July 9, 2025 • 48 mins
Childcare safety concerns grow as 560 centres fail to meet standards, Albanese announces major bailout for two smelters to shore up critical minerals. Plus, furious Liberals reject US-style primaries amid party preselection fight.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Peter Kredland live on Sky News Australia.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Good evening, welcome to the program. Here's what's coming up
tonight on Kredlin. The IBA's decision to keep rates on
hold yesterday now being weaponized by the Treasurer. It's not
in the national interest to cynically use our central bank
to play politics. I'll have more to say on that
in the moment. Dozens of top eightyf brass face the chop.
The government's preparing a sweeping overhaul. Now we know the
(00:29):
defense is a bit of a mess, but I can't
help but thinking this is Richard Miles trying to find
escapegoat rather than genuine reform. Greg Sheridan a little later,
plus two major smelters on life support tonight, the Government's
all but confirmed a taxpayer bailout.
Speaker 3 (00:45):
It's amazing, isn't it.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
How labor, we'll spend your money to fix a problem
of their own net zero making. And Donald Trump ramps
up his tariff war. The threat of pharmaceuticals now the
latest in the fiery line, sending panic waves about what
this means for Austraight year's PBS.
Speaker 4 (01:03):
They're going to be tariffed at a very very high rate,
like two hundred percent.
Speaker 5 (01:07):
Our pharmaceutical benefit scheme is not something that willing to
were willing to trade away or do deals on.
Speaker 6 (01:13):
That won't change.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
Now there's some scam angering on that today. I'll get
to what really might happen with pharmaceuticals a little later
in the show, but first they're coming more subsidies out
of your pocket to cover up for the government's policy mistakes.
Very soon, says the Prime Minister, his government will announce
a baila for two failing smelters, one of them in Tasmania,
were Labour hopes to win this month's state election.
Speaker 7 (01:39):
It is very close too, because there are three governments.
The Industry Ministry is coordinating that effort and I would
hope that there would be an announcement soon about that.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
But it's not the zinc smelter alone in Hobart or
the lead smelter in Port Pirie getting tens, if not
hundreds of millions of dollars if your money. There's also
the steel plant at Wayela, plus smelters at Mount iSER
at tom Ago and bell Bay in Tasmania. They are
all in trouble and they're all seeking government support. If
(02:14):
they are to survive. It's claimed that the problem with
the Neo Star smelters is subsidized quote subsidized Chinese competition.
But at least part of the so called subsidy is
cheaper power in China, cheaper than we have in Australia,
because China refuses to let emissions reduction trump the supply
of affordable and reliable electricity as we once had in Australia.
(02:37):
The Prime Minister's right, we can't afford to lose these
vital industries, these heavy industries out of Australia. But what
about changing the government policies that are making these plants
uneconomic in the first place? What about ending them at
zero madness that's sending Australian jobs off shore. Because unless
that happens, throwing more and more taxpayer billions at the problem,
(03:00):
it's like putting a band aid on a bullet. Woon't
now is a trans woman a woman for the purposes
of Australian law?
Speaker 1 (03:13):
You know?
Speaker 2 (03:13):
A British court has recently declared that it's biology that
determines our sex, not personal choice, and now our higher
court here is being invited to make that same finding.
Speaker 3 (03:25):
Last year a single.
Speaker 2 (03:26):
Judge at the Federal Court held that it was unlawful
for a woman only app to exclude a trans woman
roxand Tickle, who of course is also a biological male. Now,
in the Tickle case, Justice Robert Bromich found that quote
sex is changeable, something as I said, the highest court
in the UK has just rejected. But if that decision
(03:49):
from Justice Bromwich stands here, we're likely to soon find
courts declaring that male rapists or murderers have a right
to be incarcerated in a women's prisons simply because they
identify as women. Right now, a male murderer double murder
in New South Wales has applied for just such a transfer.
Terry Markdonnay now says, nineteen years into his sentence for
(04:11):
double murder that he identifies as a woman. He's also
undergoing hormone replacement therapy as a result. Like to know
if the taxpayers are paying for that one.
Speaker 3 (04:21):
Now He's not alone.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
The Daily Telegraph also reports says some fifty other inmates
inside the prison system who also identifies transgender. Well, we'll
soon see if it's legitimate. And Australia to exclude biological
males who identify as females from female only spaces. Because
it's confirmed today the ticle case, that decision from one
(04:43):
judge will now go on appeal to the full Federal
Court and last seeing anyone should want to deny anybody
trans people or otherwise are their ordinary human rights. But
what's the whole point of over one hundred years of
female fight to be empowered? What's the point of insisting
on complete quality of men and women if anyone can
(05:04):
claim to be a woman? Also makes a mockery that
about inside the Liberal Party, doesn't it for quotas. Let's
go there on that issue tonight, because I'll tell you
what the push from a shell shocked Liberal Party to
let anyone and everyone choose Liberal candidates rather than the
party itself that's been seismic across the country today. Now
(05:28):
according to the architect of this potential move to a
US style primary system, New South Wales Liberal front bench
of Julian Lisa Well, he thinks the Liberal Party should
choose from a short list of candidates and that all
the members of the general public in that electorate get
to choose, vote, but choose who will then become the
endorsed Liberal candidate. Here is Julian Lisa on ABC Radio,
(05:51):
of course, trying to explain his crazy plan.
Speaker 6 (05:56):
People who are not party members but who wanted to
participate in choosing their Liberal candidate could also play play
a role and select their candidate. What this would mean
is that people are not being selected behind closed doors anymore.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
Well, no, wouldn't, because the short list would still be
stitched up by the factions. Lisa also said it'll make
the Liberal Party better reflect their electorates.
Speaker 6 (06:22):
People would be able to be selected by a broader
range of Australians. That would ensure that members were more
representative of the broad spectrum of people who vote for
our party within electorate.
Speaker 2 (06:36):
Well wrong again, No, it wouldn't because it would allow
people who aren't committed enough to join the Liberal Party,
who may never have voted Liberal in their lives, to
then choose the Liberal candidate. And as with the related
argument for Jenda quotas, this confuses why the Liberal Party
was all but annihilated at the recent federal election.
Speaker 3 (06:57):
It wasn't for the lack of good candidate.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
It's could female candidates the Cole Flint, Amelia Hamer, Roe Knox,
Gisel Capterian, for instance, all excellent women chosen without quotas
and without any important selection systems.
Speaker 3 (07:11):
Through the US.
Speaker 2 (07:13):
A problem was not too few capable female candidates. It
was a lack of a strong national campaign and strong
alternative policies.
Speaker 3 (07:23):
So rather than look to the United.
Speaker 2 (07:24):
States, I say to Lisa, how about you go back
and look at what your own parties. Founder Robert Menzie
said on this very question, And I might add this
was in nineteen forty three, so revolutionary for the times.
Mensis said this, there's no reason why a qualified woman
should not sit in the parliament, or on the bench,
or in a professorial chair, or preach from the pulport, or,
(07:47):
if you like, command an army in the field. Mensi said,
I'm not half so interested in the sex, or social
position or world wealth of my representatives as I am.
They am in the soundness of their characters, the humanity
of their experience, is the santurity of their policy and
the strength of their wills. I'll tell you what, if
(08:09):
only these liberals near their history, they might actually get
themselves out of opposition and into government for a change.
Say what, I'm all for, Menzies. If you need to
read their history books, don't they. Let's got to cam
and out of the headlines, skyn this critical reporter camridden
good evening.
Speaker 8 (08:30):
Australia's pharmaceutical companies could be next in the firing line
for President Trump's tariffs.
Speaker 6 (08:35):
I'm going to give people about a year a year
and a half to come in and after that they're
going to be tariffed.
Speaker 9 (08:39):
Any tariffs against the sector should be opposed.
Speaker 8 (08:44):
But consumers won't have to pay more for their scripts.
That's because the Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme limits the price of
nearly one thousand medicines sold in Australia.
Speaker 5 (08:54):
The PBS is not for negotiation, it's not for sale.
Speaker 3 (08:58):
For Australian patients.
Speaker 10 (08:59):
They will still have that to their medicines, and Australian
prices weren't changed.
Speaker 8 (09:03):
Mortgage holders and small businesses are holding out for rate
relief on the twelfth of August after the Reserve Bank
decided not to cut rates on Tuesday.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
Obviously, it's a little bit disappointing that it didn't drop.
It's hater and we'll have the thing twice for.
Speaker 7 (09:16):
A How we spent putting that on pause just delays
a bit of joy.
Speaker 11 (09:21):
And a bit more confidence.
Speaker 8 (09:22):
Cameron Reddin's Sky News Canberra.
Speaker 2 (09:25):
All right, fairbit to get across. Joining me now from
the Women's Forum Australia, Jefanie Bastian and all the way
from Slovakia senior fellow at the Menses recar Center, Nick cat.
Speaker 3 (09:34):
Well, Welcome to you both. Nick.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
We'll start with the fallout from the cash rate yesterday
being left on hold, because pretty clear today that Jim
Chalmers was more than happy their play out. The fact
that the board was split sex members in favor of
the decision, three against.
Speaker 3 (09:48):
Have a listen.
Speaker 5 (09:50):
Obviously it will be a source of some interest that
the Reserve Bank Board was not unanimous on this occasion,
that there were different views expressed around the board table.
Speaker 3 (10:02):
And Kata.
Speaker 2 (10:03):
We only know this because labor changed the way the
bank operated last term and now, unlike the sort of
solidarity we see in a cabinet decision, you know, where
everything is private and everyone backs the ultimate decision, whether
they voted for it or not. In the case of
the RBA, their votes are made public and they're being
weaponized almost immediately here by the.
Speaker 10 (10:22):
Treasurer indeed, I mean the treasure. You know, if you
had any principle, it should say this is an independent board, rightly,
so they make the decisions. That's all I've got to
say on the matter. But the point is, as you know, Peter,
the Labor Party very successfully managed to persuade the electorate
at the last election that interest rates for nothing to
(10:43):
do with them. I mean, like me, I'm sure you
would have expected the Liberals to do very well in
those mortgage belt seats, you know, seats like Carwell for instance,
or where or were in out of western Sydney. But no,
we didn't win those voters. Those people with mortgages that
were really struggling did not come to the Liberal Party.
So I suspect Charmus was very successful in the first
(11:05):
term in distancing the Labor Party from interest rates, although
of course you and I know that because of fiscal policy,
they are one of the big factors in pushing inflation up.
Speaker 3 (11:18):
You're not wrong.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
Let's go to more troubling news are the childcare sector
the South Andnoonit's reported that there's a worker in a
childcare center in New South Wales who has also been
charged with accounts of intentionally touching children and eight children
here obviously are at risk. The man has pleaded guilty,
not guilty, but your pardon not guilty to the charges.
(11:40):
There's a report to in the City Morning Herald today.
The fifty one year old worked for the Affinity Education Center.
Now it's the same company that owns the one in
Victoria that Joshua Dale Brown was working out. He was
of course charged last week with seventy child sex offenses.
What's more, the Australian newspapers reporting to some five hundred
(12:01):
and sixty daycare centers are failing to meet the health
and safety standards we demand from them.
Speaker 3 (12:09):
I mean, Stephanie.
