at the same
sort of options. Now let me give you a small
example of the tone as this Assembly pushes harder and
(04:10):
harder for a formal treaty and we all know what
that means, financial reparation. Back in June this year, a
bloke called Travis Lovett arrived at State Parliament in Melbourne
after staging a protest walk from Portland in Western Victoria,
right over near the South Australian border. Here's just one
(04:30):
part of a speech that he made when he arrived
at Spring Street in Melbourne at Parliament House. Travis Lovett said, quote,
we moved from massacre sites hidden beneath the paddocks and
plarques to bus stops where our children waited on school
uniforms stitched with the legacy of exclusion. He carried on
(04:53):
love it did. He said, we crossed bridges over rivers
that once ran red load footpaths through towns where our
people were once forbidden to linger after sunset. That's Travis Lovett.
His event was called the Walk for Truth and he
urged Victorians to confront the state's history and commit to
(05:15):
a just future. I think we can all see where
this is headed. Scota Cameron now Tonight's political Headlines with
Sky New's political reporter Rubenspargo.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
Australia will soon learn by posts what rate of tariffs
will be applied by the United States. Donald Trump's pause
on his sweeping global measure is expected to expire within days.
The President has all but dashed any hope of Australia
getting to the negotiating table.
Speaker 4 (05:48):
In some countries, we don't care. Well, you know, we'll
just send an eye number out. But we're going to
be sending letters out signing pretty soon.
Speaker 3 (05:55):
We'll continue to put our case forward that it shouldn't
be ten, it should be zero.
Speaker 5 (06:00):
That is what a reciprocal tariff will be. The pairs
yet to meet. Two senior US politicians are now urging
Anthony Albernesi to make getting to the White House his priority.
The Foreign Minister is on our way to Washington and
he's set to meet her counterpart, Marco Rubio.
Speaker 3 (06:16):
The Prime Minister is downplaying a warning from China over
Australia's defense spending.
Speaker 5 (06:22):
Anthony Alberesi is wedged. Beijing pays the bills, but the
United States holds the shield. The Trump administration is pushing
Australia to lift its defense budget to three and a
half percent of GDP to help counter Chinese aggression. China's
top diplomat in Australia says dramatically increasing military spending places
a heavy fiscal burden on the countries involved.
Speaker 6 (06:45):
The Chinese ambassador speaks for China.
Speaker 7 (06:47):
My job is to speak for Australia and it's in
Australia's national interests for us to invest in our capability.
Speaker 5 (06:54):
There are mounting views from within Australia on defense spending.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
Two.
Speaker 5 (06:58):
The opposition is pushing for it to rise to three
percent of GDP.
Speaker 2 (07:04):
Good on new Reuben, thanks for that. Now. As I've said,
the twelve person jury is now isolated and considering a
verdict in the mushroom murder trial, where of course Aaron
Patterson has pleaded not guilty to three counts of murder
and one of attempted murder. Now this trial has been
running for ten weeks. Let's cross to Melbourne reporter Georgie Dickinson,
(07:24):
who tonight is in More World. Georgie, twelve jurors down
from fourteen, can you just explain to the viewers why
that had to happen?
Speaker 6 (07:34):
Good evening to you, Steve. We started with fifteen at
the very beginning of the trial and the reason they
do this is in case jurors full sick or if
they have to excuse jurors, and that did happen. A
few weeks ago one Dura was dismissed over allegations he
was speaking to family and friends around the trial. And
so today two men who are actually balloced off. This
(07:54):
was drawn out of a hatlang situation to bring it
down to those twelve jurors, to ensure or that if
they had to dismiss those jurors during the trial, they
wouldn't have to start the trial all over again. So
now we are left with those seven men and five
women that this afternoon did begin to liberations hearing more
well in the trial of Aaron Patterson Steve.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
Judge Bill puts some parameters around Georgie when they can
report back. I think it's Monday to Sunday and in
court hours, is that right?
Speaker 6 (08:30):
Yeah, So they will begin delirations ten thirty am with
a break around lunchtime for an hour and finish at
four point fifteen each day. And what the court has
said is that they will continue into the weekend. They
will deliberate on Saturdays, but he has given them Sunday
off as I suppose arrest. They have been here now
into their tenth week in this trial, so so much information.
(08:52):
They have iPads and an index of information with all
the transcripts and all of the evidence that has been
given throughout this exten case. Fifty three witnesses have appeared
in this trial, so no doubt they need to sift
through so much evidence to be able to come up
with their verdict. And the verdict must be unanimous, so
they must all agree on those four different charges, three
(09:15):
counts of murder and one count of attempted murder.
Speaker 2 (09:18):
Steve, the jury locked up, not able to go home.
I know they've been told they can't have phones, and
they shouldn't be looking at media. But do they get
sequested in a hotel or something or do they go home?
Speaker 6 (09:33):
Yeah, so they're actually in a hotel. So this morning
the fourteen jurors actually all brought their luggage here to
the court room, and so those two jurors that were
dismissed had to take their luggage and then they got
to go back home. But for the remaining twelve jurors,
they took their luggage after their left court this morning,
this afternoon at four fifteen and back to the hotel.
Now the judge has given them strict instructions to not
(09:56):
speak about the case unless they are here at court.
This is where the deliberation take place. Once they go
to their hotel, they're able to rest relax, I suppose,
but they're not to discuss this case in small groups.
So it is very strict conditions on no phones, no media,
to ensure that this is a fair trial.
Speaker 2 (10:13):
Steve Georgie, just finally, you and Holly have been up
and back to morewill a lot through the ten weeks.
The other reporters have also been There is there any
discussion among the media about having a guess on how
long this might take.
Speaker 6 (10:30):
Always guess is Steve, but it is anyone's guess at
this stage as to how long this will take. With
so much evidence, it could go days, it could go weeks.
So we are all sitting tight. We will all be
staying around more well, as we will only get a
very brief amount of notice when the jew has actually
come back with a verdict. So we're all standing by
all waiting for that message to say that they have
(10:51):
reached a verdict in this so highly anticipated trial here
in more.
Speaker 2 (10:55):
Well, Steve, great work, Georgie. Thanks, we'll check in with
obviously if anything brights during our show right through the
wik as I sit in for Peter. Let's bring in
our panel. Tonight Cameber political reporter Cam Riddens with us
and in Sidney Myle might the Daily Telegraph. James willis
US President Donald Trump. He signaled the ninety day pause
(11:16):
on his sweeping tariff regime. It's going to end within
a couple of days. He says he'll be sending out
letters with the tariff amount.
Speaker 4 (11:23):
He's what he said, Well, look at how a country
treats us.
Speaker 2 (11:28):
Are they good?
Speaker 4 (11:29):
Are they not so good? Some countries we don't care
we'll you know, we'll just send a high number out.
But we're going to be sending letters out starting pretty soon. No,
we don't have to meet. We understand, we have all
the numbers, and what we're going to do is we're
going to send and we will say congratulations, we're allowing
you to shop in the United States of America. You're
(11:49):
going to pay a twenty five percent tariff, or a
thirty five percent or a fifty percent or ten percent.
Speaker 8 (11:55):
Came.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
I didn't think people sent letters anymore, at.
Speaker 9 (12:01):
Least of all the President of the United States, Steve Look.
I think there's a little bit of theater in that.
The way it's been put to me is that the
Prime Minister, of the Trade minister, they're not sitting next
to some Australia postbox waiting for Donald Trump to write
to them. We are getting the ten percent tariff, that's
for sure. The efforts to try and get out of
it somehow will continue. There's still efforts at the diplomatic level,
at the treasurer's level, the Foreign Minister going over again
(12:23):
to Washington this week. But we're not going to get
out of it. Seemingly most countries aren't, and why share
some insight that was given to me this afternoon as well, Steve,
on the way that this is playing out behind the
scenes between Australia and the US, there is a lot
of focus, and naturally there would be on the fact
that the Prime Minister hasn't yet had FaceTime with President Trump.
The way that this tariff negotiation is playing out, the
(12:45):
way it's been put to me is that there's even
been some acknowledgment from US officials perhaps giving some advice
to the Australian officials, saying there is so much on
their plate at the moment, it wouldn't be the worst
thing in the world to keep your head down and
not attract the president's should he perhaps see something else
that he doesn't like and decide to raise that taroff figure.
(13:05):
Naturally there's a much greater focus on the US end
on China. Potentially a further extension is that on the
table the UK they've just signed a free trade deal
or a new deal that was many years in the
making after Brexit, and then there's the European Union which
is even more complicated. So Steve, perhaps that goes some
way to the reasoning that Australia hasn't necessarily been thumping
(13:26):
the desk over these tariffs. It is the lowest level. Yes,
it is ten percent reciprocal. There will be an impact.
There is even one school of thought though, that because
Australia is at the lowest level, if these tariffs really
do cause something of a chaos agent effect in the
global economy and there's problems in Europe, there's problems in
Southeast Asia and elsewhere, does that actually make Australia a
(13:48):
more attractive market for others to buy more of our
goods and therefore get more money into our economy. So
obviously this is complicated, Steve. But by all the noises
coming out of both sides, it does not look like
we're getting a free pass at.
Speaker 2 (14:00):
All, James. The problem for the PM of courses I
and you know, it's good and well for American politicians
to tell us to keep our head down, but politically,
Anthony Albanez he's dying a death by a thousand cuts
because he's seen as being weak and he doesn't have,
you know, the phone call that he needs with Donald Trump,
(14:23):
much less the face to face meeting.
Speaker 10 (14:28):
Well, Steve, I'm not going to blame the PM entirely
for this because based on what Cam has said and
what we've read about this saga, it would have been very,
very hard for Australia to avoid this, and as Cam
just said, we've caught the ten percent tariff when it
could have been worse. However, there is absolutely no doubt
that the Prime Minister has some work to do on
his relationship with America, and I think that goes back
(14:50):
to the inauguration. I mean, it's easy to sit here
and talk in hindsight, but the PM didn't go to
Donald Trump's inauguration.
Speaker 2 (14:57):
I think he should have gone.
