Speaker 1: From the Sky News Center.
Speaker 2: This is Paul Murray Live.
Speaker 1: Good Evening. James Borrow here filling in for Paul Murray
Speaker 1: Live for the entire week. So let's get straight into it.
Speaker 1: We're going to do a big dive into Albos big
Speaker 1: trip to China in just a minute. And I've got
Speaker 1: two of your favorites on the show tonight, Gemma Tognini
Speaker 1: and Christy McSweeney here to have a lot of fun
Speaker 1: this Sunday night as we kicked the week off, plus
Speaker 1: one of the most brilliant thinkers and writers on China,
Speaker 1: Paul Monk, to look at what is really going on
Speaker 1: and what sort of bill Albo may be putting us
Speaker 1: on the hook to keep everything sweet with Jijin Ping.
Speaker 1: But first I did say it's Sunday, and so you
Speaker 1: know what we should start off with you a little
Speaker 1: bit of fun to end the weekend, chase those Sunday
Speaker 1: scaries away. And this happened just a few hours ago.
Speaker 1: I want to share it with you. This was at
Speaker 1: the Turning Point USA conference in Tampa, Florida. What you're
Speaker 1: going to see is one of the greatest slapdowns of
Speaker 1: a Heckler of all time on the stage. US borders
Speaker 1: are Tom Homan and in the audience one protester who
Speaker 1: bit off a bit more than he could chew. First,
Speaker 1: let's have a look at the heckle. Let's release him
Speaker 1: in the community.
Speaker 3: Wait three or five years, Barney, Are.
Speaker 1: You an MS thirteen member?
Speaker 4: Hey, hey, that's okay.
Speaker 3: That's okay.
Speaker 1: I got a question.
Speaker 3: No, no, no, I got a question for you.
Speaker 1: Mightn't you come up here and.
Speaker 3: Hand me that picture brace bringer bringer?
Speaker 1: Okay, so you've got some yahoo yelling about MS thirteen
Speaker 1: or something. And then Homan turns the tables after leading
Speaker 1: the crowd in a USA USA chant. Homan then proceeds
Speaker 1: to lay down the law.
Speaker 3: All right, they got morens like this all of the country.
Speaker 3: This guy, this guy wasn't North like the surface nation.
Speaker 3: This guy ain't got the balls to be a nice officer.
Speaker 3: The other got the ball pretty a bog Georgia.
Speaker 1: But Homan wasn't done yet.
Speaker 3: This guy lives in his mother's basement. The only thing
Speaker 3: that surprises me. You don't have purple hair and a
Speaker 3: nose ring. Get out of here, your loser and there
Speaker 3: and you're what's your bad ass? Being me off stage
Speaker 3: in thirteen minutes and fifty.
Speaker 1: Second and then Homan delivered the coup de gras.
Speaker 3: I guarantee you he sits down the peak. Guarantee.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'll tell you what. I am not taking that bet.
Speaker 1: And by the way, keep an eye on that conference
Speaker 1: overnight and tomorrow. I reckon there's gonna be some wild
Speaker 1: stuff thrown around back and forth over that Epstein lips
Speaker 1: List two, which maybe we'll check out tomorrow night. I
Speaker 1: want to check in on that. But in the meantime,
Speaker 1: I want you to have a look at this picture. Look, bah,
Speaker 1: I'm a diplomat. There you have it. Prime Minister Anthony
Speaker 1: Albanezi posted it to his social media a little while ago.
Speaker 1: He's there in Shanghai with Chen Jining, the Communist Party
Speaker 1: Secretary of Shanghai. So basically we're talking about the mayor,
Speaker 1: if the mayor could have you thrown in a gulag
Speaker 1: for thought crimes, which I guess I better say, hey, sorry, clovermore,
Speaker 1: I didn't mean it. Check out that body language there,
Speaker 1: albow all leaning in, Secretary Chen leaning back, imperious, looking
Speaker 1: down the barrel of the camera, like who is this
Speaker 1: guy and why does he want to shake my hand
Speaker 1: so bad. Honestly, the Prime Minister would look less desperate
Speaker 1: if he was trying to get Cardi B's autograph at
Speaker 1: the met Gallo. The Prime Minister also posted this little
Speaker 1: video of himself on the banks of Shanghai's Wangpu River today,
Speaker 1: trying to set the terms of this trip that he's
Speaker 1: on right now to China. Have a look and see
Speaker 1: if you can tell me what's what do they say
Speaker 1: problematic here?
Speaker 4: I'm here in Shanghai, China, supporting Australian businesses, supporting Australian
Speaker 4: jobs and supporting our economy. We know that one in
Speaker 4: four of Australia's jobs depends upon free and fair trade
Speaker 4: and our biggest export is China. So here I've brought
Speaker 4: a whole range of businesses with us from the resource
Speaker 4: sector of tourism and education, all engaging with China in
Speaker 4: a constructive way in order to boost our economic benefit.