Speaker 2 (12:10):
I also note that the CEO of that company in question,
in Relasia to New South Wales and Victoria, earns something
like one point five million dollars a year. Now, these
are big for profit businesses, many of them, and they
cream off the taxpayer support.
Speaker 3 (12:27):
I mean, I really want an.
Speaker 2 (12:29):
Overhaul the childcare policy in this country. I want it
back in the hands of parents, and I want parents
to get choice and not be forced into a childcare
system which is obviously not safely regulated as we should expect.
Speaker 3 (12:46):
Well, good evening, Peter.
Speaker 9 (12:47):
Absolutely the only people that are benefiting from the childcare
system are big corporates and government creaming income tax of
parents returning to work. What we've learned this week is
that childcare centers aren't safe. The issues systemic, They're heavily ingrained,
and I'm not sure that any reforms are going to
root it out completely. But the other thing that we
need to be talking about is whether childcare is actually
(13:09):
good for children. There is emerging evidence, particularly from experts
like Erica Commonsa who's talking about the detrimental impacts to
children's mental health development if they go into care too young,
particularly under the age of three. And the number of
women I've spoken to too many to count who feel
like they are being driven back into the workforce too
(13:31):
early because they have no choice is really disappointing.
Speaker 3 (13:36):
We need serious overhaul.
Speaker 9 (13:38):
We need serious tax reform, income tax reform so that
parents can choose to keep their partner at home longer
to raise children. And also we need to, as you said, put.
Speaker 3 (13:49):
The power back into parents.
Speaker 9 (13:50):
We need to reform the CCS system so that parents
can choose how their children are cared for, whether that's
at home, by expanding the income sorry the in home
care system. What is happening right now isn't working and
parents do not have a choice and their children are
at risk in these healthcare centers.
Speaker 2 (14:11):
Even if you haven't got kids of a childcare age,
everyone's an aunt or an uncle, or a grandparent or
a taxpayer. I mean, sixteen billion dollars a year spent
for this unionized childcare sector. And I think this is
going to be a real debate ahead of the next election.
Speaker 3 (14:24):
And Nick, we had.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
Another speech to the National Press Club today, this one
from the CEO of the Smart Energy Counsel. I don't
think it's that smart, but that's it today. It's a
climate charity. And he said this.
Speaker 1 (14:38):
I'll tell you one other thing I see when I
go to China. One thing you can say about the
Chinese system is that China plays as a team and
Australia spends all of our time trying to tear each
other apart.
Speaker 2 (14:52):
As I said, not so smart. I mean, China is
the largest to emitter in the world. And part of
the reason there's a polar rice fine on energy in
this country is because a mob like this is incredibly political.
Speaker 3 (15:04):
We saw that during the campaign.
Speaker 10 (15:09):
Exactly, I mean to champion China are somehow some exemplar
in clean energy technology. It's almost as stupid as championing
Hamas for their LGBTQ policies. You know, it is ludicrous
that the reason that our smelters are struggling in Australia
is because the Chinese smelters use force labor, in many
(15:30):
cases very cheap labor, and they use states where dirty,
black and brown coal is abundant, so that's how they
make that stuff so cheaply. Sure, they're trying to clean
up the market and virtually have cleaned up the market
on things like solar panels and increasingly on electric vehicles.
That's an economic move by China. It's nothing at all
(15:51):
to do with saving the planet, and I don't believe
that the Chinese government would have a bar of the
kind of policies we've got that essentially economy measures.
Speaker 2 (16:04):
I went back to this issue floated yesterday by New
South Wales Federal Liberal front Bench and Julia Lisa floated yesterday.
I've talked about it again today. This is our idea
to bring into the Australian political scene, into the Liberal Party,
in particular US style primaries to pre select candidates. Stephanie
Bastian He's not talking about Liberals in an electorate choosing
(16:27):
their candidate. He's talking about an open race with anyone
who votes in that electorate. So Teal, Green, Labor, all
of them having a say on who the Liberals should
put forward at the election, and I think it's crackers.
Speaker 3 (16:42):
What do you think?
Speaker 9 (16:47):
It's absolutely insane the fact that this issue around quotas
is still going.
Speaker 3 (16:52):
I mean, get back to your policy base.
Speaker 9 (16:55):
What are voter's voting for the Greens candidate not invested
in the Liberal Party having a good quality candidate that's
going to win.
Speaker 3 (17:02):
They're not interested.
Speaker 9 (17:03):
This is absolutely ridiculous and a waste of the Liberal
Party's time. What they need to do is they need
to go back to their founding values. They need to
look at what economic reforms are going to bring.
Speaker 3 (17:14):
Liberal parties, the Liberal Party.
Speaker 9 (17:16):
Voters back to the party home ownership, lower income tax,
and go from there. It doesn't matter how many women
you pre select. Without a good policy base, there will
be they will not get elected.
Speaker 3 (17:30):
Nick.
Speaker 2 (17:30):
Someone made the point to me when I was talking
about this yesterday that, of course, if you go down
the US primary system route and the vying candidates have
to get their name recognition up across an electric wide vote,
not just amongst party members who might have known them
from some time. It's really going to favor someone with
deep pockets, which is exactly what happens in the United States.
(17:52):
But also it'll favor the factional pick because they will
be able to put money behind their preferred person. And
there's just no way a conservative will ever get pre selected,
even for the Liberal Party, because the labor type and
the green type are going to make sure they don't
get the job. I mean, as I said, I think
it's crackers.
Speaker 10 (18:14):
I think it's naive. It's not one Julian's smartest ideas,
to be honest, in my view. Peter, Oh, look, it's crazy.
I just hope it goes nowhere because the point is
that we need more members, committed members in the Liberal Party. Indeed,
every party needs more members. People who come out on
the day, who volunteer, will put them money in, will
contribute to fundraisers. That's what we need. And what's the
(18:36):
point of putting one hundred bucks over the table or
whatever it costs to become a member every year if
you don't even get a saying, or you get a
very watered down saying who your local member is. I
think all this stuff's crazy, Peter. I mean, sure, we
can have these discussions at some time, but they are
absolutely nothing to do with the important discussion we need
to have now, which is how to make the Liberal
Party electrible, Electra Electra electable again. Let me say one
(19:00):
thing on this women's business. Look, if this was the
answer to the women's the Liberals problems, just to feminize
the front bench, just to have a look at the UK,
they've had three women leaders of the Conservative Party in
the last ten years, they had the first Conservative Prime minister. Look,
that's not the issue for them at all. It's the
same as the issue is for the Liberal Party in Australia.
(19:22):
It's showing strong values and policies that are relevant to people.
Speaker 2 (19:27):
Two hundred percent. Of course, they don't have a quota.
They've had three female prime ministers. Labor does it hasn't
had any And of course you've got the Prime Minister
of the deputy two blokes here and they've won a
landslide with a lot of females voting for them. So
that is not the biggest part of the problem. Let's
just go quickly to the example out of New South
Wales today, the attempt by a double murderer, Stephanie to
(19:49):
get moved to a female prison because he now identifies
as a female and is taking hormone replacement therapy. There's
fifty other transgender pre in the system. I suspect this
won't be the last time as state has been asked
to rule on a decision like this.
Speaker 3 (20:06):
And of course this is why as.
Speaker 2 (20:07):
Cell Grover is appealing that a decision that went against
her in the Gigle and Tickle case, isn't.
Speaker 9 (20:13):
She absolutely and I mean New South Wales just last
week their sex self highd laws came into effect. So
our fear is what happens in the future when serious
murderers and sex offenders come into the system already legally women.
But it shouldn't be up to sal Grover to fight
(20:34):
this fight. The federal government could change this tomorrow. They
could reform the amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act. Instead,
they've left it to a woman whose business has been destroyed,
a mother, to fight this and to take it all
the way to the High Court. It's absolutely appalling and
I wish the opposition, the Liberal Party, would come out
and make some noise to put some pressure on the
(20:54):
government to reform the Sex Discrimination Acts. So women are
legally protected under the law.
Speaker 2 (21:01):
Just to you raise something very interesting in that response, sense, Stephanie,
help me understand this.
Speaker 3 (21:06):
So you're saying the case of say.
Speaker 2 (21:07):
Victoria, which has had the selfie D laws for some time,
so anyone at any given twelve month period can change
their gender in the eye of the Victorian legal system.
So if I was to call myself a man as
of tomorrow, I would be put into a male prison.
Speaker 3 (21:26):
That's what would happen.
Speaker 2 (21:27):
There's no way that in the case of the women
prison they could say we do not want a male
sex offender who might be transgender. We don't want a
male sex offender in our prison. You're saying that that
would all be a fatal complete.
Speaker 3 (21:42):
Correct.
Speaker 9 (21:42):
So what's happened is they've brought in sex selfi D
laws And this is in New South Wales, where you
only need to sign a piece of paper essentially to
be a legal woman having your sex marker on your
birth certificate change. So while they might be able to
prevent current inmates because there are restrictions round sex self
ID in the prison system, future perpetrator's future offenders who
(22:05):
come into the prison system would already be legally recognized
as women, therefore could go into female prisons. That's our
understanding of the current legislation.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
Wow, I might get a legal expert on that tomorrow
because I do not think that's been well ventilated in
the media today. Thank you Stephanie Bastian. Thank you to you,
Nick Cator. Enjoy at Slovakia. All right, before we gave
the break today, the Victorian Supreme Court was supposed to
hear that legal challenge by some members of the party's
powerful Administrative Committee against the decision made by that same
(22:37):
committee to controversially lend one point five million dollars to
John Pizuto in order that he settle his legal debts
and avoid bankruptcy. Well, in another twist, and there's been
plenty of them, that hearing today was abandoned now that
mediators have been appointed and they will try and resolve
the matter, but it will go back to court on
(22:57):
the twenty fifth of September. All right, after the break,
President Trump ramps up his retric on tariffs. Those concerns
not very well founded in relation to Australia's PBS, But
there's lots of other issues air plus talk of the
knife going through the senior ranks of the ADF. How
much of this as miles looking for escapegoat. Greg Sheridan
(23:19):
coming out, welcome Bock coming up. Well, Australia's a social
media ban for under sixteen's work comes in a little
later in the show, a little later in the year.
There are a fair amount of critics out there. We'll
talked to one of them in a moment, But first,
Donald Trump has again escalated his tariff war threats to
(23:42):
now put tariffs on of two hundred percent on foreign
drugs and fifty percent on copper. He's extended the deadline
as a reporter last night until the first of August.
But it still looks very unlikely that Australia will get
a deal. We can't even get a meeting. How we're
going to get a deal? Prime Minister Well, he's not
really sure where he stands on any of this. Let's
(24:02):
get in someone who can give us a bit of
a steer. Foreign Editor at Australian, Greg Sheridan, Well, what
do you make of the latest developments?
Speaker 3 (24:09):
Greek?