Speaker 10 (14:58):
That would have been a good starting point, and clearly
in the time since they haven't been able to have
any of those proper meetings that they intended to try
and bring this to the front. At the same time,
you've had reports today about some issues around the Ambassador
Kevin Rudd and a perception in America, whether it be
Trump or people in Trump's office, that Kevin Rudd is
not well liked, and we know that he's made a
(15:19):
number of high profile comments about Donald Trump previously, so
you have that factor and.
Speaker 2 (15:24):
So there is a serious bit of work here to do.
Speaker 10 (15:27):
Now we know the Prime Minister has had no issue
getting on a plane during his first term in government.
I think this would be the easiest one when he
does get this meeting, to get on a plane and
finally sit down with Donald Trump and go through this.
And look, let's face it, no matter what you think
about Malcolm Turnbull, the relationship between Malcolm Turnbull and the
President and also largely Joe Hockey as ambassador allowed us
(15:50):
to avoid these tariffs when they pop their heads up
under the first Trump presidency in twenty sixteen. So Malcolm
Turbule and Joe Hockey got the job done here, a
long way to go and clearly that relationship needs some
work over the next few months.
Speaker 2 (16:05):
Yeah, even Arthur Sinnadinas did a great job. Don't get
me started on Kevin Rudd. You'll never shut me up
if you start taking me down that track. Hey, Cam China,
the ambassador here, he's always been very high profile. He's
come out a piece in The Australian Today and said, ah,
the Australian government shouldn't increase defense spending. It would place
a quote heavy fiscal burden on the budget. What's it
(16:26):
got to do with him? Why would we care? What
he's got to say.
Speaker 9 (16:32):
Well, it might well do that, Steve. I mean the
Chinese ambassador, as the Prime Minister pointed out today, he
is there to speak on China's behalf, and the Prime
Minister is saying that he will speak for Australia's behalf
and not really elaborating on that. Clearly, this is a
friction point going back to the US Australia relationship, because
this is what's really got it in the four of
(16:52):
where Donald Trump wants us to be. You've just seen
NATO meet that bar Spain five percent annual GDP spend
on defense, which which is tens, probably hundreds of billions
of dollars above what we would spend every year. The
Prime Minister points to that new line of spending in
the budget. Fifty seven billion is what's allotted for this
year and it is trending up. But the government maintains Stephen,
(17:13):
this is kind of where the debate seems to be
going that they don't want to set an arbitrary figure
in their view, what is an arbitrary figure and then
work up to it. They want to target project by project.
It's difficult when the budget's in the red though, and
of course, I guess going back to the call point
that of should we raise defense spending and what do
we spend it on? The government would certainly be wary
that defense is a pressure on the budget. It's one
(17:35):
that there's an appetite globally for more spending on. The
challenge is, as it always is, you've got to find
the money to do that, and that's a challenge the
government's well aware of.
Speaker 2 (17:45):
Cameron James Sanks Guys, I took to you again shortly now.
As I mentioned at the top of the program, we've
got a real problem with this push for a voice
to Parliament in Victoria. Joining me now to discuss this
is Executive director of the Institute of Public Affairs, Scott Hargraves.
Great see of Scott. The numbers I mentioned at the top,
thirty three Assembly members all on around just under one
(18:08):
hundred thousand dollars annual salary, sixty five million allocated to
something called the Self Determination Fund. Most Victorians watching you
and I here today wouldn't have a clue that this
was happening in the background.
Speaker 7 (18:25):
Well, thank you for putting the attention on it, Steve.
It is truly terrible that after the overwhelming rejection of
a divisive Voice to Parliament at the federal election and
a referendum. We're now seeing its junior cousin, a very
divisive State Voice de Parliament being foisted upon us by
the Allen government and it is dividing Victorians. We've got
(18:49):
a lot on our plate at the moment, as you know, Steve.
We've got out of control debt, rising energy costs, the
private sector is fleeing the state. But the activist Allen
government setting up this body to spend not just the
tens of millions that you mentioned, but probably hundreds of
millions across a range of projects on something that is
going to divide Victorians by race, which is exactly what
(19:13):
mainstream Australians rejected at the Voice to Parliament referendum.
Speaker 2 (19:18):
Scott Jersier Allen, I think came out today and said
she's got a mandate to do this. Well. I don't
remember it being a particularly high profile policy discussion during
the last campaign. I want to ask you why the
secrecy is this. I mean, you think this is going
to end in a treaty that'll mean more taxpayers money
will be shoveled out the door don't Victorian taxpayers have
(19:40):
the right to know what is being asked of the
government on behalf of the voters of Victoria. What do
these people want? What does this group want when they
talk about treaty.
Speaker 7 (19:54):
Well, as you know, Steve, it was actually the trifecta
that they came up with, which was Voice, treaty and
true And we had something in Victoria called the Urup Commission,
which was supposedly about truth, but as you know, it's
actually come up with a very biased rendering of Victoria's history,
deliberately suppressed evidence that might have challenged this new narrative
(20:18):
that they're creating so that they can justify their divisive
policies and stampedus towards a treaty. And we haven't heard
much about it because that's not really how the activists operate.
When they've got control of the leavers of government, it's
easier for them to forge your head to actually deny
the kind of outcomes that we saw in the Voice
(20:40):
to Parliament referendum, and remember it was in Victoria. Still
fifty four percent of Victorians voted no, they don't want this.
That's probably where their attention was. If they had a
similar opportunity in Victoria. I've got no doubt they'd say
the same thing, but they don't seem to be getting
that opportunity.
Speaker 2 (20:59):
Scott was thinking today about what's the actual impact of
some of these negotiations and the indigenous groups wanting things
changed to their way of wanting it done, and I remembered.
But of course the Victoria quite recently, about a year ago,
dropped the right of police to arrest anyone who was
(21:19):
drunk in public. Now, that was a result of direct
lobbying from Indigenous groups who were complaining. In the first instance,
an example of an inebriated woman on a train that
police took off the train and put in a jail cell,
and tragically she passed away. But this is the sort
of thing if this treaty is enacted that we'll be
(21:41):
witnessing on a regular basis.
Speaker 7 (21:45):
Yeah, a crazy change to the law like that shows
what happens when you decide that racial injustice is at
the heart of any negative social outcome anywhere, and that
the only way to fix it is to carve out
with special laws one section of the population and say
that we're going to apply the laws differentially. So expect
(22:08):
to see a lot more of that taking us down
the road that we've seen in America. And also, Steve,
I'd also recommend have a look at the regional treaties
that they've already been signing, including in western Victoria, where
we've seen a lot of changes, how public land has
managed a lot more red tape for councils, and all
of it was done away from the public eye. The
(22:30):
Allen government executed these agreements with the traditional owners in
those areas with putting incredibly onerous provisions on the local community,
but the rest of the community just had no say
in it.
Speaker 2 (22:44):
I'm loathed to do this to you, but here's the
premiere today trying to explain this away. Have a look.
Speaker 11 (22:49):
When you listen to people, you get better outcomes, and
that's what treaty is all about. I reckon we're up
for that. As a state, we're up for this. We're
up for this very simple, common sense change of involving
and listening first people in the decisions that affect them.
Speaker 2 (23:08):
I don't know if there is audio of it, but
why didn't someone in the standing there questioning say, but
hang on a minute. Fifty four percent of Victorians said
they didn't want a voice. What are you talking about? Absolutely?
Speaker 7 (23:21):
And don't we all love the idea of listening. We
could all do with a little bit more listening in Victoria.
Maybe they do something about plugging the deficit and stopping
the unions running out of control and doing something about crime.
But the other floor in the rhetoric that the premier
is coming up there is who are they actually listening to?
Is it really an indigenous community or is it really
(23:44):
setting up a structure that will be taken over by
activists highly paid. There's already an incredible bureaucracy built up
around this. It will attract exactly the sort of grievance
mongers who don't want to focus on the things that
you notice as Victorians, want to focus on the things
that divide us because that furthers their activism and actually
(24:04):
you can make a nice living out of it.
Speaker 2 (24:08):
Well, let's hope that the opposition come out and say
that if they win the election in November next year.
I think Brad Baton spoke about this briefly today, that
they'll scrap whatever is put in place. But once it's
legislated Scott, as you know, it's very difficult to unpick it.
Appreciate your time very much tonight, Thanks very much for that.
I'll talk to you shortly. I'll have more to say
about this later in the program. Now, after the break
(24:30):
the KPM he's asking for answers after this ugly anti
Israel chant was broadcast live on BBC Television at the weekend.
Plus what next for Australia's floundering green hydrogen sector with
news that are much lauded projecting queens like guess what
It's been canceled? Welcome back, step price in for Peter Credlin.
(24:56):
All this week the green dream, the grand green dream
turning rapidly into a nightmare. We'll have more on that shortly.
I want to turn our attention though, now to the
appalling anti Israeli chant from a couple of musicians, but
one in particular at the Glastonbury Music Festival in the
UK at the weekend. Now, this involved someone I'd never
heard of, a wrap duo called Bobby Verlan or Vailan
(25:21):
had the crowd in the ugly chorus during a set
broadcast live by the BBC, chanting this, have a listen.
Speaker 12 (25:30):
To the idf the id to the idea.
Speaker 2 (25:38):
I'm sure he didn't miss it, but if you did,
this bloke is encouraging the audience to chant death to
the IDEF the Israeli Defense Force, a reference of course
to the Israeli military and brave soldiers who are wearing
that uniform. So worth remembering that on October seven, Humas
terrorists murdered hundreds of people at the Nova Music Festival.
(25:59):
Yet here we have somebody on stage leading a chant
at a music festival less than two years later, effectively
honoring the terrorists. Joining me now to discuss this and
more as President of the Executive Council of Australian Jury,
Daniel Aggion, Daniel, welcome, let's talk about this chant. But
I mean we come to expect some of this disgraceful
(26:23):
stuff from entertainers and celebrities. What worries me more about
this is the fact that the crowd, which is I've
never been to Glastonbury but tickets would be expensive. They're
largely privileged Londoner's young people. How frightening is it for
you personally when you see them join in a chant
(26:45):
like that, Given what we're going through.
Speaker 8 (26:50):
Steve, it's very frightening. That chant then became an echo
because it was repeated at the pro Garza protest Melbourne
this Sunday. So it's gone around the world and it's
gone local here. That's a frightening thing about when people
when you hear that phrase globalize the fada, this is
(27:13):
what we're talking about. This is this is this is
the consequence of globalization of the INTOVRDA.