Speaker 4 (24:11):
Great to be with you, Peter and welcome back. Look,
it's a bad move by Trump. I think Trump's constant,
unstable tariff announcements, most of which are not ever implemented,
destabilizers global trade, destabilizes corporate investment, damages America's reputation, and
he doesn't have any consideration for allies. But it begs
(24:34):
this question of the Alberanesi government. Two things you'd want
from an Australian government. You'd want them to use their
wonderful insider access to Trump, based on all of our
fabulous associations with America, to get the best deal you
possibly could. And you'd want them to have a high productivity,
high growth, fabulous economic strategy for Australia. Well, the Alberanesi
(24:56):
government just fails dismally on both. And the pharmaceuticals, even
our pharmaceutical experts aren't that big about two billion dollars
to America, but they're one of the very few areas
where we can actually manufacture anything in Australia in our
high cost, super red tape, massively uncompetitive environment. They're one
(25:16):
of the few things we can actually manufacture and do
so competitively. And it would be a tragedy if they
got hit with these tariffs. God knows if Trump will
ever implement them.
Speaker 2 (25:29):
The pms off to Beijing and cheng Dao and Shanghai,
three cities on the visit, so it says, to meets
a substantial state visit. He heads off on Saturday. The
Chinese wanted on the trade table artificial intelligence and a
relaxation of our foreign investment laws. The Prime minister says,
(25:50):
we're not going to talk about either of them. What
are you looking for out of this visit? Because it
seems we're far more welcome in Beijing than our prime
minister might be in Washington.
Speaker 4 (26:03):
Yeah, so I think this might be the longest single
visit to any one country Albanesi has made as Prime minister.
I think the optics of that are bad. I don't
think Australia generally handles China policy very well. The Alberesi
government has completely reversed itself on its retoric from its
first year in office. It used to tell us these
(26:24):
were the most dangerous strategic times we'd have a face
since World War II. The only strategic danger was China
won't say anything about that. Now it just rolls over
and you know, lets its tummy be tickled and says
combay art of China. It is a good thing that
Albanesi has ruled out the artificial intelligence stuff and reviewing
the Foreign Investment Review Board. Now, if he hadn't ruled
(26:47):
that out, that would be absurd. The idea of an
artificial intelligence agreement with China, which is the chief source
of cyber attack and state espionage and commercial espionage against
Australia would be completely insane. So Alberanzi has lived up
to you the mere basic level of sanity. It's weird
(27:10):
that Alberesi gave such an anti American speech just before
he heads off to China. Not only can't he get
a meeting with Trump, it's not clear to me he
wants to go to Washington to have a meeting. It
just like an informal thing in the corridors. I just
think Albanese is reverting to type, to what he really believed.
All the hawkish stuff he used to say, I think
(27:31):
was just what he felt he had to say to
win an election. And here we are back with the
real Alberanesi, who doesn't take the China threat business seriously
and has never had a serious thought in his head
ever about national security.
Speaker 3 (27:45):
Pretty tough.
Speaker 2 (27:46):
And I have to say I agree with you, and
I think you're right. I think he just wants to
pull a side in the margins of a global event,
so you know, nothing much will come of it. He
can tick the box, he can come back to the
MEETIA and tell you, tell me, tell everybody that he's
had his meeting and to bugger off. We shouldn't keep
asking questions. But it's not about relationship building.
Speaker 4 (28:06):
That's right, that's right.
Speaker 3 (28:10):
No.
Speaker 4 (28:11):
I mean, if he thinks he has a relationship with Shejinping,
that's nonsense. I mean the Australian prime minister who spent
most time with Gijinping was Tony Abbott, and Tony Abott
did a very good job on foreign policy when he
was Prime minister, but that relationship didn't result in anything.
I mean, China does what it wants, what it thinks
is is in its benefit.
Speaker 3 (28:30):
Absolutely.
Speaker 4 (28:31):
But I wonder if I can I wonder if I
can have a very quick word on a topic we
did schedule, but I don't know if we've got time
for males. Has suggested he might sack. No.
Speaker 2 (28:41):
I will go to that, Greg because because this worries me,
I'll get to this because I'll just bring people in
at home, because I think this really does worry me.
There's talking's going to sack a whole lot of people
out of the senior ranks of not just the defense
departments and not just the public servants, but a whole
lot of uniformed senior eighty IF officers and commanders. How
(29:02):
much of this is serious reform that is needed? I mean,
I like small government, not big government. Or is this
about a skate goping gaping skate goating because the government's
in strife over defense, what do you think?
Speaker 4 (29:19):
Well, Peter, the government is deservedly in strife, and it
is responsible for the colossal mess and cock up of defense. Absolutely,
it's the government. It's responsible. However, I do think any
shakeup of the senior defense people is long overdue and
devoutly to be wished. When the Albanesi government was first elected,
(29:40):
I thought their original sin, their first big mistake, was
just to reappoint all the senior leadership of the Defense
department and the military. So they're all good people, they're
patriotic people. I've got nothing against any of them individually.
But the bottom line is this defense has failed time
after time after time, both the uniformed folks and the
(30:01):
Department of Defense, and all that ever happens is they
all get promoted. The only person who ever takes responsibility
in defense is a rank of corporal or below. Nobody
above corporal ever takes responsibility for anything. There's been an
insane explosion of star ranked officers at the senior level,
all doing nothing, you know, sitting around in committees. There's
(30:22):
no clear line of responsibility anywhere we you know, when
we first got friendly with Cambodia after the overthrow Paul
Pottensaw and we found that there were two thousand generals
in the Cambodian army and that was the first reform
suggestion we made was to sack all the generals. Well,
the Australian military is like that. Now We've got more
(30:43):
star officers per fighting soldier than I think we've ever
had in our history. Now I would like the whole
lot of them just to go away, because if you
were governed by the first ten pages of the Sydney
phone Book, you couldn't do worse than our defense organization
has done in the last ten years. Bring people in
from private enterprise, if the top echelon of defense is
(31:06):
no good. Reduce the size of the echelon by about
ninety percent, promote the second echelon, give them very clear responsibilities,
and let's go. I mean, we keep saying we're going
to buy off the shelf equipment, we're not going to
modify it. And yet every time you get a fiasco
like the hundred frigates, where Defense somehow or other buys
an experiment you know and not yet in production ship
(31:29):
and then modifies it to within an inch of its life.
And these hundred frigates, Each one of these ridiculous hundred
frigates is going to cost more than it cost to
build a Virginia class submarine. They're going to be wildly undergunned,
and we're not going to get any of them for
ten years. I mean, this is or nearly ten years.
This is madness.
Speaker 6 (31:47):
Now.
Speaker 4 (31:47):
If that level of performance doesn't justify clearing out the
whole corporate leadership, the whole lot of them, and trying
something new, I don't know what does. So Males deserves
all the blood for the mess we've had over the
last three years. But if he cleaned out the operational
lines of defense, military and civilian. I'd be very happy
(32:08):
about that.
Speaker 2 (32:10):
I think I I would agree with you at that score.
I tell you what, I'd like him to sack himself
on the way out though, but we'll.
Speaker 3 (32:16):
See what if that happens. Brickshidan, thank you.
Speaker 2 (32:19):
Let's move now to the new band that's coming in
play in Australia. Under sixteen year olds will be banned
from social media.
Speaker 3 (32:26):
It will be a world first.
Speaker 2 (32:27):
Now widely praised by some internationally and I without criticism.
There's accusations that labors rush this legislation through without thorough
consideration of the parameters of the restrictions.
Speaker 3 (32:40):
I also have to.
Speaker 2 (32:41):
Say it can't be all we do in this space
with children and devices, which brings me to my next guest.
Speaker 3 (32:48):
I heard her speak at ARK in London. She's fantastic.
Speaker 2 (32:52):
Sophie Wilcoreman, a UK actor and campaigner in this space,
and she's been leading calls to pull back on the
use of technology in our classroom. Please to say, she
joins me now from London. Sophy, thank you for coming
on the show in Australia because, as I said, I
thought your speech at ARP was fantastic. We are patting
ourselves on the back of this this change that will
come in at the end of the year regarding people
(33:13):
under the age of sixteen and social media. But I
think we think this is all we have to do.
Speaker 3 (33:20):
Have we got it right?
Speaker 11 (33:23):
Well, first of all, lovely to be here a great
fan of yours. I think it's impressive and exciting that
Australia are showing muscular pioneering action on this topic because
it's a great sign for other countries around the world
that they can't just be complacent and negligent anymore. So
I'm personally terribly grateful to Australia for being the first ones.
(33:45):
Apparently Brazil are doing something similar. I don't know if
you've got it right yet. I know there's some issues
on age verification. In terms of data security. I think
you've now allowed WhatsApp and YouTube. I think you guys
have now said that's okay. I don't think they're okay.
I'm having seen everything I've seen, I'm now pretty hardline
(34:06):
on all this stuff. And I don't actually know why
children need to have any Internet enabled device before they're sixteen,
let alone the contagion of it in the classrooms, which
I know are going to come onto.
Speaker 2 (34:19):
Yeah, a lot of people say that we really need
to go further, We need to take the devices out
of the classroom. I know there's some schools in Australia
that are putting back in handwriting. Our kids have lost
the art of writing with a pen and writing with
a pencil. Where do you stand on this?
Speaker 11 (34:35):
I stand very firmly in the camp of handwriting implants
learned information far more profoundly in the brain than typing
and swiping does. Reading a page from a book is
a far more deep way to learn than reading on
a screen where you just skim read. This has all
been clinically proven. Sweden showed a lot of muscle like
(34:55):
you guys are on the social media space on ed
tech and education, and they've basically said it was a
failed experiment and they're reinvesting in books, pen and paper,
and I really want the rest of the world's fuller suit.
But as ed tech is now a multi billion dollar business,
it's going to be a very tough hill to climb
because they are going to peddle this stuff pretending it's
(35:16):
superior to traditional methods even though it's been proven that
it really isn't and it's got to be parents and
teachers taking to the streets and saying no way.
Speaker 3 (35:28):
I mean you.
Speaker 2 (35:29):
Along with Darth and Heide, I think have been really
phenomenal in this space because we're having a conversation that
we just weren't having two or three years ago. Everyone
thought that the advance of TIKE through the classroom was
just more and more of it.
Speaker 3 (35:41):
We couldn't get enough.
Speaker 2 (35:42):
And now we're really asking ourselves whether we need to
get it right out. And of course we've got AI
on the doorstep.
Speaker 11 (35:50):
Absolutely. AI is a slightly separate topic in that I
think it can be okay for some sixteen to eighteen
year olds to work out how to use it. I'm
not a big fan of it in the school space,
but I want children to be digitally literate. But there's
a big difference between knowing how to use a computer
and knowing how to navigate the Internet and being in
(36:12):
there being a contagion of this stuff in every single subject,
and that's what people are getting very angry about. Also,
gazing at a screen all day is incredibly unhealthy. It's
bad for it gives children headaches, it's bad for their eyesight,
it's bad for their hormone production. It's bad for their posture,
it's bad for their sleep.
Speaker 1 (36:31):
We should all.
Speaker 3 (36:32):
Say no to this way of learning.
Speaker 11 (36:34):
It's cerebrally not as good as handwriting and reading, and
it's physically incredibly unhealthy.
Speaker 3 (36:42):
Well, and I'm going to keep out the fight.
Speaker 2 (36:43):
Thank you very much for joining us tonight in Australia,
so I feel, and they from London. A reminder too.
Ak will have a conference in June next day. Those
details are online. She's also remember the British royal family.
I hear what she's got an era of pretty important
people there. I hope this fight and conversation continues.
Speaker 3 (37:01):
Or right after the break, a.
Speaker 2 (37:01):
Lawyer's been slammed or has slammed the eightyf for failing
to act on sexual abuse within its ranks. Plus medicinal cannabis, it's.
Speaker 3 (37:10):
A free for all. I'll tell you what.
Speaker 2 (37:12):
There's a bit of big game going on here. That's
after the break. The wonderful Kelvirich's is coming up. One
of my words is in the mix today, but let's
bring the panel first. Guy and His contributed to Jamie
Rodgers and Nationals Senator for Queensland. The Lymp's Matt Canavan.
Let's start with a pretty controversial appointment today, the first
(37:35):
public service that was sacked by the Christophildy government. Well
he's landed a big new plum job, almost a million
dollar salary in Canberra. His name is Mike Kaiser and
he's going to head up the federal government's Department of
Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water.
Speaker 3 (37:51):
I'll tell you what.
Speaker 2 (37:52):
It was a controversial bloke as a staffer, as an MP,
as a political campaign and Matt so his appointment to
the Climate portfolio, it's pretty telling.
Speaker 12 (38:05):
Well true, Peter. Look, I think there should be a
new Minister for Energy, not a new Secretary for Energy.
I'd much prefer that change, given what's happened to electricity
prices under the first term of this Labor government and
under of course Chris Baren's watch. In terms of mister Kaiser,
I haven't had a lot to do with him. I
did deal with him on the Olympics last year and look,
(38:26):
I must say I found him very professional and a
great guy. And I do say too, Look, I do
think it's the right of an elected government to appoint
the people they think will implement their agenda in at
the public service, and Mike Kaiser made that point when
he was dismissed by the incoming LMP government. He did
so with an enormous amount of grace and he did Indeed,
(38:49):
he received praise from Premier Christa fully for the professionalism
with which he transitioned government to the LMP, and he said, look,
it's up to the LMP to decide who appoints there,
who their secretarial appointments are, and he took it with
good grace and left. So look, I'm going to I'll
give him a go. I just hope that all public
servants conduct their job in the best interests of this country. Sure,
(39:13):
they are there to implement a democratically elected government's agenda,
but they are also there to be accountable to the
nation's Parliament and that's what I'm looking forward to get
back to doing when we're back in camera.
Speaker 2 (39:28):
You are more charitable than me, because I remember when
Tony havebn't removed a few appointees as Secretary Labor screamed
like cut cats. There was a carry on in the
media and of course when they do the same thing,
it's all absolutely the right sort of process. So you're,
as I said, more charitable than me, Jamie, welcome to
the program. I'm great you're joining us. I'm great to
(39:49):
say that you are joining us. And please to say
you're joining us every Wednesday too. This constant debate about
sexual abuse in the ADYF. We talk a lot about
how many play we're buying, you know, how much we.
Speaker 3 (40:01):
Spend on defense.
Speaker 2 (40:03):
But we had a royal commission not so long ago,
and the commissioner says that none of those recommendations were
acted upon. This as Gary rumble. And we've also got
the outgoing Defense Minister, Senator Linda Reynolds, who also herself
was an Army brigadier say, why and worth would any
girl want.
Speaker 3 (40:23):
To enlist in the military.
Speaker 2 (40:24):
Why would a parent want their daughter to enlist in
the military.
Speaker 3 (40:28):
If we've had a decade to sort this out, why
haven't we.
Speaker 13 (40:34):
Peter, It's beyond disappointing. The ADF have just shown that
they're incapable of being able to have that cultural reform
which is so desperately needed to provide a safe environment
for females but also just an environment for respect that
both male and female. And what we've seen is that
the female participation within the ADYF is at twenty one
percent and hasn't increased at all since twenty twenty one.
(40:57):
And what came out in that Commission report handed out
last year was the level of suicide. So ex service
women who have been exposed to alleged sexual abuse or misconduct,
they're twice as likely to take their own life then
compared to females out in.
Speaker 3 (41:13):
The broader public. So it's not good enough.
Speaker 13 (41:15):
And the fact that we have seen this week a
spokeswoman from the Labor government to say that they've got
an internal task force that are going to start implementing
these recommendations. As you said, this is now more than
a decade. She has said it's going to take time
to be able to implement these changes. But we've already
had more than ten years the ADF go out and
look after all of the Australians and yet we can't
(41:38):
protect the females that are out there risking their lives.
We don't want time, We want to get this done
right now. It is time for change.
Speaker 2 (41:47):
And what I had been it was the Defense Minister too.
We also had another woman, Maurice Paine, and none of
this changed.
Speaker 3 (41:52):
Under their watch. So it is it systemic.
Speaker 2 (41:54):
Let's go to the story today about the cracking down
by the medical watchdog CAVAN on all of these doctors
and almost an industry of companies writing thousands of scripts
a month for so called medicinal cannabis. Some of these
consultations last a couple of seconds, additioning out prescriptions to kids.
(42:14):
We've got people ending up for some of them suffering
from psychosis.
Speaker 3 (42:19):
Just the other day I spoke to Ian.
Speaker 2 (42:20):
Hickey, he's a Brain and Mind center psychiatrists in the UNI,
and he was pretty blunt on what's happening here about
the commercialization of medical cannabis.
Speaker 3 (42:29):
Have a listen.
Speaker 14 (42:31):
Australia has had a pretty liberal attitude of medicinal cannabis
as well. He's really driven by commercial interests. And you know,
we've had great trouble with tobacco, alcohol, other substances. We
don't need to add this to the mix.
Speaker 2 (42:43):
And some of this, Matt's about the drive to have
US legalized cannabis. Of course, like the United States, surely
we've got to rain this in.
Speaker 12 (42:54):
I agree with you on this, Peter. I think the
experience from the United States is very instructive. When you
go sometimes two towns in the US there, there's just
areas that are that are that are completely wiped out.
They're they're they're they're doped out quite literally with the
free availability of cannabis. Of course, in those cities, it's
(43:15):
not just for medicinal purposes. It's available for recreational use.
And look, the idea was, Look, I mean, marijuana is
not as bad as some other drugs, so maybe we should
let consenting adults do this. But I just don't think
it's something we want freely and widely available. At the
same time, of course, we don't get around locking up
people for using marijuana. That doesn't happen. But once you
(43:35):
make it the law, you give it a certain sanction
and you get more widespread use of it. And it's
just not something I think we want, and I think
it's turned many American cities to the worst. I would
not like to see that here.
Speaker 3 (43:47):
Now.
Speaker 12 (43:47):
I support in that regard that I support medicinal cannabis
for medicinal uses, but the law should be implemented and
it's clearly not at the moment, So welcome this crackdown.
I worry if we don't get this sort of crackdown,
the people who do need cannabis for for for for
reasonable pain relif purposes, we'll have it taken away as well.
Speaker 2 (44:05):
Yeah, just like the really effective policing, not the vaping
law was brought in by the government. Let's go to
more in relation to what happened in Victoria over the weekend.
The Israeli restaurant Needs None, which is in Hardware Lane,
was attacked. Of course, we know on Friday night. There's
a man in custody tonight because at the time of
(44:25):
the attack he was actually on bail for threatening to
kill someone at an earlier protest. Now, fortunately here, Jamie,
thank god we had a sensible magistrate at the bench
in this occasion because he's decided to keep this guy
behind bars tonight. That doesn't often happen in Victoria, I
have to say. But you got to say there's a
(44:45):
stain on Victoria at the moment with what's happened.
Speaker 13 (44:51):
There really is Peter and this gentleman who is now
behind bars. When you mentioned how he threatened, allegedly threatened
to kill someone at another protest, that person had just
asked him to please stop having pro Palestinian chance and
a loud speaker, and he also allegedly spat in someone's face.
These people think that they are above the law. And
even when he is out on bail and told not
(45:13):
to go into the CBD, he goes and does it anyway.
It's been reported that he lives in Housing Commission and
doesn't have a job, and instead the taxpayer is funding
for him to go and be at demonstrations that are
violent and they're intimidating and they have no place in
Australian democracy. And unfortunately, Peter, what we're seeing, especially what
we saw in Victoria last week, is that anti Semitism
(45:35):
is starting to become so normalized in Australia. We need
to ensure that we're standing up and stopping it and
making sure that people like this gentleman remain behind bars
and really set an example that this behavior is not
acceptable here in Australia and it's time to stop.
Speaker 2 (45:53):
Great have you on board, Jamie. Great to have you
on show tonight as well. Always good to have you
at Canavan. See you again soon, Rake Helm, welcome back,
as he joins me every Wednesday, he's here again tonight.
Kel Richards, this one's one from me. Kell I use
it often, and I used it yesterday and someone said,
(46:15):
what the heck does that mean?
Speaker 3 (46:16):
I said, I actually don't really know, but my.
Speaker 2 (46:18):
Mother used to say it, and I use it all
the time. I'll say, gosh, you look like the wreck
of the Hesperus.
Speaker 15 (46:25):
Help me out, Okay, what it means is very disorderly
or very untidy. You know, you can say, oh, this
office looks like the wreck of the Hesperus when it's
a mess and there are bits of paper everywhere. It
comes from a poem by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow published in
eighteen forty two, called the Wreck of the Hesperus. Now,
the poem itself is very popular, telling a very sad
story about a real shipwreck in the in the blizzard
(46:47):
of eighteen thirty nine, and it was hugely popular in America.
But over time, over about fifty years, people forgot about
the sad, grim story the poem told and only remember
the title. So the reck of the hespers became a
leading little phrase to say what a wreck. This is
first recorded in a newspaper in eighteen ninety seven, so
(47:08):
a bit over fifty years after the poem was originally published,
it had entered the colloquial language as a way of
saying what a wreck.
Speaker 2 (47:18):
Well, I must say I use it in context. Now
I know what the origins are. Thank you very much.
Hey John wants to know where does the term back
to square one come from?
Speaker 3 (47:29):
And he says, what does it mean?
Speaker 15 (47:31):
It means going back to the beginning, going right back
to the start. There are two stories. One is a
myth and the other is the truth. The myth is
it goes back to nineteen twenty seven when the BBC
began radio broadcast of football games and they were terrified
that listeners wouldn't understand what was going on, so they
published little maps of the field dividing the paddock into
eight squares and used the callers used that it was
(47:54):
a rubbish system. It never really caught on and they
got rid of it after a couple of years. But
people kept saying that's where it comes from. It does not,
because that was nineteen twenty seven. The expression is not
recorded till nineteen fifty two, and it actually comes from
the children's board game Snakes and Ladders. That's where you
get back to square one.
Speaker 2 (48:15):
Ah Tony says, my granddaughters want to know where's the
whether the phrase mums the word come from.
Speaker 15 (48:22):
Very old back in the fifteen hundreds, to mum meant
to speak with your lips closed, and to speak very unclearly.
We get our word mumble from that, and actors and
acrobats who performed in patomime without speaking will call mummers.
So it's from that sort of source, from the fifteen
hundreds that we get this idea of mum's the word
keep your lips sealed.
Speaker 3 (48:44):
And it's not from the mums we love. There.
Speaker 2 (48:46):
You go, cal teach me something every time. See you
next week.