Speaker 2 (27:20):
I saw a media commentator on with Deniker in the
in the program before we came on air, and I
thought he made a great point that Britain has not
seen this level of anti semitism since the nineteen thirties.
You'd agree with that, wouldn't you.
Speaker 8 (27:36):
Of course, it's in fact it's a terrible thing that
when you speak to Holocaust survivors in any Western country,
doesn't matter which, they will all say that the president
the present level of anti Semitism is the worst they
have seen since the Holocaust. And that's a terrible thing.
(27:58):
When a Holocaust survivor says that, for example here in
Melbourne or in Sydney or others that I've spoken to
around the world, I have to say, see, my heartbreaks.
It really does.
Speaker 2 (28:11):
And you mentioned that this has gone around the world already,
and did you say it was being chanted at a protest,
a pro Palestinian protest in Melbourne on the weekend on Sunday.
Speaker 8 (28:21):
That's correct, this on Sunday. The only change was instead
of calling them the Idea Israel Defence Forces, they called
them the IOF Isral occupation Forces. So in Melbourne the
chart was death to the IOF. But it was identical
and it was driven by this smart ass chant which
(28:42):
was delivered at Glastonbury.
Speaker 2 (28:46):
And of course you know we would have found out
about it, but it was made so much worse by
the fact that the BBC, somebody in the BBC who
needs to be sacked, allowed this to go out live.
I mean, they hadn't vetted the lyrics of this rap
artist song. If they had, he would have probably refused
to perform, which would have been good for all of us.
(29:06):
But I mean mainstream media like the BBC, are they
just blind to the anti Semitic rent that this bloke
was going on with.
Speaker 8 (29:17):
I think the problem to toeve is that you have
to push them into the corner. So there had been
another band called Kneecap. I hadn't heard of them either,
but they were a rap band and they're actually they're
one of the members. He is facing terrors of charges
for waving around a Ramas flag. So the BBC were
(29:39):
cautious in respect of that performance and didn't show it live.
But then he saw how many pro Palestine flags were
in the audience. I don't understand why the BBC showed
it live, why they didn't put on the three or
five second delay, why they didn't have the usual censorship
(30:00):
arrangements in place that they would have for offensive language,
for any kind of hateful or vilifying behavior. Somehow this
one is just seen to just go straight through to
the keeper and broadcast live with no problems.
Speaker 2 (30:17):
Daniel, I mean a hard question you must have since
October seven turned over and over and over in your mind.
What is it about a section of young Western teenagers
and younger people in their twenties that somehow drags them
out on the street to wave Palestinian flags and chance
(30:38):
slogans like this? I mean, what's driving this?
Speaker 8 (30:44):
Yeah, look, it's a very good question, Steve. I mean
it's interesting. You know, my father protested against the war,
he tells me, in the late sixties. I think young
people like to protest, But what's happening is this they
learn a particular narrative, particularly in the universities, but they're
learning a particular narrative that every conflict around the world
(31:08):
is not gray, it's not complex, it's not difficult. It's
black and white, and it's colonizer versus colonized. And in
their eyes, the Israel they're the colonizers. They're the bad guys.
The Garsens, the Palestinians they're the good guys. So you know,
(31:28):
it's like Star Wars, the baddies and the goodies, and
Israel is the badies. Therefore the Jews the Jewish state,
So the Jews around the world, they're the baddies. And
it's that simple and that simplistic. And the trouble then
is that this is not a peaceful movement. This is
not a movement for positive change. This is not a
(31:52):
movement to bring people together. It's a movement to divide,
and it's a movement that has hate has at its core.
Speaker 2 (32:01):
Yes, it's very very frightening, Daniel, thank you very much
for that joining us. We'll catch up soon now after
the break. Reality bites for Australia's green hydrogen sector plus
Chris Bowen Chris has ordered a gas review. What do
you think that'll mean to your gas bill? Welcome back
(32:22):
as you could join USTEEP price in for Peter Credlin
all this week. Now we'll chat to John Olee s Guy,
a reporter. He's in Japan at the moment. He's looking
at the next chapter for the Australian Navy and whether
we ought to be investing in Japanese or German made frigates. John,
I will join us shortly, but first I mentioned this.
This is the dilemma facing Australia's green hydrogen sector. Now remember,
(32:45):
over and over and over again we're told by Chris
Bowen and Anthony Albanezi this was the fuel of the future.
It was going to be our way to net zero.
Now billions of dollars and plenty of championing by the
federal government, it seems reality is to buy it. I
shouldn't laugh, because I mean, if you can get these
things off the ground, it might be a good idea.
But news today that Australia's largest green hydro project this
(33:09):
was w'th twelve point five billion dollars. By the way,
it's got a plant and a pipeline, it's a Gladston
in Queensland. Well it's been acted. I mean it falls
off the back of lack of progress for a one
hundred billion dollar pipeline of ambitious green proposals in a
sector which Anthony ibneas he says, well, that's the future
and this is made in Australia. We're going to be
(33:30):
a global player when it comes to green hydrogen. Here
to discuss the matter is the Center for Independent Studies
Director of Energy Research, Aiden Morris and Aiden glad To
have your expertise here before we get into why this
thing's fallen over, can you just briefly tell me what
green hydrogen is.
Speaker 13 (33:53):
Yeah, hydrogen is hydrogen that gets made of using electricity
that comes from green sources, in particular wind and solar.
It's the idea you get electricity from the sun and
the wind and convert that into hydrogen by splitting water
molecules apart, it's extremely energy intensive and relies on the
electricity being essentially free, and even then there's very expensive
(34:14):
materials and equipment required, and so it hasn't really taken
off anywhere in the world at all.
Speaker 2 (34:21):
One of the great salesmen of this product of course
was Twiggy Forest, and I think he's also pulled out
of a number of projects. What is causing these schemes
to fall over? Is it cost? Is that what the
accountants get hold of the planning and go, hang on
a minute, that's just not going to add up.
Speaker 13 (34:44):
Yeah, that's pretty much it. This has never stacked up economically,
and from an engineering sense, hydrogen is the least dense
gas there is known to man. It's basically the hardest
thing on earth to compress and store and move around.
And so making this your panacea energy salut to everything
we need to get to net zero was never going
to work. There is not demand for it. No one
(35:05):
would ever pay the plausible prices that are required to
produce this stuff.
Speaker 2 (35:09):
So use the.
Speaker 13 (35:11):
Word pipeline a pipeline. It is not a pipeline. Everything
that goes into the top of a pipe comes out
at the bottom. Eventually, this is a parade of vaporware.
Absolutely every project that starts down the runway disappears off
with a puff of smoke. And this is happening again
and again. It's happening all around the world. I don't
think hydrogen really ever is going to happen at anything
like the scale it's imagined, because it faces fundamental uphill
(35:34):
engineering disadvantages compared to other energy sources and energy storage
methods like natural gas.
Speaker 2 (35:42):
Yeah, and don't get me started on nuclear, which we
all agree we should be looking at. Is anywhere in
the world making green hydrogen, empowering stuff with it and
doing it successfully.
Speaker 13 (35:55):
Look, basically, no, there is nothing that has survived any
sort of commercial litmus test at all. There have been
obviously tiny little lab experiments and miniature pilot projects, but
nothing is actually getting serious off take greemans and serious capital.
You can look around the world Twiggy cancel with projects
in Canada, just like in Australia, Denmark's canceling things. Germany
just recently required a canceled a bigger green steel project
(36:17):
which would have consumed hydrogen. There is basically just no
success stories to point to anywhere globally for green hydrogen.
Speaker 2 (36:27):
So Anthony Albanezi, Chris Bowen, I mean they have really
stuck their necks out on this stuff. I mean you can.
I could show you grab after grab after grab of
them singing the praises of this stuff, but it's simply
not going to happen. What's it going to do to
our ambitions for net zero?
Speaker 13 (36:47):
Yeah, look, this is one of the absolutely fatal flaws
in the government's current plan. And if you look at
the Integrated System Plan and read through the appendices, green
hydrogen played an absolutely crucial role. It was meant to
basically soak up all the extra electrons that were floating
around the grid during the sunny days, and so it
was meant to be basically a big solar sponge that
helped prop up the system provide a minium level of demand,
(37:09):
and so without that, it was meant to be fifteen
gigawatts in the most likely scenario, So the government said
in twenty fifty. Without that, the wastage and grid stability
problems in the current plan are going to be absolutely massive,
all right. So it has been used to paper over
the absolutely critical flaws that go to the heart of
the energy transition, and it's simply not going to happen. So, yeah,
(37:30):
right to the core of our planning documents. It is
an absolutely monstrous problem for us to not have any
of this green hydrogen going ahead, which could have been
seen and pilum and telling everyone this in advance. It's
just not a viable proposal.
Speaker 2 (37:44):
Good on you, Aiden, thank you, and of course we've
got Chris but today talking about a new review into gas.
I mean, God knows what's going to come out of that,
and I can tell you one thing that won't come
out of it as cheaper gas for people. Aiden, thank
you very much for that. Coming up, we'll catch up
with John o'lees in Japan. Welcome back. We'll get to
(38:08):
our panel tonight. We'll get to them shortly. I want
to ask David Limbrick in particular about the issue of
the amount of people being caught with drugs in their
system driving in Victoria. It's tried extraordinary quickly, they want
to catch up with John o'lee, who is in Japan
as a guest of the Japanese government. There's a big
debate going on around ten billion dollars worth of defense
(38:29):
spending on new frigates. It's either going to be the
Japanese of the Germans. This reminds me of the submarine
deals that we went through originally, because I think it
was Tony Abbott. It was very keen on buying off
the shelf submarines from Japan.
Speaker 14 (38:44):
Wasn't it. Yeah, good evening.
Speaker 12 (38:48):
Just Steve funny you say that we're actually just in
an office stand having a bit of that conversation as well.
I want to make it crystal clear that sky and
Use tonight is a guest of the Japanese government and
also Mitsubishi Heavy Industries were over here looking at the
Magami type frigate or mcgami class frigate. It's crucial to
Australia's future. Really when it comes to the navy, we
are under gunns, we're short of sailors and we're short
(39:10):
of ships. Review after reviewers determined that australia strategic position
really has changed, it's altered, it suffered. We see the
rise of China in the region. Here in Japan, it's
where the rubber hits the road.
Speaker 14 (39:21):
In many regards.
Speaker 12 (39:22):
The recent review decided that we need eleven frigates, three
to be purchased or three to be constructed, I should
say in the country of origin. It comes down at
this point in time to a Japanese did or a
German did. The Germans previously made our Anzac class frigates.
But to put this all into context, we've really got
three main destroyers and we've got eight Anzac class frigates,
(39:44):
which we've now scrapped one, so we're down to a
fleet of approximately ten if we were to go to war,
and you have to divide that by three to see
which is ready at any given point in time. So
we've basically got three maybe four ships if conflict broke
out tomorrow. So we're trying to urgently get some new
vessels into the Australian Navy and in a point of
time now where we need to decide are we're going
(40:04):
to go.
Speaker 14 (40:04):
With Japan or with Germany.
Speaker 12 (40:06):
This is huge for Japan because they've never exported a
combat vessel like this.
Speaker 14 (40:11):
It would be the first time globally.
Speaker 12 (40:12):
It would market improved relationship between Australia and Japan.
Speaker 14 (40:16):
We thought that might have happened previously with submarines. This
is what.
Speaker 12 (40:18):
Jennifer Parker described to me and put to me when
we spoke about this issue before heading over.
Speaker 14 (40:24):
She puts it perfectly into context.
Speaker 15 (40:25):
Eave our priority needs to be just getting a ship.
I'm not convinced that we will end up building eight
in Australia. I would like to see that continuouship building
in Australia is critical to our ability to respond to
a conflict.
Speaker 14 (40:39):
Naval war is a.
Speaker 15 (40:40):
War of attrition, so we need to be able to
build ships and repair ships in a conflict. But our
priority right now is getting ships. I think the main
risk we should be considering right now is which of
the capabilities can we integrate into the fleet as quickly
as possible. Not which is the best capability, not which
is our strategic relationship, It's which one can we actually
get into the fleet commonality and sustain.
Speaker 12 (41:02):
A common I wanted to bring you tonight was from
a doctor Ishikawa who is from the Japanese Ministry of
Defense behind me. He made it very clear that if
Australia chose the Japanese option, and in his words, we
can definitely guarantee that we delivered on time. It's a
huge difference between us and our competitors. The Japanese Governor's
effect guarantee that if we go with their bid, we
(41:23):
will get our first frigate with them from twenty twenty nine,
with three to be built here and the other remaining
frigates to be built in Western Australia. It's exactly what
our Department of Defense would be hoping to hear. Will
they choose the Japanese bid or the German We don't
know yet, Steve.
Speaker 2 (41:39):
Good on you, John, No, thank you. I'll be in
Japan next week and I would be going with the
Japanese bid for sure. That's John O.
Speaker 15 (41:44):
Lee.
Speaker 2 (41:44):
You'll see full updates on what's happening there. As I said,
let's go to our panel tonight one Nation National Executive
Member Lee Hanson and Victorian Libertarian Party MP David Limbrick. David,
I want to get onto these drug drive Welcome to
you both. I want to get onto these drug driving
figures in a second. But David, what do you know
about the story that's broken today about Victoria potentially going
(42:10):
down the track of establishing its own voice to Parliament,
which was voted down by the majority of Australians back
in two years ago. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (42:20):
Well, when I talked to many constituents about this issue,
their reaction is didn't we vote on this in twenty
twenty three? And I've got to say I feel the
same way. There's lots of questions about what's going to
actually happen with this, like what does a treaty actually
look like? And I think that a lot of Victorians
don't like the idea of having this sort of race
based distinction happening in parliament and a lot of people
(42:44):
are opposed to it.
Speaker 2 (42:46):
Leah and Tazzy. Would the feeling be similar there?
Speaker 16 (42:52):
Absolutely. I think if this was introduced in Victoria or
any state, it's going to cause great concern across other
states of Australia. The people voted for respect the vote,
Respect the people and uphold that don't find backdoor ways
to introduce legislation through other states and means.
Speaker 2 (43:10):
And David in the background, and there's a huge amount
of money being pulled into this. There's thirty three members
of a group that sits as an established voice already
based in the Victorian Parliament. They haven't been legislated, but
they're all being paid a million dollars each, thirty three
of them. Yes.
Speaker 1 (43:31):
I mean, I'm more concerned about how much money is
being given out to lots of groups and how it's
actually being used, and there's not a lot of transparency
in all of that. So it is very concerning about
how all this is being set up. And I think
people are right to ask questions. You know, there's one
situation I don't know whether you've heard about the rock
(43:52):
climbing at amount of Rapolis, that situation there has turned
into a nightmare for rock climbers that's been shut down
and they can't come to a resolution even on that
small scale. So you can imagine what might happen if
this goes statewide.
Speaker 2 (44:06):
I want to look at these figures out of Victoria
Police today astonishing. I just couldn't believe it when I
saw them. I'll get you in a second about it.
Least three quarters of motoris court driving on drugs have
been smoking ice seventy five percent. Police say it shows
the extent of the use of MDMA. David, you first,
your stated policy is you want all drugs decriminalized. Won't
(44:30):
that make disease issue even worse?
Speaker 1 (44:36):
Regardless of the legality of the substance, it's still illegal
to drive under the influence, and that's for a good reason,
because you're putting other people at risk. Now, one of
the problems that we have in Victoria is they don't
actually test for impairment. The police test whether the substance
is in your body, and in the case of cannabis,
that's a real problem because it can stay in your
(44:57):
body for a number of days. Victorian public parliaments taken
some action to try and deal with this because it's
a big problem for medical cannabis patients who might have
taken it a few days before and still get pinged.
We need to get better technologies that actually test for
impairment because we do need to get impaired drivers off
the road. But the current tests don't test for impairment
at all.
Speaker 2 (45:19):
But just be clear, no, I want to be clear here.
Your view on drugs is that things like ice and
MDMA should be legal.
Speaker 1 (45:29):
I don't think that people who have problems with drugs
should be dealt with by the courts and the police.
They should be dealt with by community groups and families instead,
because people who have problems with drugs, you only make
them worse by locking them up and sending them to prison.
Speaker 2 (45:46):
Lee, I would disagree with David on that. I'm not
sure what your view is, but we've got seven hundred
drug drivers every month never taken any of these things,
most so, but I can't imagine if you're high on
DMA or ice or whatever you want to call it,
it's not going to be very safe to drive, is it.
Speaker 16 (46:05):
I agree and sorry, I will have to disagree with
a comment before as a person who uses the road
and I have children in my car, the risks that
these are people are putting my family and my future
and my children. It's not good enough. One nation has
a very hard stance on drugs. Hard drugs, No thank you.
We need to reduce the usage, and yes, preventative schemes
(46:28):
in programs to support them, but there needs to be
a hard line. They are not only putting other road
users at danger. And I was gobsmacked by three quarters
from the statistics that you informed, but also the risk
and the danger that they're putting first responders and police,
you know, from these hard drugs. As I understand it,
if you have a predisposition to violence tendencies, it actually
(46:49):
heightens that as well. How does that contribute to violent
to domestic violence. It's putting too many of the committee
members and police and other first responders at risk. It's
not good enough. We need to have a hard line.
The other contributing factor that you think about this is
it's too easy, it's too cheap to excess hard drugs.
You know, when I was finishing school and first got
(47:10):
my drinking age, we'd go out and have a night
out and you could have a few drinks relatively cheap.
The cost of alcohol is ridiculous now, so what are
young people doing. They're reverting to the cheap hard drugs.
It's easily accessible and this is the result that we're seeing.
Speaker 2 (47:26):
It's not good enough. David the street sweep for Sean
Turner is going to be on after me with James
McPherson tonight. This is the bloke you've challenged his sacking
for objecting to too many acknowledgments to countries. That is
toolbox meeting at work. I would say this blog's probably
representing the silent majority of Australians, isn't he.
Speaker 1 (47:49):
Well, I think a lot of people feel the same way.
You know, these acknowledgments of country have really gotten out
of hand. I mean I've had people do it in
zoom meetings and stuff. It's sort of crazy. I give
you an interesting story though. I was chair of a
parliamentary committee and it was it was put to me at.
Speaker 14 (48:05):
The start of it.
Speaker 1 (48:06):
You know, the staff told me, oh, this is where
you do the acknowledgement of country. Now, I just said
I'm not going to do that too many of the
no one actually so far too many actually said I just.
Speaker 2 (48:15):
Can't I can't get over the fact that we have
them every time. Lee and David, thank you very much.
James with Person's Up Next,
Peter Krendland live on Sky News Australia.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Good evening, Welcome to Credlin steep Price, sitting in for
Peter all this week. Here's what's coming up on the
show tonight. Despite a resounding no vote at the Voice
referendum twenty months ago, the socialist left Victorrect government intends
to establish its own version even though that state voted
heavily against it. I'll have more to say on that shortly.
(00:31):
And despite a resounding no vote at a Voice referendum
twenty months ago, well it's going to come around again,
so we will get into that and i will tell
you some things that you will not believe in how
this is being funded. Plus anti Semitism hits a new
low in the UK at that Glastonbury Music festival, disgusting
anti Israeli chance that we're live on BBC Television. The
(00:54):
President of the Executive Council of Australian Jury will join
us later. And the largest in hydrogen project plan for
Central Queen's label Let's Go Belly Up, joining around one
hundred billion dollars of green schemes that have fallen over nationally.