Speaker 3 (48:49):
That's it. Ferent me to negga to Georgia. Up next
for Andrew
Peter Kredland live on Sky News Australia.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Good evening, welcome to the program. Here's what's coming up
tonight on Kredlin. The IBA's decision to keep rates on
hold yesterday now being weaponized by the Treasurer. It's not
in the national interest to cynically use our central bank
to play politics. I'll have more to say on that
in the moment. Dozens of top eightyf brass face the chop.
The government's preparing a sweeping overhaul. Now we know the
(00:29):
defense is a bit of a mess, but I can't
help but thinking this is Richard Miles trying to find
escapegoat rather than genuine reform. Greg Sheridan a little later,
plus two major smelters on life support tonight, the Government's
all but confirmed a taxpayer bailout.
Speaker 3 (00:45):
It's amazing, isn't it.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
How labor, we'll spend your money to fix a problem
of their own net zero making. And Donald Trump ramps
up his tariff war. The threat of pharmaceuticals now the
latest in the fiery line, sending panic waves about what
this means for Austraight year's PBS.
Speaker 4 (01:03):
They're going to be tariffed at a very very high rate,
like two hundred percent.
Speaker 5 (01:07):
Our pharmaceutical benefit scheme is not something that willing to
were willing to trade away or do deals on.
Speaker 6 (01:13):
That won't change.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
Now there's some scam angering on that today. I'll get
to what really might happen with pharmaceuticals a little later
in the show, but first they're coming more subsidies out
of your pocket to cover up for the government's policy mistakes.
Very soon, says the Prime Minister, his government will announce
a baila for two failing smelters, one of them in Tasmania,
were Labour hopes to win this month's state election.
Speaker 7 (01:39):
It is very close too, because there are three governments.
The Industry Ministry is coordinating that effort and I would
hope that there would be an announcement soon about that.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
But it's not the zinc smelter alone in Hobart or
the lead smelter in Port Pirie getting tens, if not
hundreds of millions of dollars if your money. There's also
the steel plant at Wayela, plus smelters at Mount iSER
at tom Ago and bell Bay in Tasmania. They are
all in trouble and they're all seeking government support. If
(02:14):
they are to survive. It's claimed that the problem with
the Neo Star smelters is subsidized quote subsidized Chinese competition.
But at least part of the so called subsidy is
cheaper power in China, cheaper than we have in Australia,
because China refuses to let emissions reduction trump the supply
of affordable and reliable electricity as we once had in Australia.
(02:37):
The Prime Minister's right, we can't afford to lose these
vital industries, these heavy industries out of Australia. But what
about changing the government policies that are making these plants
uneconomic in the first place? What about ending them at
zero madness that's sending Australian jobs off shore. Because unless
that happens, throwing more and more taxpayer billions at the problem,
(03:00):
it's like putting a band aid on a bullet. Woon't
now is a trans woman a woman for the purposes
of Australian law?
Speaker 1 (03:13):
You know?
Speaker 2 (03:13):
A British court has recently declared that it's biology that
determines our sex, not personal choice, and now our higher
court here is being invited to make that same finding.
Speaker 3 (03:25):
Last year a single.
Speaker 2 (03:26):
Judge at the Federal Court held that it was unlawful
for a woman only app to exclude a trans woman
roxand Tickle, who of course is also a biological male. Now,
in the Tickle case, Justice Robert Bromich found that quote
sex is changeable, something as I said, the highest court
in the UK has just rejected. But if that decision
(03:49):
from Justice Bromwich stands here, we're likely to soon find
courts declaring that male rapists or murderers have a right
to be incarcerated in a women's prisons simply because they
identify as women. Right now, a male murderer double murder
in New South Wales has applied for just such a transfer.
Terry Markdonnay now says, nineteen years into his sentence for
(04:11):
double murder that he identifies as a woman. He's also
undergoing hormone replacement therapy as a result. Like to know
if the taxpayers are paying for that one.
Speaker 3 (04:21):
Now He's not alone.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
The Daily Telegraph also reports says some fifty other inmates
inside the prison system who also identifies transgender. Well, we'll
soon see if it's legitimate. And Australia to exclude biological
males who identify as females from female only spaces. Because
it's confirmed today the ticle case, that decision from one
(04:43):
judge will now go on appeal to the full Federal
Court and last seeing anyone should want to deny anybody
trans people or otherwise are their ordinary human rights. But
what's the whole point of over one hundred years of
female fight to be empowered? What's the point of insisting
on complete quality of men and women if anyone can
(05:04):
claim to be a woman? Also makes a mockery that
about inside the Liberal Party, doesn't it for quotas. Let's
go there on that issue tonight, because I'll tell you
what the push from a shell shocked Liberal Party to
let anyone and everyone choose Liberal candidates rather than the
party itself that's been seismic across the country today. Now
(05:28):
according to the architect of this potential move to a
US style primary system, New South Wales Liberal front bench
of Julian Lisa Well, he thinks the Liberal Party should
choose from a short list of candidates and that all
the members of the general public in that electorate get
to choose, vote, but choose who will then become the
endorsed Liberal candidate. Here is Julian Lisa on ABC Radio,
(05:51):
of course, trying to explain his crazy plan.
Speaker 6 (05:56):
People who are not party members but who wanted to
participate in choosing their Liberal candidate could also play play
a role and select their candidate. What this would mean
is that people are not being selected behind closed doors anymore.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
Well, no, wouldn't, because the short list would still be
stitched up by the factions. Lisa also said it'll make
the Liberal Party better reflect their electorates.
Speaker 6 (06:22):
People would be able to be selected by a broader
range of Australians. That would ensure that members were more
representative of the broad spectrum of people who vote for
our party within electorate.
Speaker 2 (06:36):
Well wrong again, No, it wouldn't because it would allow
people who aren't committed enough to join the Liberal Party,
who may never have voted Liberal in their lives, to
then choose the Liberal candidate. And as with the related
argument for Jenda quotas, this confuses why the Liberal Party
was all but annihilated at the recent federal election.
Speaker 3 (06:57):
It wasn't for the lack of good candidate.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
It's could female candidates the Cole Flint, Amelia Hamer, Roe Knox,
Gisel Capterian, for instance, all excellent women chosen without quotas
and without any important selection systems.
Speaker 3 (07:11):
Through the US.
Speaker 2 (07:13):
A problem was not too few capable female candidates. It
was a lack of a strong national campaign and strong
alternative policies.
Speaker 3 (07:23):
So rather than look to the United.
Speaker 2 (07:24):
States, I say to Lisa, how about you go back
and look at what your own parties. Founder Robert Menzie
said on this very question, And I might add this
was in nineteen forty three, so revolutionary for the times.
Mensis said this, there's no reason why a qualified woman
should not sit in the parliament, or on the bench,
or in a professorial chair, or preach from the pulport, or,
(07:47):
if you like, command an army in the field. Mensi said,
I'm not half so interested in the sex, or social
position or world wealth of my representatives as I am.
They am in the soundness of their characters, the humanity
of their experience, is the santurity of their policy and
the strength of their wills. I'll tell you what, if
(08:09):
only these liberals near their history, they might actually get
themselves out of opposition and into government for a change.
Say what, I'm all for, Menzies. If you need to
read their history books, don't they. Let's got to cam
and out of the headlines, skyn this critical reporter camridden
good evening.
Speaker 8 (08:30):
Australia's pharmaceutical companies could be next in the firing line
for President Trump's tariffs.
Speaker 6 (08:35):
I'm going to give people about a year a year
and a half to come in and after that they're
going to be tariffed.
Speaker 9 (08:39):
Any tariffs against the sector should be opposed.
Speaker 8 (08:44):
But consumers won't have to pay more for their scripts.
That's because the Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme limits the price of
nearly one thousand medicines sold in Australia.
Speaker 5 (08:54):
The PBS is not for negotiation, it's not for sale.
Speaker 3 (08:58):
For Australian patients.
Speaker 10 (08:59):
They will still have that to their medicines, and Australian
prices weren't changed.
Speaker 8 (09:03):
Mortgage holders and small businesses are holding out for rate
relief on the twelfth of August after the Reserve Bank
decided not to cut rates on Tuesday.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
Obviously, it's a little bit disappointing that it didn't drop.
It's hater and we'll have the thing twice for.
Speaker 7 (09:16):
A How we spent putting that on pause just delays
a bit of joy.
Speaker 11 (09:21):
And a bit more confidence.
Speaker 8 (09:22):
Cameron Reddin's Sky News Canberra.
Speaker 2 (09:25):
All right, fairbit to get across. Joining me now from
the Women's Forum Australia, Jefanie Bastian and all the way
from Slovakia senior fellow at the Menses recar Center, Nick cat.
Speaker 3 (09:34):
Well, Welcome to you both. Nick.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
We'll start with the fallout from the cash rate yesterday
being left on hold, because pretty clear today that Jim
Chalmers was more than happy their play out. The fact
that the board was split sex members in favor of
the decision, three against.
Speaker 3 (09:48):
Have a listen.
Speaker 5 (09:50):
Obviously it will be a source of some interest that
the Reserve Bank Board was not unanimous on this occasion,
that there were different views expressed around the board table.
Speaker 3 (10:02):
And Kata.
Speaker 2 (10:03):
We only know this because labor changed the way the
bank operated last term and now, unlike the sort of
solidarity we see in a cabinet decision, you know, where
everything is private and everyone backs the ultimate decision, whether
they voted for it or not. In the case of
the RBA, their votes are made public and they're being
weaponized almost immediately here by the.
Speaker 10 (10:22):
Treasurer indeed, I mean the treasure. You know, if you
had any principle, it should say this is an independent board, rightly,
so they make the decisions. That's all I've got to
say on the matter. But the point is, as you know, Peter,
the Labor Party very successfully managed to persuade the electorate
at the last election that interest rates for nothing to
(10:43):
do with them. I mean, like me, I'm sure you
would have expected the Liberals to do very well in
those mortgage belt seats, you know, seats like Carwell for instance,
or where or were in out of western Sydney. But no,
we didn't win those voters. Those people with mortgages that
were really struggling did not come to the Liberal Party.
So I suspect Charmus was very successful in the first
(11:05):
term in distancing the Labor Party from interest rates, although
of course you and I know that because of fiscal policy,
they are one of the big factors in pushing inflation up.
Speaker 3 (11:18):
You're not wrong.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
Let's go to more troubling news are the childcare sector
the South Andnoonit's reported that there's a worker in a
childcare center in New South Wales who has also been
charged with accounts of intentionally touching children and eight children
here obviously are at risk. The man has pleaded guilty,
not guilty, but your pardon not guilty to the charges.
(11:40):
There's a report to in the City Morning Herald today.
The fifty one year old worked for the Affinity Education Center.
Now it's the same company that owns the one in
Victoria that Joshua Dale Brown was working out. He was
of course charged last week with seventy child sex offenses.
What's more, the Australian newspapers reporting to some five hundred
(12:01):
and sixty daycare centers are failing to meet the health
and safety standards we demand from them.
Speaker 3 (12:09):
I mean, Stephanie.
Speaker 2 (12:10):
I also note that the CEO of that company in question,
in Relasia to New South Wales and Victoria, earns something
like one point five million dollars a year. Now, these
are big for profit businesses, many of them, and they
cream off the taxpayer support.