And I'll also have the latest from the trial of
Aaron Addison's the Mushroom murder trial. As the jury has
(01:16):
sent off to consider their verdict. We have a reporter
in more Well. We'll cross there shortly, but first, and
I'm not too sure why anyone in Victoria is surprised
at the headlines today in the Herald Sun suggesting the
most left leaning state in Australia, led by Premier to
Center Allen, is going down the path of creating its
(01:38):
own voice to Parliament for Indigenous Victorians. Now. The Victorian
Labor government campaigned heavily to try and get the Original
Voice referendum across the line back in October twenty twenty three,
but like their federal counterparts, they failed with a resounding
no vote. Despite this, the Victorian government has established what
they call a First People's Assembly. Now listen to the
(02:01):
numbers here. It's made up of thirty three members, taxpayer
funded and elected every three years. Each member of this
racially selected assembly is paid, according to the Herald Sun
today almost one hundred thousand dollars a year in salary,
thirty three of them all on one hundred grand. And
on top of that expense, this mob oversees something called
(02:23):
the self Determination Fund that was set up in twenty
twenty two with wait for it, sixty five million dollars
of Victorian taxpayers money. And remember Victoria's broke to bankroll
what's called treaty negotiations. A treaty negotiation by the way,
that the state government refuses to tell the people of
(02:45):
Victoria what is actually in the treaty. I mean Daniel Andrews,
the widely despised ex premier, he set this all up
back in twenty eighteen. This Assembly already uses State Parliament
to meet and it's expected this Assembly will become a
permanent body protected by legislation. Now, this is all happening
(03:05):
under the noses of a majority of voters in Victoria
who voted no to the voice referendum. But they'll get
one whether they like it or not. And what will
it do well, that's the really frightening thing here. If
legislated and labor have the numbers, it will advise on
the impact of laws and policy affecting all Victorians, but
(03:27):
just indigenous ones. It will work across issues such as
law and order, health, education, even child protection, advising the
government on how these things should or would impact that
one group Indigenous Victorians a voice, in other words, for
one group and not anyone else. Should all Australians that
(03:47):
voted no in twenty twenty three be worried about this, Well,
you bet you should. If one labor government can do it,
what's to stop other labor governments doing the same thing. Indeed,
South Australia's going down the track ready. Queensland under labor
when they were in power, were looking at the same
sort of options. Now let me give you a small
example of the tone as this Assembly pushes harder and
(04:10):
harder for a formal treaty and we all know what
that means, financial reparation. Back in June this year, a
bloke called Travis Lovett arrived at State Parliament in Melbourne
after staging a protest walk from Portland in Western Victoria,
right over near the South Australian border. Here's just one
(04:30):
part of a speech that he made when he arrived
at Spring Street in Melbourne at Parliament House. Travis Lovett said, quote,
we moved from massacre sites hidden beneath the paddocks and
plarques to bus stops where our children waited on school
uniforms stitched with the legacy of exclusion. He carried on
(04:53):
love it did. He said, we crossed bridges over rivers
that once ran red load footpaths through towns where our
people were once forbidden to linger after sunset. That's Travis Lovett.
His event was called the Walk for Truth and he
urged Victorians to confront the state's history and commit to
(05:15):
a just future. I think we can all see where
this is headed. Scota Cameron now Tonight's political Headlines with
Sky New's political reporter Rubenspargo.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
Australia will soon learn by posts what rate of tariffs
will be applied by the United States. Donald Trump's pause
on his sweeping global measure is expected to expire within days.
The President has all but dashed any hope of Australia
getting to the negotiating table.
Speaker 4 (05:48):
In some countries, we don't care. Well, you know, we'll
just send an eye number out. But we're going to
be sending letters out signing pretty soon.
Speaker 3 (05:55):
We'll continue to put our case forward that it shouldn't
be ten, it should be zero.
Speaker 5 (06:00):
That is what a reciprocal tariff will be. The pairs
yet to meet. Two senior US politicians are now urging
Anthony Albernesi to make getting to the White House his priority.
The Foreign Minister is on our way to Washington and
he's set to meet her counterpart, Marco Rubio.
Speaker 3 (06:16):
The Prime Minister is downplaying a warning from China over
Australia's defense spending.
Speaker 5 (06:22):
Anthony Alberesi is wedged. Beijing pays the bills, but the
United States holds the shield. The Trump administration is pushing
Australia to lift its defense budget to three and a
half percent of GDP to help counter Chinese aggression. China's
top diplomat in Australia says dramatically increasing military spending places
a heavy fiscal burden on the countries involved.
Speaker 6 (06:45):
The Chinese ambassador speaks for China.
Speaker 7 (06:47):
My job is to speak for Australia and it's in
Australia's national interests for us to invest in our capability.
Speaker 5 (06:54):
There are mounting views from within Australia on defense spending.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
Two.
Speaker 5 (06:58):
The opposition is pushing for it to rise to three
percent of GDP.
Speaker 2 (07:04):
Good on new Reuben, thanks for that. Now. As I've said,
the twelve person jury is now isolated and considering a
verdict in the mushroom murder trial, where of course Aaron
Patterson has pleaded not guilty to three counts of murder
and one of attempted murder. Now this trial has been
running for ten weeks. Let's cross to Melbourne reporter Georgie Dickinson,
(07:24):
who tonight is in More World. Georgie, twelve jurors down
from fourteen, can you just explain to the viewers why
that had to happen?
Speaker 6 (07:34):
Good evening to you, Steve. We started with fifteen at
the very beginning of the trial and the reason they
do this is in case jurors full sick or if
they have to excuse jurors, and that did happen. A
few weeks ago one Dura was dismissed over allegations he
was speaking to family and friends around the trial. And
so today two men who are actually balloced off. This
(07:54):
was drawn out of a hatlang situation to bring it
down to those twelve jurors, to ensure or that if
they had to dismiss those jurors during the trial, they
wouldn't have to start the trial all over again. So
now we are left with those seven men and five
women that this afternoon did begin to liberations hearing more
well in the trial of Aaron Patterson Steve.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
Judge Bill puts some parameters around Georgie when they can
report back. I think it's Monday to Sunday and in
court hours, is that right?
Speaker 6 (08:30):
Yeah, So they will begin delirations ten thirty am with
a break around lunchtime for an hour and finish at
four point fifteen each day. And what the court has
said is that they will continue into the weekend. They
will deliberate on Saturdays, but he has given them Sunday
off as I suppose arrest. They have been here now
into their tenth week in this trial, so so much information.
(08:52):
They have iPads and an index of information with all
the transcripts and all of the evidence that has been
given throughout this exten case. Fifty three witnesses have appeared
in this trial, so no doubt they need to sift
through so much evidence to be able to come up
with their verdict. And the verdict must be unanimous, so
they must all agree on those four different charges, three
(09:15):
counts of murder and one count of attempted murder.
Speaker 2 (09:18):
Steve, the jury locked up, not able to go home.
I know they've been told they can't have phones, and
they shouldn't be looking at media. But do they get
sequested in a hotel or something or do they go home?
Speaker 6 (09:33):
Yeah, so they're actually in a hotel. So this morning
the fourteen jurors actually all brought their luggage here to
the court room, and so those two jurors that were
dismissed had to take their luggage and then they got
to go back home. But for the remaining twelve jurors,
they took their luggage after their left court this morning,
this afternoon at four fifteen and back to the hotel.
Now the judge has given them strict instructions to not
(09:56):
speak about the case unless they are here at court.
This is where the deliberation take place. Once they go
to their hotel, they're able to rest relax, I suppose,
but they're not to discuss this case in small groups.
So it is very strict conditions on no phones, no media,
to ensure that this is a fair trial.
Speaker 2 (10:13):
Steve Georgie, just finally, you and Holly have been up
and back to morewill a lot through the ten weeks.
The other reporters have also been There is there any
discussion among the media about having a guess on how
long this might take.
Speaker 6 (10:30):
Always guess is Steve, but it is anyone's guess at
this stage as to how long this will take. With
so much evidence, it could go days, it could go weeks.
So we are all sitting tight. We will all be
staying around more well, as we will only get a
very brief amount of notice when the jew has actually
come back with a verdict. So we're all standing by
all waiting for that message to say that they have
(10:51):
reached a verdict in this so highly anticipated trial here
in more.
Speaker 2 (10:55):
Well, Steve, great work, Georgie. Thanks, we'll check in with
obviously if anything brights during our show right through the
wik as I sit in for Peter. Let's bring in
our panel. Tonight Cameber political reporter Cam Riddens with us
and in Sidney Myle might the Daily Telegraph. James willis
US President Donald Trump. He signaled the ninety day pause
(11:16):
on his sweeping tariff regime. It's going to end within
a couple of days. He says he'll be sending out
letters with the tariff amount.
Speaker 4 (11:23):
He's what he said, Well, look at how a country
treats us.
Speaker 2 (11:28):
Are they good?
Speaker 4 (11:29):
Are they not so good? Some countries we don't care
we'll you know, we'll just send a high number out.
But we're going to be sending letters out starting pretty soon. No,
we don't have to meet. We understand, we have all
the numbers, and what we're going to do is we're
going to send and we will say congratulations, we're allowing
you to shop in the United States of America. You're
(11:49):
going to pay a twenty five percent tariff, or a
thirty five percent or a fifty percent or ten percent.
Speaker 8 (11:55):
Came.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
I didn't think people sent letters anymore, at.
Speaker 9 (12:01):
Least of all the President of the United States, Steve Look.
I think there's a little bit of theater in that.
The way it's been put to me is that the
Prime Minister, of the Trade minister, they're not sitting next
to some Australia postbox waiting for Donald Trump to write
to them. We are getting the ten percent tariff, that's
for sure. The efforts to try and get out of
it somehow will continue. There's still efforts at the diplomatic level,
at the treasurer's level, the Foreign Minister going over again
(12:23):
to Washington this week. But we're not going to get
out of it. Seemingly most countries aren't, and why share
some insight that was given to me this afternoon as well, Steve,
on the way that this is playing out behind the
scenes between Australia and the US, there is a lot
of focus, and naturally there would be on the fact
that the Prime Minister hasn't yet had FaceTime with President Trump.
The way that this tariff negotiation is playing out, the
(12:45):
way it's been put to me is that there's even
been some acknowledgment from US officials perhaps giving some advice
to the Australian officials, saying there is so much on
their plate at the moment, it wouldn't be the worst
thing in the world to keep your head down and
not attract the president's should he perhaps see something else
that he doesn't like and decide to raise that taroff figure.
(13:05):
Naturally there's a much greater focus on the US end
on China. Potentially a further extension is that on the
table the UK they've just signed a free trade deal
or a new deal that was many years in the
making after Brexit, and then there's the European Union which
is even more complicated. So Steve, perhaps that goes some
way to the reasoning that Australia hasn't necessarily been thumping
(13:26):
the desk over these tariffs. It is the lowest level. Yes,
it is ten percent reciprocal. There will be an impact.