Speaker 3 (12:27):
I mean, I really want an.
Speaker 2 (12:29):
Overhaul the childcare policy in this country. I want it
back in the hands of parents, and I want parents
to get choice and not be forced into a childcare
system which is obviously not safely regulated as we should expect.
Speaker 3 (12:46):
Well, good evening, Peter.
Speaker 9 (12:47):
Absolutely the only people that are benefiting from the childcare
system are big corporates and government creaming income tax of
parents returning to work. What we've learned this week is
that childcare centers aren't safe. The issues systemic, They're heavily ingrained,
and I'm not sure that any reforms are going to
root it out completely. But the other thing that we
need to be talking about is whether childcare is actually
(13:09):
good for children. There is emerging evidence, particularly from experts
like Erica Commonsa who's talking about the detrimental impacts to
children's mental health development if they go into care too young,
particularly under the age of three. And the number of
women I've spoken to too many to count who feel
like they are being driven back into the workforce too
(13:31):
early because they have no choice is really disappointing.
Speaker 3 (13:36):
We need serious overhaul.
Speaker 9 (13:38):
We need serious tax reform, income tax reform so that
parents can choose to keep their partner at home longer
to raise children. And also we need to, as you said, put.
Speaker 3 (13:49):
The power back into parents.
Speaker 9 (13:50):
We need to reform the CCS system so that parents
can choose how their children are cared for, whether that's
at home, by expanding the income sorry the in home
care system. What is happening right now isn't working and
parents do not have a choice and their children are
at risk in these healthcare centers.
Speaker 2 (14:11):
Even if you haven't got kids of a childcare age,
everyone's an aunt or an uncle, or a grandparent or
a taxpayer. I mean, sixteen billion dollars a year spent
for this unionized childcare sector. And I think this is
going to be a real debate ahead of the next election.
Speaker 3 (14:24):
And Nick, we had.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
Another speech to the National Press Club today, this one
from the CEO of the Smart Energy Counsel. I don't
think it's that smart, but that's it today. It's a
climate charity. And he said this.
Speaker 1 (14:38):
I'll tell you one other thing I see when I
go to China. One thing you can say about the
Chinese system is that China plays as a team and
Australia spends all of our time trying to tear each
other apart.
Speaker 2 (14:52):
As I said, not so smart. I mean, China is
the largest to emitter in the world. And part of
the reason there's a polar rice fine on energy in
this country is because a mob like this is incredibly political.
Speaker 3 (15:04):
We saw that during the campaign.
Speaker 10 (15:09):
Exactly, I mean to champion China are somehow some exemplar
in clean energy technology. It's almost as stupid as championing
Hamas for their LGBTQ policies. You know, it is ludicrous
that the reason that our smelters are struggling in Australia
is because the Chinese smelters use force labor, in many
(15:30):
cases very cheap labor, and they use states where dirty,
black and brown coal is abundant, so that's how they
make that stuff so cheaply. Sure, they're trying to clean
up the market and virtually have cleaned up the market
on things like solar panels and increasingly on electric vehicles.
That's an economic move by China. It's nothing at all
(15:51):
to do with saving the planet, and I don't believe
that the Chinese government would have a bar of the
kind of policies we've got that essentially economy measures.
Speaker 2 (16:04):
I went back to this issue floated yesterday by New
South Wales Federal Liberal front Bench and Julia Lisa floated yesterday.
I've talked about it again today. This is our idea
to bring into the Australian political scene, into the Liberal Party,
in particular US style primaries to pre select candidates. Stephanie
Bastian He's not talking about Liberals in an electorate choosing
(16:27):
their candidate. He's talking about an open race with anyone
who votes in that electorate. So Teal, Green, Labor, all
of them having a say on who the Liberals should
put forward at the election, and I think it's crackers.
Speaker 3 (16:42):
What do you think?
Speaker 9 (16:47):
It's absolutely insane the fact that this issue around quotas
is still going.
Speaker 3 (16:52):
I mean, get back to your policy base.
Speaker 9 (16:55):
What are voter's voting for the Greens candidate not invested
in the Liberal Party having a good quality candidate that's
going to win.
Speaker 3 (17:02):
They're not interested.
Speaker 9 (17:03):
This is absolutely ridiculous and a waste of the Liberal
Party's time. What they need to do is they need
to go back to their founding values. They need to
look at what economic reforms are going to bring.
Speaker 3 (17:14):
Liberal parties, the Liberal Party.
Speaker 9 (17:16):
Voters back to the party home ownership, lower income tax,
and go from there. It doesn't matter how many women
you pre select. Without a good policy base, there will
be they will not get elected.
Speaker 3 (17:30):
Nick.
Speaker 2 (17:30):
Someone made the point to me when I was talking
about this yesterday that, of course, if you go down
the US primary system route and the vying candidates have
to get their name recognition up across an electric wide vote,
not just amongst party members who might have known them
from some time. It's really going to favor someone with
deep pockets, which is exactly what happens in the United States.
(17:52):
But also it'll favor the factional pick because they will
be able to put money behind their preferred person. And
there's just no way a conservative will ever get pre selected,
even for the Liberal Party, because the labor type and
the green type are going to make sure they don't
get the job. I mean, as I said, I think
it's crackers.
Speaker 10 (18:14):
I think it's naive. It's not one Julian's smartest ideas,
to be honest, in my view. Peter, Oh, look, it's crazy.
I just hope it goes nowhere because the point is
that we need more members, committed members in the Liberal Party. Indeed,
every party needs more members. People who come out on
the day, who volunteer, will put them money in, will
contribute to fundraisers. That's what we need. And what's the
(18:36):
point of putting one hundred bucks over the table or
whatever it costs to become a member every year if
you don't even get a saying, or you get a
very watered down saying who your local member is. I
think all this stuff's crazy, Peter. I mean, sure, we
can have these discussions at some time, but they are
absolutely nothing to do with the important discussion we need
to have now, which is how to make the Liberal
Party electrible, Electra Electra electable again. Let me say one
(19:00):
thing on this women's business. Look, if this was the
answer to the women's the Liberals problems, just to feminize
the front bench, just to have a look at the UK,
they've had three women leaders of the Conservative Party in
the last ten years, they had the first Conservative Prime minister. Look,
that's not the issue for them at all. It's the
same as the issue is for the Liberal Party in Australia.
(19:22):
It's showing strong values and policies that are relevant to people.
Speaker 2 (19:27):
Two hundred percent. Of course, they don't have a quota.
They've had three female prime ministers. Labor does it hasn't
had any And of course you've got the Prime Minister
of the deputy two blokes here and they've won a
landslide with a lot of females voting for them. So
that is not the biggest part of the problem. Let's
just go quickly to the example out of New South
Wales today, the attempt by a double murderer, Stephanie to
(19:49):
get moved to a female prison because he now identifies
as a female and is taking hormone replacement therapy. There's
fifty other transgender pre in the system. I suspect this
won't be the last time as state has been asked
to rule on a decision like this.
Speaker 3 (20:06):
And of course this is why as.
Speaker 2 (20:07):
Cell Grover is appealing that a decision that went against
her in the Gigle and Tickle case, isn't.
Speaker 9 (20:13):
She absolutely and I mean New South Wales just last
week their sex self highd laws came into effect. So
our fear is what happens in the future when serious
murderers and sex offenders come into the system already legally women.
But it shouldn't be up to sal Grover to fight
(20:34):
this fight. The federal government could change this tomorrow. They
could reform the amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act. Instead,
they've left it to a woman whose business has been destroyed,
a mother, to fight this and to take it all
the way to the High Court. It's absolutely appalling and
I wish the opposition, the Liberal Party, would come out
and make some noise to put some pressure on the
(20:54):
government to reform the Sex Discrimination Acts. So women are
legally protected under the law.
Speaker 2 (21:01):
Just to you raise something very interesting in that response, sense, Stephanie,
help me understand this.
Speaker 3 (21:06):
So you're saying the case of say.
Speaker 2 (21:07):
Victoria, which has had the selfie D laws for some time,
so anyone at any given twelve month period can change
their gender in the eye of the Victorian legal system.
So if I was to call myself a man as
of tomorrow, I would be put into a male prison.
Speaker 3 (21:26):
That's what would happen.
Speaker 2 (21:27):
There's no way that in the case of the women
prison they could say we do not want a male
sex offender who might be transgender. We don't want a
male sex offender in our prison. You're saying that that
would all be a fatal complete.
Speaker 3 (21:42):
Correct.
Speaker 9 (21:42):
So what's happened is they've brought in sex selfi D
laws And this is in New South Wales, where you
only need to sign a piece of paper essentially to
be a legal woman having your sex marker on your
birth certificate change. So while they might be able to
prevent current inmates because there are restrictions round sex self
ID in the prison system, future perpetrator's future offenders who
(22:05):
come into the prison system would already be legally recognized
as women, therefore could go into female prisons. That's our
understanding of the current legislation.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
Wow, I might get a legal expert on that tomorrow
because I do not think that's been well ventilated in
the media today. Thank you Stephanie Bastian. Thank you to you,
Nick Cator. Enjoy at Slovakia. All right, before we gave
the break today, the Victorian Supreme Court was supposed to
hear that legal challenge by some members of the party's
powerful Administrative Committee against the decision made by that same
(22:37):
committee to controversially lend one point five million dollars to
John Pizuto in order that he settle his legal debts
and avoid bankruptcy. Well, in another twist, and there's been
plenty of them, that hearing today was abandoned now that
mediators have been appointed and they will try and resolve
the matter, but it will go back to court on
(22:57):
the twenty fifth of September. All right, after the break,
President Trump ramps up his retric on tariffs. Those concerns
not very well founded in relation to Australia's PBS, But
there's lots of other issues air plus talk of the
knife going through the senior ranks of the ADF. How
much of this as miles looking for escapegoat. Greg Sheridan
(23:19):
coming out, welcome Bock coming up. Well, Australia's a social
media ban for under sixteen's work comes in a little
later in the show, a little later in the year.
There are a fair amount of critics out there. We'll
talked to one of them in a moment, But first,
Donald Trump has again escalated his tariff war threats to
(23:42):
now put tariffs on of two hundred percent on foreign
drugs and fifty percent on copper. He's extended the deadline
as a reporter last night until the first of August.
But it still looks very unlikely that Australia will get
a deal. We can't even get a meeting. How we're
going to get a deal? Prime Minister Well, he's not
really sure where he stands on any of this. Let's
(24:02):
get in someone who can give us a bit of
a steer. Foreign Editor at Australian, Greg Sheridan, Well, what
do you make of the latest developments?
Speaker 3 (24:09):
Greek?