There is even one school of thought though, that because
Australia is at the lowest level, if these tariffs really
do cause something of a chaos agent effect in the
global economy and there's problems in Europe, there's problems in
Southeast Asia and elsewhere, does that actually make Australia a
(13:48):
more attractive market for others to buy more of our
goods and therefore get more money into our economy. So
obviously this is complicated, Steve. But by all the noises
coming out of both sides, it does not look like
we're getting a free pass at.
Speaker 2 (14:00):
All, James. The problem for the PM of courses I
and you know, it's good and well for American politicians
to tell us to keep our head down, but politically,
Anthony Albanez he's dying a death by a thousand cuts
because he's seen as being weak and he doesn't have,
you know, the phone call that he needs with Donald Trump,
(14:23):
much less the face to face meeting.
Speaker 10 (14:28):
Well, Steve, I'm not going to blame the PM entirely
for this because based on what Cam has said and
what we've read about this saga, it would have been very,
very hard for Australia to avoid this, and as Cam
just said, we've caught the ten percent tariff when it
could have been worse. However, there is absolutely no doubt
that the Prime Minister has some work to do on
his relationship with America, and I think that goes back
(14:50):
to the inauguration. I mean, it's easy to sit here
and talk in hindsight, but the PM didn't go to
Donald Trump's inauguration.
Speaker 2 (14:57):
I think he should have gone.
Speaker 10 (14:58):
That would have been a good starting point, and clearly
in the time since they haven't been able to have
any of those proper meetings that they intended to try
and bring this to the front. At the same time,
you've had reports today about some issues around the Ambassador
Kevin Rudd and a perception in America, whether it be
Trump or people in Trump's office, that Kevin Rudd is
not well liked, and we know that he's made a
(15:19):
number of high profile comments about Donald Trump previously, so
you have that factor and.
Speaker 2 (15:24):
So there is a serious bit of work here to do.
Speaker 10 (15:27):
Now we know the Prime Minister has had no issue
getting on a plane during his first term in government.
I think this would be the easiest one when he
does get this meeting, to get on a plane and
finally sit down with Donald Trump and go through this.
And look, let's face it, no matter what you think
about Malcolm Turnbull, the relationship between Malcolm Turnbull and the
President and also largely Joe Hockey as ambassador allowed us
(15:50):
to avoid these tariffs when they pop their heads up
under the first Trump presidency in twenty sixteen. So Malcolm
Turbule and Joe Hockey got the job done here, a
long way to go and clearly that relationship needs some
work over the next few months.
Speaker 2 (16:05):
Yeah, even Arthur Sinnadinas did a great job. Don't get
me started on Kevin Rudd. You'll never shut me up
if you start taking me down that track. Hey, Cam China,
the ambassador here, he's always been very high profile. He's
come out a piece in The Australian Today and said, ah,
the Australian government shouldn't increase defense spending. It would place
a quote heavy fiscal burden on the budget. What's it
(16:26):
got to do with him? Why would we care? What
he's got to say.
Speaker 9 (16:32):
Well, it might well do that, Steve. I mean the
Chinese ambassador, as the Prime Minister pointed out today, he
is there to speak on China's behalf, and the Prime
Minister is saying that he will speak for Australia's behalf
and not really elaborating on that. Clearly, this is a
friction point going back to the US Australia relationship, because
this is what's really got it in the four of
(16:52):
where Donald Trump wants us to be. You've just seen
NATO meet that bar Spain five percent annual GDP spend
on defense, which which is tens, probably hundreds of billions
of dollars above what we would spend every year. The
Prime Minister points to that new line of spending in
the budget. Fifty seven billion is what's allotted for this
year and it is trending up. But the government maintains Stephen,
(17:13):
this is kind of where the debate seems to be
going that they don't want to set an arbitrary figure
in their view, what is an arbitrary figure and then
work up to it. They want to target project by project.
It's difficult when the budget's in the red though, and
of course, I guess going back to the call point
that of should we raise defense spending and what do
we spend it on? The government would certainly be wary
that defense is a pressure on the budget. It's one
(17:35):
that there's an appetite globally for more spending on. The
challenge is, as it always is, you've got to find
the money to do that, and that's a challenge the
government's well aware of.
Speaker 2 (17:45):
Cameron James Sanks Guys, I took to you again shortly now.
As I mentioned at the top of the program, we've
got a real problem with this push for a voice
to Parliament in Victoria. Joining me now to discuss this
is Executive director of the Institute of Public Affairs, Scott Hargraves.
Great see of Scott. The numbers I mentioned at the top,
thirty three Assembly members all on around just under one
(18:08):
hundred thousand dollars annual salary, sixty five million allocated to
something called the Self Determination Fund. Most Victorians watching you
and I here today wouldn't have a clue that this
was happening in the background.
Speaker 7 (18:25):
Well, thank you for putting the attention on it, Steve.
It is truly terrible that after the overwhelming rejection of
a divisive Voice to Parliament at the federal election and
a referendum. We're now seeing its junior cousin, a very
divisive State Voice de Parliament being foisted upon us by
the Allen government and it is dividing Victorians. We've got
(18:49):
a lot on our plate at the moment, as you know, Steve.
We've got out of control debt, rising energy costs, the
private sector is fleeing the state. But the activist Allen
government setting up this body to spend not just the
tens of millions that you mentioned, but probably hundreds of
millions across a range of projects on something that is
going to divide Victorians by race, which is exactly what
(19:13):
mainstream Australians rejected at the Voice to Parliament referendum.
Speaker 2 (19:18):
Scott Jersier Allen, I think came out today and said
she's got a mandate to do this. Well. I don't
remember it being a particularly high profile policy discussion during
the last campaign. I want to ask you why the
secrecy is this. I mean, you think this is going
to end in a treaty that'll mean more taxpayers money
will be shoveled out the door don't Victorian taxpayers have
(19:40):
the right to know what is being asked of the
government on behalf of the voters of Victoria. What do
these people want? What does this group want when they
talk about treaty.
Speaker 7 (19:54):
Well, as you know, Steve, it was actually the trifecta
that they came up with, which was Voice, treaty and
true And we had something in Victoria called the Urup Commission,
which was supposedly about truth, but as you know, it's
actually come up with a very biased rendering of Victoria's history,
deliberately suppressed evidence that might have challenged this new narrative
(20:18):
that they're creating so that they can justify their divisive
policies and stampedus towards a treaty. And we haven't heard
much about it because that's not really how the activists operate.
When they've got control of the leavers of government, it's
easier for them to forge your head to actually deny
the kind of outcomes that we saw in the Voice
(20:40):
to Parliament referendum, and remember it was in Victoria. Still
fifty four percent of Victorians voted no, they don't want this.
That's probably where their attention was. If they had a
similar opportunity in Victoria. I've got no doubt they'd say
the same thing, but they don't seem to be getting
that opportunity.
Speaker 2 (20:59):
Scott was thinking today about what's the actual impact of
some of these negotiations and the indigenous groups wanting things
changed to their way of wanting it done, and I remembered.
But of course the Victoria quite recently, about a year ago,
dropped the right of police to arrest anyone who was
(21:19):
drunk in public. Now, that was a result of direct
lobbying from Indigenous groups who were complaining. In the first instance,
an example of an inebriated woman on a train that
police took off the train and put in a jail cell,
and tragically she passed away. But this is the sort
of thing if this treaty is enacted that we'll be
(21:41):
witnessing on a regular basis.
Speaker 7 (21:45):
Yeah, a crazy change to the law like that shows
what happens when you decide that racial injustice is at
the heart of any negative social outcome anywhere, and that
the only way to fix it is to carve out
with special laws one section of the population and say
that we're going to apply the laws differentially. So expect
(22:08):
to see a lot more of that taking us down
the road that we've seen in America. And also, Steve,
I'd also recommend have a look at the regional treaties
that they've already been signing, including in western Victoria, where
we've seen a lot of changes, how public land has
managed a lot more red tape for councils, and all
of it was done away from the public eye. The
(22:30):
Allen government executed these agreements with the traditional owners in
those areas with putting incredibly onerous provisions on the local community,
but the rest of the community just had no say
in it.
Speaker 2 (22:44):
I'm loathed to do this to you, but here's the
premiere today trying to explain this away. Have a look.
Speaker 11 (22:49):
When you listen to people, you get better outcomes, and
that's what treaty is all about. I reckon we're up
for that. As a state, we're up for this. We're
up for this very simple, common sense change of involving
and listening first people in the decisions that affect them.
Speaker 2 (23:08):
I don't know if there is audio of it, but
why didn't someone in the standing there questioning say, but
hang on a minute. Fifty four percent of Victorians said
they didn't want a voice. What are you talking about? Absolutely?
Speaker 7 (23:21):
And don't we all love the idea of listening. We
could all do with a little bit more listening in Victoria.
Maybe they do something about plugging the deficit and stopping
the unions running out of control and doing something about crime.
But the other floor in the rhetoric that the premier
is coming up there is who are they actually listening to?
Is it really an indigenous community or is it really
(23:44):
setting up a structure that will be taken over by
activists highly paid. There's already an incredible bureaucracy built up
around this. It will attract exactly the sort of grievance
mongers who don't want to focus on the things that
you notice as Victorians, want to focus on the things
that divide us because that furthers their activism and actually
(24:04):
you can make a nice living out of it.
Speaker 2 (24:08):
Well, let's hope that the opposition come out and say
that if they win the election in November next year.
I think Brad Baton spoke about this briefly today, that
they'll scrap whatever is put in place. But once it's
legislated Scott, as you know, it's very difficult to unpick it.
Appreciate your time very much tonight, Thanks very much for that.
I'll talk to you shortly. I'll have more to say
about this later in the program. Now, after the break
(24:30):
the KPM he's asking for answers after this ugly anti
Israel chant was broadcast live on BBC Television at the weekend.
Plus what next for Australia's floundering green hydrogen sector with
news that are much lauded projecting queens like guess what
It's been canceled? Welcome back, step price in for Peter Credlin.
(24:56):
All this week the green dream, the grand green dream
turning rapidly into a nightmare. We'll have more on that shortly.