Speaker 4 (24:11):
Great to be with you, Peter and welcome back. Look,
it's a bad move by Trump. I think Trump's constant,
unstable tariff announcements, most of which are not ever implemented,
destabilizers global trade, destabilizes corporate investment, damages America's reputation, and
he doesn't have any consideration for allies. But it begs
(24:34):
this question of the Alberanesi government. Two things you'd want
from an Australian government. You'd want them to use their
wonderful insider access to Trump, based on all of our
fabulous associations with America, to get the best deal you
possibly could. And you'd want them to have a high productivity,
high growth, fabulous economic strategy for Australia. Well, the Alberanesi
(24:56):
government just fails dismally on both. And the pharmaceuticals, even
our pharmaceutical experts aren't that big about two billion dollars
to America, but they're one of the very few areas
where we can actually manufacture anything in Australia in our
high cost, super red tape, massively uncompetitive environment. They're one
(25:16):
of the few things we can actually manufacture and do
so competitively. And it would be a tragedy if they
got hit with these tariffs. God knows if Trump will
ever implement them.
Speaker 2 (25:29):
The pms off to Beijing and cheng Dao and Shanghai,
three cities on the visit, so it says, to meets
a substantial state visit. He heads off on Saturday. The
Chinese wanted on the trade table artificial intelligence and a
relaxation of our foreign investment laws. The Prime minister says,
(25:50):
we're not going to talk about either of them. What
are you looking for out of this visit? Because it
seems we're far more welcome in Beijing than our prime
minister might be in Washington.
Speaker 4 (26:03):
Yeah, so I think this might be the longest single
visit to any one country Albanesi has made as Prime minister.
I think the optics of that are bad. I don't
think Australia generally handles China policy very well. The Alberesi
government has completely reversed itself on its retoric from its
first year in office. It used to tell us these
(26:24):
were the most dangerous strategic times we'd have a face
since World War II. The only strategic danger was China
won't say anything about that. Now it just rolls over
and you know, lets its tummy be tickled and says
combay art of China. It is a good thing that
Albanesi has ruled out the artificial intelligence stuff and reviewing
the Foreign Investment Review Board. Now, if he hadn't ruled
(26:47):
that out, that would be absurd. The idea of an
artificial intelligence agreement with China, which is the chief source
of cyber attack and state espionage and commercial espionage against
Australia would be completely insane. So Alberanzi has lived up
to you the mere basic level of sanity. It's weird
(27:10):
that Alberesi gave such an anti American speech just before
he heads off to China. Not only can't he get
a meeting with Trump, it's not clear to me he
wants to go to Washington to have a meeting. It
just like an informal thing in the corridors. I just
think Albanese is reverting to type, to what he really believed.
All the hawkish stuff he used to say, I think
(27:31):
was just what he felt he had to say to
win an election. And here we are back with the
real Alberanesi, who doesn't take the China threat business seriously
and has never had a serious thought in his head
ever about national security.
Speaker 3 (27:45):
Pretty tough.
Speaker 2 (27:46):
And I have to say I agree with you, and
I think you're right. I think he just wants to
pull a side in the margins of a global event,
so you know, nothing much will come of it. He
can tick the box, he can come back to the
MEETIA and tell you, tell me, tell everybody that he's
had his meeting and to bugger off. We shouldn't keep
asking questions. But it's not about relationship building.
Speaker 4 (28:06):
That's right, that's right.
Speaker 3 (28:10):
No.
Speaker 4 (28:11):
I mean, if he thinks he has a relationship with Shejinping,
that's nonsense. I mean the Australian prime minister who spent
most time with Gijinping was Tony Abbott, and Tony Abott
did a very good job on foreign policy when he
was Prime minister, but that relationship didn't result in anything.
I mean, China does what it wants, what it thinks
is is in its benefit.
Speaker 3 (28:30):
Absolutely.
Speaker 4 (28:31):
But I wonder if I can I wonder if I
can have a very quick word on a topic we
did schedule, but I don't know if we've got time
for males. Has suggested he might sack. No.
Speaker 2 (28:41):
I will go to that, Greg because because this worries me,
I'll get to this because I'll just bring people in
at home, because I think this really does worry me.
There's talking's going to sack a whole lot of people
out of the senior ranks of not just the defense
departments and not just the public servants, but a whole
lot of uniformed senior eighty IF officers and commanders. How
(29:02):
much of this is serious reform that is needed? I mean,
I like small government, not big government. Or is this
about a skate goping gaping skate goating because the government's
in strife over defense, what do you think?
Speaker 4 (29:19):
Well, Peter, the government is deservedly in strife, and it
is responsible for the colossal mess and cock up of defense. Absolutely,
it's the government. It's responsible. However, I do think any
shakeup of the senior defense people is long overdue and
devoutly to be wished. When the Albanesi government was first elected,
(29:40):
I thought their original sin, their first big mistake, was
just to reappoint all the senior leadership of the Defense
department and the military. So they're all good people, they're
patriotic people. I've got nothing against any of them individually.
But the bottom line is this defense has failed time
after time after time, both the uniformed folks and the
(30:01):
Department of Defense, and all that ever happens is they
all get promoted. The only person who ever takes responsibility
in defense is a rank of corporal or below. Nobody
above corporal ever takes responsibility for anything. There's been an
insane explosion of star ranked officers at the senior level,
all doing nothing, you know, sitting around in committees. There's
(30:22):
no clear line of responsibility anywhere we you know, when
we first got friendly with Cambodia after the overthrow Paul
Pottensaw and we found that there were two thousand generals
in the Cambodian army and that was the first reform
suggestion we made was to sack all the generals. Well,
the Australian military is like that. Now We've got more
(30:43):
star officers per fighting soldier than I think we've ever
had in our history. Now I would like the whole
lot of them just to go away, because if you
were governed by the first ten pages of the Sydney
phone Book, you couldn't do worse than our defense organization
has done in the last ten years. Bring people in
from private enterprise, if the top echelon of defense is
(31:06):
no good. Reduce the size of the echelon by about
ninety percent, promote the second echelon, give them very clear responsibilities,
and let's go. I mean, we keep saying we're going
to buy off the shelf equipment, we're not going to
modify it. And yet every time you get a fiasco
like the hundred frigates, where Defense somehow or other buys
an experiment you know and not yet in production ship
(31:29):
and then modifies it to within an inch of its life.
And these hundred frigates, Each one of these ridiculous hundred
frigates is going to cost more than it cost to
build a Virginia class submarine. They're going to be wildly undergunned,
and we're not going to get any of them for
ten years. I mean, this is or nearly ten years.
This is madness.
Speaker 6 (31:47):
Now.
Speaker 4 (31:47):
If that level of performance doesn't justify clearing out the
whole corporate leadership, the whole lot of them, and trying
something new, I don't know what does. So Males deserves
all the blood for the mess we've had over the
last three years. But if he cleaned out the operational
lines of defense, military and civilian. I'd be very happy
(32:08):
about that.
Speaker 2 (32:10):
I think I I would agree with you at that score.
I tell you what, I'd like him to sack himself
on the way out though, but we'll.
Speaker 3 (32:16):
See what if that happens. Brickshidan, thank you.
Speaker 2 (32:19):
Let's move now to the new band that's coming in
play in Australia. Under sixteen year olds will be banned
from social media.
Speaker 3 (32:26):
It will be a world first.
Speaker 2 (32:27):
Now widely praised by some internationally and I without criticism.
There's accusations that labors rush this legislation through without thorough
consideration of the parameters of the restrictions.
Speaker 3 (32:40):
I also have to.
Speaker 2 (32:41):
Say it can't be all we do in this space
with children and devices, which brings me to my next guest.
Speaker 3 (32:48):
I heard her speak at ARK in London. She's fantastic.
Speaker 2 (32:52):
Sophie Wilcoreman, a UK actor and campaigner in this space,
and she's been leading calls to pull back on the
use of technology in our classroom. Please to say, she
joins me now from London. Sophy, thank you for coming
on the show in Australia because, as I said, I
thought your speech at ARP was fantastic. We are patting
ourselves on the back of this this change that will
come in at the end of the year regarding people
(33:13):
under the age of sixteen and social media. But I
think we think this is all we have to do.
Speaker 3 (33:20):
Have we got it right?
Speaker 11 (33:23):
Well, first of all, lovely to be here a great
fan of yours. I think it's impressive and exciting that
Australia are showing muscular pioneering action on this topic because
it's a great sign for other countries around the world
that they can't just be complacent and negligent anymore. So
I'm personally terribly grateful to Australia for being the first ones.
(33:45):
Apparently Brazil are doing something similar. I don't know if
you've got it right yet. I know there's some issues
on age verification. In terms of data security. I think
you've now allowed WhatsApp and YouTube. I think you guys
have now said that's okay. I don't think they're okay.
I'm having seen everything I've seen, I'm now pretty hardline
(34:06):
on all this stuff. And I don't actually know why
children need to have any Internet enabled device before they're sixteen,
let alone the contagion of it in the classrooms, which
I know are going to come onto.
Speaker 2 (34:19):
Yeah, a lot of people say that we really need
to go further, We need to take the devices out
of the classroom. I know there's some schools in Australia
that are putting back in handwriting. Our kids have lost
the art of writing with a pen and writing with
a pencil. Where do you stand on this?
Speaker 11 (34:35):
I stand very firmly in the camp of handwriting implants
learned information far more profoundly in the brain than typing
and swiping does. Reading a page from a book is
a far more deep way to learn than reading on
a screen where you just skim read. This has all
been clinically proven. Sweden showed a lot of muscle like
(34:55):
you guys are on the social media space on ed
tech and education, and they've basically said it was a
failed experiment and they're reinvesting in books, pen and paper,
and I really want the rest of the world's fuller suit.
But as ed tech is now a multi billion dollar business,
it's going to be a very tough hill to climb
because they are going to peddle this stuff pretending it's
(35:16):
superior to traditional methods even though it's been proven that
it really isn't and it's got to be parents and
teachers taking to the streets and saying no way.
Speaker 3 (35:28):
I mean you.
Speaker 2 (35:29):
Along with Darth and Heide, I think have been really
phenomenal in this space because we're having a conversation that
we just weren't having two or three years ago. Everyone
thought that the advance of TIKE through the classroom was
just more and more of it.
Speaker 3 (35:41):
We couldn't get enough.
Speaker 2 (35:42):
And now we're really asking ourselves whether we need to
get it right out. And of course we've got AI
on the doorstep.
Speaker 11 (35:50):
Absolutely. AI is a slightly separate topic in that I
think it can be okay for some sixteen to eighteen
year olds to work out how to use it. I'm
not a big fan of it in the school space,
but I want children to be digitally literate. But there's
a big difference between knowing how to use a computer
and knowing how to navigate the Internet and being in
(36:12):
there being a contagion of this stuff in every single subject,
and that's what people are getting very angry about. Also,
gazing at a screen all day is incredibly unhealthy. It's
bad for it gives children headaches, it's bad for their eyesight,
it's bad for their hormone production. It's bad for their posture,
it's bad for their sleep.
Speaker 1 (36:31):
We should all.
Speaker 3 (36:32):
Say no to this way of learning.
Speaker 11 (36:34):
It's cerebrally not as good as handwriting and reading, and
it's physically incredibly unhealthy.
Speaker 3 (36:42):
Well, and I'm going to keep out the fight.
Speaker 2 (36:43):
Thank you very much for joining us tonight in Australia,
so I feel, and they from London. A reminder too.
Ak will have a conference in June next day. Those
details are online. She's also remember the British royal family.
I hear what she's got an era of pretty important
people there. I hope this fight and conversation continues.
Speaker 3 (37:01):
Or right after the break, a.