I want to turn our attention though, now to the
appalling anti Israeli chant from a couple of musicians, but
one in particular at the Glastonbury Music Festival in the
UK at the weekend. Now, this involved someone I'd never
heard of, a wrap duo called Bobby Verlan or Vailan
(25:21):
had the crowd in the ugly chorus during a set
broadcast live by the BBC, chanting this, have a listen.
Speaker 12 (25:30):
To the idf the id to the idea.
Speaker 2 (25:38):
I'm sure he didn't miss it, but if you did,
this bloke is encouraging the audience to chant death to
the IDEF the Israeli Defense Force, a reference of course
to the Israeli military and brave soldiers who are wearing
that uniform. So worth remembering that on October seven, Humas
terrorists murdered hundreds of people at the Nova Music Festival.
(25:59):
Yet here we have somebody on stage leading a chant
at a music festival less than two years later, effectively
honoring the terrorists. Joining me now to discuss this and
more as President of the Executive Council of Australian Jury,
Daniel Aggion, Daniel, welcome, let's talk about this chant. But
I mean we come to expect some of this disgraceful
(26:23):
stuff from entertainers and celebrities. What worries me more about
this is the fact that the crowd, which is I've
never been to Glastonbury but tickets would be expensive. They're
largely privileged Londoner's young people. How frightening is it for
you personally when you see them join in a chant
(26:45):
like that, Given what we're going through.
Speaker 8 (26:50):
Steve, it's very frightening. That chant then became an echo
because it was repeated at the pro Garza protest Melbourne
this Sunday. So it's gone around the world and it's
gone local here. That's a frightening thing about when people
when you hear that phrase globalize the fada, this is
(27:13):
what we're talking about. This is this is this is
the consequence of globalization of the INTOVRDA.
Speaker 2 (27:20):
I saw a media commentator on with Deniker in the
in the program before we came on air, and I
thought he made a great point that Britain has not
seen this level of anti semitism since the nineteen thirties.
You'd agree with that, wouldn't you.
Speaker 8 (27:36):
Of course, it's in fact it's a terrible thing that
when you speak to Holocaust survivors in any Western country,
doesn't matter which, they will all say that the president
the present level of anti Semitism is the worst they
have seen since the Holocaust. And that's a terrible thing.
(27:58):
When a Holocaust survivor says that, for example here in
Melbourne or in Sydney or others that I've spoken to
around the world, I have to say, see, my heartbreaks.
It really does.
Speaker 2 (28:11):
And you mentioned that this has gone around the world already,
and did you say it was being chanted at a protest,
a pro Palestinian protest in Melbourne on the weekend on Sunday.
Speaker 8 (28:21):
That's correct, this on Sunday. The only change was instead
of calling them the Idea Israel Defence Forces, they called
them the IOF Isral occupation Forces. So in Melbourne the
chart was death to the IOF. But it was identical
and it was driven by this smart ass chant which
(28:42):
was delivered at Glastonbury.
Speaker 2 (28:46):
And of course you know we would have found out
about it, but it was made so much worse by
the fact that the BBC, somebody in the BBC who
needs to be sacked, allowed this to go out live.
I mean, they hadn't vetted the lyrics of this rap
artist song. If they had, he would have probably refused
to perform, which would have been good for all of us.
(29:06):
But I mean mainstream media like the BBC, are they
just blind to the anti Semitic rent that this bloke
was going on with.
Speaker 8 (29:17):
I think the problem to toeve is that you have
to push them into the corner. So there had been
another band called Kneecap. I hadn't heard of them either,
but they were a rap band and they're actually they're
one of the members. He is facing terrors of charges
for waving around a Ramas flag. So the BBC were
(29:39):
cautious in respect of that performance and didn't show it live.
But then he saw how many pro Palestine flags were
in the audience. I don't understand why the BBC showed
it live, why they didn't put on the three or
five second delay, why they didn't have the usual censorship
(30:00):
arrangements in place that they would have for offensive language,
for any kind of hateful or vilifying behavior. Somehow this
one is just seen to just go straight through to
the keeper and broadcast live with no problems.
Speaker 2 (30:17):
Daniel, I mean a hard question you must have since
October seven turned over and over and over in your mind.
What is it about a section of young Western teenagers
and younger people in their twenties that somehow drags them
out on the street to wave Palestinian flags and chance
(30:38):
slogans like this? I mean, what's driving this?
Speaker 8 (30:44):
Yeah, look, it's a very good question, Steve. I mean
it's interesting. You know, my father protested against the war,
he tells me, in the late sixties. I think young
people like to protest, But what's happening is this they
learn a particular narrative, particularly in the universities, but they're
learning a particular narrative that every conflict around the world
(31:08):
is not gray, it's not complex, it's not difficult. It's
black and white, and it's colonizer versus colonized. And in
their eyes, the Israel they're the colonizers. They're the bad guys.
The Garsens, the Palestinians they're the good guys. So you know,
(31:28):
it's like Star Wars, the baddies and the goodies, and
Israel is the badies. Therefore the Jews the Jewish state,
So the Jews around the world, they're the baddies. And
it's that simple and that simplistic. And the trouble then
is that this is not a peaceful movement. This is
not a movement for positive change. This is not a
(31:52):
movement to bring people together. It's a movement to divide,
and it's a movement that has hate has at its core.
Speaker 2 (32:01):
Yes, it's very very frightening, Daniel, thank you very much
for that joining us. We'll catch up soon now after
the break. Reality bites for Australia's green hydrogen sector plus
Chris Bowen Chris has ordered a gas review. What do
you think that'll mean to your gas bill? Welcome back
(32:22):
as you could join USTEEP price in for Peter Credlin
all this week. Now we'll chat to John Olee s Guy,
a reporter. He's in Japan at the moment. He's looking
at the next chapter for the Australian Navy and whether
we ought to be investing in Japanese or German made frigates. John,
I will join us shortly, but first I mentioned this.
This is the dilemma facing Australia's green hydrogen sector. Now remember,
(32:45):
over and over and over again we're told by Chris
Bowen and Anthony Albanezi this was the fuel of the future.
It was going to be our way to net zero.
Now billions of dollars and plenty of championing by the
federal government, it seems reality is to buy it. I
shouldn't laugh, because I mean, if you can get these
things off the ground, it might be a good idea.
But news today that Australia's largest green hydro project this
(33:09):
was w'th twelve point five billion dollars. By the way,
it's got a plant and a pipeline, it's a Gladston
in Queensland. Well it's been acted. I mean it falls
off the back of lack of progress for a one
hundred billion dollar pipeline of ambitious green proposals in a
sector which Anthony ibneas he says, well, that's the future
and this is made in Australia. We're going to be
(33:30):
a global player when it comes to green hydrogen. Here
to discuss the matter is the Center for Independent Studies
Director of Energy Research, Aiden Morris and Aiden glad To
have your expertise here before we get into why this
thing's fallen over, can you just briefly tell me what
green hydrogen is.
Speaker 13 (33:53):
Yeah, hydrogen is hydrogen that gets made of using electricity
that comes from green sources, in particular wind and solar.
It's the idea you get electricity from the sun and
the wind and convert that into hydrogen by splitting water
molecules apart, it's extremely energy intensive and relies on the
electricity being essentially free, and even then there's very expensive
(34:14):
materials and equipment required, and so it hasn't really taken
off anywhere in the world at all.
Speaker 2 (34:21):
One of the great salesmen of this product of course
was Twiggy Forest, and I think he's also pulled out
of a number of projects. What is causing these schemes
to fall over? Is it cost? Is that what the
accountants get hold of the planning and go, hang on
a minute, that's just not going to add up.
Speaker 13 (34:44):
Yeah, that's pretty much it. This has never stacked up economically,
and from an engineering sense, hydrogen is the least dense
gas there is known to man. It's basically the hardest
thing on earth to compress and store and move around.
And so making this your panacea energy salut to everything
we need to get to net zero was never going
to work. There is not demand for it. No one
(35:05):
would ever pay the plausible prices that are required to
produce this stuff.
Speaker 2 (35:09):
So use the.
Speaker 13 (35:11):
Word pipeline a pipeline. It is not a pipeline. Everything
that goes into the top of a pipe comes out
at the bottom. Eventually, this is a parade of vaporware.
Absolutely every project that starts down the runway disappears off
with a puff of smoke. And this is happening again
and again. It's happening all around the world. I don't
think hydrogen really ever is going to happen at anything
like the scale it's imagined, because it faces fundamental uphill
(35:34):
engineering disadvantages compared to other energy sources and energy storage
methods like natural gas.
Speaker 2 (35:42):
Yeah, and don't get me started on nuclear, which we
all agree we should be looking at. Is anywhere in
the world making green hydrogen, empowering stuff with it and
doing it successfully.
Speaker 13 (35:55):
Look, basically, no, there is nothing that has survived any
sort of commercial litmus test at all. There have been
obviously tiny little lab experiments and miniature pilot projects, but
nothing is actually getting serious off take greemans and serious capital.
You can look around the world Twiggy cancel with projects
in Canada, just like in Australia, Denmark's canceling things. Germany
just recently required a canceled a bigger green steel project
(36:17):
which would have consumed hydrogen. There is basically just no
success stories to point to anywhere globally for green hydrogen.
Speaker 2 (36:27):
So Anthony Albanezi, Chris Bowen, I mean they have really
stuck their necks out on this stuff. I mean you can.
I could show you grab after grab after grab of
them singing the praises of this stuff, but it's simply
not going to happen. What's it going to do to
our ambitions for net zero?
Speaker 13 (36:47):
Yeah, look, this is one of the absolutely fatal flaws
in the government's current plan. And if you look at
the Integrated System Plan and read through the appendices, green
hydrogen played an absolutely crucial role. It was meant to
basically soak up all the extra electrons that were floating
around the grid during the sunny days, and so it
was meant to be basically a big solar sponge that
helped prop up the system provide a minium level of demand,
(37:09):
and so without that, it was meant to be fifteen
gigawatts in the most likely scenario, So the government said
in twenty fifty. Without that, the wastage and grid stability
problems in the current plan are going to be absolutely massive,
all right. So it has been used to paper over
the absolutely critical flaws that go to the heart of
the energy transition, and it's simply not going to happen. So, yeah,
(37:30):
right to the core of our planning documents. It is
an absolutely monstrous problem for us to not have any
of this green hydrogen going ahead, which could have been
seen and pilum and telling everyone this in advance. It's
just not a viable proposal.
Speaker 2 (37:44):
Good on you, Aiden, thank you, and of course we've
got Chris but today talking about a new review into gas.
I mean, God knows what's going to come out of that,
and I can tell you one thing that won't come
out of it as cheaper gas for people. Aiden, thank
you very much for that. Coming up, we'll catch up
with John o'lees in Japan. Welcome back. We'll get to
(38:08):
our panel tonight. We'll get to them shortly. I want
to ask David Limbrick in particular about the issue of
the amount of people being caught with drugs in their
system driving in Victoria. It's tried extraordinary quickly, they want
to catch up with John o'lee, who is in Japan
as a guest of the Japanese government. There's a big
debate going on around ten billion dollars worth of defense
(38:29):
spending on new frigates. It's either going to be the
Japanese of the Germans. This reminds me of the submarine
deals that we went through originally, because I think it
was Tony Abbott. It was very keen on buying off
the shelf submarines from Japan.
Speaker 14 (38:44):
Wasn't it. Yeah, good evening.
Speaker 12 (38:48):
Just Steve funny you say that we're actually just in
an office stand having a bit of that conversation as well.
I want to make it crystal clear that sky and
Use tonight is a guest of the Japanese government and
also Mitsubishi Heavy Industries were over here looking at the
Magami type frigate or mcgami class frigate. It's crucial to
Australia's future. Really when it comes to the navy, we
are under gunns, we're short of sailors and we're short
(39:10):
of ships. Review after reviewers determined that australia strategic position
really has changed, it's altered, it suffered. We see the
rise of China in the region. Here in Japan, it's
where the rubber hits the road.
Speaker 14 (39:21):
In many regards.
Speaker 12 (39:22):
The recent review decided that we need eleven frigates, three
to be purchased or three to be constructed, I should
say in the country of origin. It comes down at
this point in time to a Japanese did or a
German did. The Germans previously made our Anzac class frigates.
But to put this all into context, we've really got
three main destroyers and we've got eight Anzac class frigates,
(39:44):
which we've now scrapped one, so we're down to a
fleet of approximately ten if we were to go to war,
and you have to divide that by three to see
which is ready at any given point in time. So
we've basically got three maybe four ships if conflict broke
out tomorrow. So we're trying to urgently get some new
vessels into the Australian Navy and in a point of
time now where we need to decide are we're going
(40:04):
to go.
Speaker 14 (40:04):
With Japan or with Germany.
Speaker 12 (40:06):
This is huge for Japan because they've never exported a
combat vessel like this.
Speaker 14 (40:11):
It would be the first time globally.
Speaker 12 (40:12):
It would market improved relationship between Australia and Japan.
Speaker 14 (40:16):
We thought that might have happened previously with submarines. This
is what.
Speaker 12 (40:18):
Jennifer Parker described to me and put to me when
we spoke about this issue before heading over.
Speaker 14 (40:24):
She puts it perfectly into context.
Speaker 15 (40:25):
Eave our priority needs to be just getting a ship.
I'm not convinced that we will end up building eight
in Australia. I would like to see that continuouship building
in Australia is critical to our ability to respond to
a conflict.
Speaker 14 (40:39):
Naval war is a.
Speaker 15 (40:40):
War of attrition, so we need to be able to
build ships and repair ships in a conflict. But our
priority right now is getting ships. I think the main
risk we should be considering right now is which of
the capabilities can we integrate into the fleet as quickly
as possible. Not which is the best capability, not which
is our strategic relationship, It's which one can we actually
get into the fleet commonality and sustain.
Speaker 12 (41:02):
A common I wanted to bring you tonight was from
a doctor Ishikawa who is from the Japanese Ministry of
Defense behind me. He made it very clear that if
Australia chose the Japanese option, and in his words, we
can definitely guarantee that we delivered on time. It's a
huge difference between us and our competitors. The Japanese Governor's
effect guarantee that if we go with their bid, we
(41:23):
will get our first frigate with them from twenty twenty nine,
with three to be built here and the other remaining
frigates to be built in Western Australia. It's exactly what
our Department of Defense would be hoping to hear. Will
they choose the Japanese bid or the German We don't
know yet, Steve.
Speaker 2 (41:39):
Good on you, John, No, thank you. I'll be in
Japan next week and I would be going with the
Japanese bid for sure. That's John O.
Speaker 15 (41:44):
Lee.
Speaker 2 (41:44):
You'll see full updates on what's happening there. As I said,
let's go to our panel tonight one Nation National Executive
Member Lee Hanson and Victorian Libertarian Party MP David Limbrick. David,
I want to get onto these drug drive Welcome to
you both. I want to get onto these drug driving
figures in a second. But David, what do you know
about the story that's broken today about Victoria potentially going
(42:10):
down the track of establishing its own voice to Parliament,
which was voted down by the majority of Australians back
in two years ago. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (42:20):
Well, when I talked to many constituents about this issue,
their reaction is didn't we vote on this in twenty
twenty three? And I've got to say I feel the
same way. There's lots of questions about what's going to
actually happen with this, like what does a treaty actually
look like? And I think that a lot of Victorians
don't like the idea of having this sort of race
based distinction happening in parliament and a lot of people
(42:44):
are opposed to it.
Speaker 2 (42:46):
Leah and Tazzy. Would the feeling be similar there?
Speaker 16 (42:52):
Absolutely. I think if this was introduced in Victoria or
any state, it's going to cause great concern across other
states of Australia. The people voted for respect the vote,
Respect the people and uphold that don't find backdoor ways
to introduce legislation through other states and means.
Speaker 2 (43:10):
And David in the background, and there's a huge amount
of money being pulled into this. There's thirty three members
of a group that sits as an established voice already
based in the Victorian Parliament. They haven't been legislated, but
they're all being paid a million dollars each, thirty three
of them. Yes.
Speaker 1 (43:31):
I mean, I'm more concerned about how much money is
being given out to lots of groups and how it's
actually being used, and there's not a lot of transparency
in all of that. So it is very concerning about
how all this is being set up. And I think
people are right to ask questions. You know, there's one
situation I don't know whether you've heard about the rock
(43:52):
climbing at amount of Rapolis, that situation there has turned
into a nightmare for rock climbers that's been shut down
and they can't come to a resolution even on that
small scale. So you can imagine what might happen if
this goes statewide.
Speaker 2 (44:06):
I want to look at these figures out of Victoria
Police today astonishing. I just couldn't believe it when I
saw them. I'll get you in a second about it.
Least three quarters of motoris court driving on drugs have
been smoking ice seventy five percent. Police say it shows
the extent of the use of MDMA. David, you first,
your stated policy is you want all drugs decriminalized. Won't
(44:30):
that make disease issue even worse?
Speaker 1 (44:36):
Regardless of the legality of the substance, it's still illegal
to drive under the influence, and that's for a good reason,
because you're putting other people at risk. Now, one of
the problems that we have in Victoria is they don't
actually test for impairment. The police test whether the substance
is in your body, and in the case of cannabis,
that's a real problem because it can stay in your
(44:57):
body for a number of days. Victorian public parliaments taken
some action to try and deal with this because it's
a big problem for medical cannabis patients who might have
taken it a few days before and still get pinged.
We need to get better technologies that actually test for
impairment because we do need to get impaired drivers off
the road. But the current tests don't test for impairment
at all.
Speaker 2 (45:19):
But just be clear, no, I want to be clear here.
Your view on drugs is that things like ice and
MDMA should be legal.
Speaker 1 (45:29):
I don't think that people who have problems with drugs
should be dealt with by the courts and the police.
They should be dealt with by community groups and families instead,
because people who have problems with drugs, you only make
them worse by locking them up and sending them to prison.
Speaker 2 (45:46):
Lee, I would disagree with David on that. I'm not
sure what your view is, but we've got seven hundred
drug drivers every month never taken any of these things,
most so, but I can't imagine if you're high on
DMA or ice or whatever you want to call it,
it's not going to be very safe to drive, is it.
Speaker 16 (46:05):
I agree and sorry, I will have to disagree with
a comment before as a person who uses the road
and I have children in my car, the risks that
these are people are putting my family and my future
and my children. It's not good enough. One nation has
a very hard stance on drugs. Hard drugs, No thank you.
We need to reduce the usage, and yes, preventative schemes
(46:28):
in programs to support them, but there needs to be
a hard line. They are not only putting other road
users at danger. And I was gobsmacked by three quarters
from the statistics that you informed, but also the risk
and the danger that they're putting first responders and police,
you know, from these hard drugs. As I understand it,
if you have a predisposition to violence tendencies, it actually
(46:49):
heightens that as well. How does that contribute to violent
to domestic violence. It's putting too many of the committee
members and police and other first responders at risk. It's
not good enough. We need to have a hard line.
The other contributing factor that you think about this is
it's too easy, it's too cheap to excess hard drugs.
You know, when I was finishing school and first got
(47:10):
my drinking age, we'd go out and have a night
out and you could have a few drinks relatively cheap.
The cost of alcohol is ridiculous now, so what are
young people doing. They're reverting to the cheap hard drugs.
It's easily accessible and this is the result that we're seeing.
Speaker 2 (47:26):
It's not good enough. David the street sweep for Sean
Turner is going to be on after me with James
McPherson tonight. This is the bloke you've challenged his sacking
for objecting to too many acknowledgments to countries. That is
toolbox meeting at work. I would say this blog's probably
representing the silent majority of Australians, isn't he.
Speaker 1 (47:49):
Well, I think a lot of people feel the same way.
You know, these acknowledgments of country have really gotten out
of hand. I mean I've had people do it in
zoom meetings and stuff. It's sort of crazy. I give
you an interesting story though. I was chair of a
parliamentary committee and it was it was put to me at.
Speaker 14 (48:05):
The start of it.
Speaker 1 (48:06):
You know, the staff told me, oh, this is where
you do the acknowledgement of country. Now, I just said
I'm not going to do that too many of the
no one actually so far too many actually said I just.
Speaker 2 (48:15):
Can't I can't get over the fact that we have
them every time. Lee and David, thank you very much.
James with Person's Up Next,
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.