Speaker 2 (37:01):
Lawyer's been slammed or has slammed the eightyf for failing
to act on sexual abuse within its ranks. Plus medicinal cannabis, it's.
Speaker 3 (37:10):
A free for all. I'll tell you what.
Speaker 2 (37:12):
There's a bit of big game going on here. That's
after the break. The wonderful Kelvirich's is coming up. One
of my words is in the mix today, but let's
bring the panel first. Guy and His contributed to Jamie
Rodgers and Nationals Senator for Queensland. The Lymp's Matt Canavan.
Let's start with a pretty controversial appointment today, the first
(37:35):
public service that was sacked by the Christophildy government. Well
he's landed a big new plum job, almost a million
dollar salary in Canberra. His name is Mike Kaiser and
he's going to head up the federal government's Department of
Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water.
Speaker 3 (37:51):
I'll tell you what.
Speaker 2 (37:52):
It was a controversial bloke as a staffer, as an MP,
as a political campaign and Matt so his appointment to
the Climate portfolio, it's pretty telling.
Speaker 12 (38:05):
Well true, Peter. Look, I think there should be a
new Minister for Energy, not a new Secretary for Energy.
I'd much prefer that change, given what's happened to electricity
prices under the first term of this Labor government and
under of course Chris Baren's watch. In terms of mister Kaiser,
I haven't had a lot to do with him. I
did deal with him on the Olympics last year and look,
(38:26):
I must say I found him very professional and a
great guy. And I do say too, Look, I do
think it's the right of an elected government to appoint
the people they think will implement their agenda in at
the public service, and Mike Kaiser made that point when
he was dismissed by the incoming LMP government. He did
so with an enormous amount of grace and he did Indeed,
(38:49):
he received praise from Premier Christa fully for the professionalism
with which he transitioned government to the LMP, and he said, look,
it's up to the LMP to decide who appoints there,
who their secretarial appointments are, and he took it with
good grace and left. So look, I'm going to I'll
give him a go. I just hope that all public
servants conduct their job in the best interests of this country. Sure,
(39:13):
they are there to implement a democratically elected government's agenda,
but they are also there to be accountable to the
nation's Parliament and that's what I'm looking forward to get
back to doing when we're back in camera.
Speaker 2 (39:28):
You are more charitable than me, because I remember when
Tony havebn't removed a few appointees as Secretary Labor screamed
like cut cats. There was a carry on in the
media and of course when they do the same thing,
it's all absolutely the right sort of process. So you're,
as I said, more charitable than me, Jamie, welcome to
the program. I'm great you're joining us. I'm great to
(39:49):
say that you are joining us. And please to say
you're joining us every Wednesday too. This constant debate about
sexual abuse in the ADYF. We talk a lot about
how many play we're buying, you know, how much we.
Speaker 3 (40:01):
Spend on defense.
Speaker 2 (40:03):
But we had a royal commission not so long ago,
and the commissioner says that none of those recommendations were
acted upon. This as Gary rumble. And we've also got
the outgoing Defense Minister, Senator Linda Reynolds, who also herself
was an Army brigadier say, why and worth would any
girl want.
Speaker 3 (40:23):
To enlist in the military.
Speaker 2 (40:24):
Why would a parent want their daughter to enlist in
the military.
Speaker 3 (40:28):
If we've had a decade to sort this out, why
haven't we.
Speaker 13 (40:34):
Peter, It's beyond disappointing. The ADF have just shown that
they're incapable of being able to have that cultural reform
which is so desperately needed to provide a safe environment
for females but also just an environment for respect that
both male and female. And what we've seen is that
the female participation within the ADYF is at twenty one
percent and hasn't increased at all since twenty twenty one.
(40:57):
And what came out in that Commission report handed out
last year was the level of suicide. So ex service
women who have been exposed to alleged sexual abuse or misconduct,
they're twice as likely to take their own life then
compared to females out in.
Speaker 3 (41:13):
The broader public. So it's not good enough.
Speaker 13 (41:15):
And the fact that we have seen this week a
spokeswoman from the Labor government to say that they've got
an internal task force that are going to start implementing
these recommendations. As you said, this is now more than
a decade. She has said it's going to take time
to be able to implement these changes. But we've already
had more than ten years the ADF go out and
look after all of the Australians and yet we can't
(41:38):
protect the females that are out there risking their lives.
We don't want time, We want to get this done
right now. It is time for change.
Speaker 2 (41:47):
And what I had been it was the Defense Minister too.
We also had another woman, Maurice Paine, and none of
this changed.
Speaker 3 (41:52):
Under their watch. So it is it systemic.
Speaker 2 (41:54):
Let's go to the story today about the cracking down
by the medical watchdog CAVAN on all of these doctors
and almost an industry of companies writing thousands of scripts
a month for so called medicinal cannabis. Some of these
consultations last a couple of seconds, additioning out prescriptions to kids.
(42:14):
We've got people ending up for some of them suffering
from psychosis.
Speaker 3 (42:19):
Just the other day I spoke to Ian.
Speaker 2 (42:20):
Hickey, he's a Brain and Mind center psychiatrists in the UNI,
and he was pretty blunt on what's happening here about
the commercialization of medical cannabis.
Speaker 3 (42:29):
Have a listen.
Speaker 14 (42:31):
Australia has had a pretty liberal attitude of medicinal cannabis
as well. He's really driven by commercial interests. And you know,
we've had great trouble with tobacco, alcohol, other substances. We
don't need to add this to the mix.
Speaker 2 (42:43):
And some of this, Matt's about the drive to have
US legalized cannabis. Of course, like the United States, surely
we've got to rain this in.
Speaker 12 (42:54):
I agree with you on this, Peter. I think the
experience from the United States is very instructive. When you
go sometimes two towns in the US there, there's just
areas that are that are that are completely wiped out.
They're they're they're they're doped out quite literally with the
free availability of cannabis. Of course, in those cities, it's
(43:15):
not just for medicinal purposes. It's available for recreational use.
And look, the idea was, Look, I mean, marijuana is
not as bad as some other drugs, so maybe we should
let consenting adults do this. But I just don't think
it's something we want freely and widely available. At the
same time, of course, we don't get around locking up
people for using marijuana. That doesn't happen. But once you
(43:35):
make it the law, you give it a certain sanction
and you get more widespread use of it. And it's
just not something I think we want, and I think
it's turned many American cities to the worst. I would
not like to see that here.
Speaker 3 (43:47):
Now.
Speaker 12 (43:47):
I support in that regard that I support medicinal cannabis
for medicinal uses, but the law should be implemented and
it's clearly not at the moment, So welcome this crackdown.
I worry if we don't get this sort of crackdown,
the people who do need cannabis for for for for
reasonable pain relif purposes, we'll have it taken away as well.
Speaker 2 (44:05):
Yeah, just like the really effective policing, not the vaping
law was brought in by the government. Let's go to
more in relation to what happened in Victoria over the weekend.
The Israeli restaurant Needs None, which is in Hardware Lane,
was attacked. Of course, we know on Friday night. There's
a man in custody tonight because at the time of
(44:25):
the attack he was actually on bail for threatening to
kill someone at an earlier protest. Now, fortunately here, Jamie,
thank god we had a sensible magistrate at the bench
in this occasion because he's decided to keep this guy
behind bars tonight. That doesn't often happen in Victoria, I
have to say. But you got to say there's a
(44:45):
stain on Victoria at the moment with what's happened.
Speaker 13 (44:51):
There really is Peter and this gentleman who is now
behind bars. When you mentioned how he threatened, allegedly threatened
to kill someone at another protest, that person had just
asked him to please stop having pro Palestinian chance and
a loud speaker, and he also allegedly spat in someone's face.
These people think that they are above the law. And
even when he is out on bail and told not
(45:13):
to go into the CBD, he goes and does it anyway.
It's been reported that he lives in Housing Commission and
doesn't have a job, and instead the taxpayer is funding
for him to go and be at demonstrations that are
violent and they're intimidating and they have no place in
Australian democracy. And unfortunately, Peter, what we're seeing, especially what
we saw in Victoria last week, is that anti Semitism
(45:35):
is starting to become so normalized in Australia. We need
to ensure that we're standing up and stopping it and
making sure that people like this gentleman remain behind bars
and really set an example that this behavior is not
acceptable here in Australia and it's time to stop.
Speaker 2 (45:53):
Great have you on board, Jamie. Great to have you
on show tonight as well. Always good to have you
at Canavan. See you again soon, Rake Helm, welcome back,
as he joins me every Wednesday, he's here again tonight.
Kel Richards, this one's one from me. Kell I use
it often, and I used it yesterday and someone said,
(46:15):
what the heck does that mean?
Speaker 3 (46:16):
I said, I actually don't really know, but my.
Speaker 2 (46:18):
Mother used to say it, and I use it all
the time. I'll say, gosh, you look like the wreck
of the Hesperus.
Speaker 15 (46:25):
Help me out, Okay, what it means is very disorderly
or very untidy. You know, you can say, oh, this
office looks like the wreck of the Hesperus when it's
a mess and there are bits of paper everywhere. It
comes from a poem by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow published in
eighteen forty two, called the Wreck of the Hesperus. Now,
the poem itself is very popular, telling a very sad
story about a real shipwreck in the in the blizzard
(46:47):
of eighteen thirty nine, and it was hugely popular in America.
But over time, over about fifty years, people forgot about
the sad, grim story the poem told and only remember
the title. So the reck of the hespers became a
leading little phrase to say what a wreck. This is
first recorded in a newspaper in eighteen ninety seven, so
(47:08):
a bit over fifty years after the poem was originally published,
it had entered the colloquial language as a way of
saying what a wreck.
Speaker 2 (47:18):
Well, I must say I use it in context. Now
I know what the origins are. Thank you very much.
Hey John wants to know where does the term back
to square one come from?
Speaker 3 (47:29):
And he says, what does it mean?
Speaker 15 (47:31):
It means going back to the beginning, going right back
to the start. There are two stories. One is a
myth and the other is the truth. The myth is
it goes back to nineteen twenty seven when the BBC
began radio broadcast of football games and they were terrified
that listeners wouldn't understand what was going on, so they
published little maps of the field dividing the paddock into
eight squares and used the callers used that it was
(47:54):
a rubbish system. It never really caught on and they
got rid of it after a couple of years. But
people kept saying that's where it comes from. It does not,
because that was nineteen twenty seven. The expression is not
recorded till nineteen fifty two, and it actually comes from
the children's board game Snakes and Ladders. That's where you
get back to square one.
Speaker 2 (48:15):
Ah Tony says, my granddaughters want to know where's the
whether the phrase mums the word come from.
Speaker 15 (48:22):
Very old back in the fifteen hundreds, to mum meant
to speak with your lips closed, and to speak very unclearly.
We get our word mumble from that, and actors and
acrobats who performed in patomime without speaking will call mummers.
So it's from that sort of source, from the fifteen
hundreds that we get this idea of mum's the word
keep your lips sealed.
Speaker 3 (48:44):
And it's not from the mums we love. There.
Speaker 2 (48:46):
You go, cal teach me something every time. See you
next week.
Speaker 3 (48:49):
That's it. Ferent me to negga to Georgia. Up next
for Andrew
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.