Speaker 4: Engaging with China is in our interests to build a
Speaker 4: stable and secure region here over the next few days.
Speaker 4: What I'm doing is building on that relationship to the
Speaker 4: benefit of Australian jobs and the Australian economy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, So it's all about jobs, jobs, and growth. Funny,
Speaker 1: where have I heard that before? Anyway? Yeah, No matter
Speaker 1: how much he pushes this line that this trip is
Speaker 1: just about economics and doing business, well, there's also a
Speaker 1: broader context to this here, because this trip that Ethny
Speaker 1: Albanezi has taken to China six days, the longest trip
Speaker 1: I think has even seeing in living memory of any
Speaker 1: prime minister to China, with no stop in to any
Speaker 1: of our North Asian allies like the Japanese or the
Speaker 1: South Koreans. Well, it also suggests there's something much more
Speaker 1: broad happening in terms of the way Anthony Albanizi is
Speaker 1: pulling Australia away from the United States. You caught a
Speaker 1: little bit there when he's hinted around free trade and
Speaker 1: all of that, which I'm going to get to in
Speaker 1: a moment. You see, the problem here is that Anthony
Speaker 1: Albanizi believes he can walk this sort of fine line
Speaker 1: where he has Australia do all sorts of trade with China,
Speaker 1: indeed become increasingly dependent on China, while at the same
Speaker 1: time enjoying the benefits of the American security umbrella, even
Speaker 1: as everything he does says that he is pulling Australia
Speaker 1: away from the United States, and that mean old Donald
Speaker 1: Trump at his nasty tariffs. Albert Ezy will deny this
Speaker 1: uphill and down Dale, but this is what is happening.
Speaker 1: You can see it. Just look at the way Alberize
Speaker 1: deals with both countries. Albert Ezy had this to say
Speaker 1: today in Shanghai.
Speaker 4: Alliance with the United States is a very important one
Speaker 4: for Australia. So we'll continue to engage constructively in a coherent, stable,
Speaker 4: orderly way. That's the why I conduct this government.
Speaker 1: Ah, Yes, an important alliance conducted coherently, stably and orderly.
Speaker 1: And also, I would say in a manner that has
Speaker 1: been entirely flat footed. Now let's play a little game
Speaker 1: of compare and contrast here. That was just Anthony Albertize
Speaker 1: talking about America in that context. But here's Anthony Alberanize
Speaker 1: three months ago, when Donald Trump slapped unilateral tariffs on
Speaker 1: Australia and a whole bunch of other nations as well
Speaker 1: as part of the whole Liberation Day economic program.
Speaker 4: The administration's tariffs have no basis in logic, and they
Speaker 4: go against the basis of our two nations partnership. This
Speaker 4: is not the act of a friend.
Speaker 1: Not the act of a friend. Tough talk. He's laid
Speaker 1: down that marker. That's how you deal with an ally
Speaker 1: that doesn't treat you well. But now, of course, contrast
Speaker 1: this with the way the Prime Minister reacted to another event.
Speaker 1: See a fleet of spy ships that were pretty clearly
Speaker 1: mapping our island nations weaknesses and choke points circling Australia
Speaker 1: earlier this year. What is monster.
Speaker 4: What it means is that the Australian Defense Force are
Speaker 4: monitoring what is happening. It's going from New Zealand. We
Speaker 4: expected to go around to China around that way. Of
Speaker 4: course I would prefer that it wasn't there. But we
Speaker 4: live in circumstances where Justice Australia has vessels in South China, say,
Speaker 4: and vessels in the Taiwan Strait and around a range
Speaker 4: of areas.
Speaker 2: This vessel is here.
Speaker 1: Spot the difference there. We've gone from not the act
Speaker 1: of a friend. About Donald Trump and his tariffs too, well,
Speaker 1: we would prefer it wasn't there. How about a Chinese
Speaker 1: spy ship. Now, the Prime minster was also quick to
Speaker 1: reassure everyone. You recall that this spyship was proparently fine
Speaker 1: and normal and in keeping with international law. I still
Speaker 1: believe international law. That's sweet. Note also the moral equivalents
Speaker 1: he drew there between our freedom of movement exercises in
Speaker 1: the South China Sea and China's blatant spying. Recall also
Speaker 1: two that Albanese claimed Australia received civilian and military notifications
Speaker 1: about Chinese live fire drills in the Tasman Sea, quote
Speaker 1: at around the same time a Virgin pilot reported the
Speaker 1: activity earlier this year. This despite it later coming out
Speaker 1: that the Chief of the Australian Defense Force, well, he
Speaker 1: told the Senate estimates that the military notification came an
Speaker 1: hour after the commercial pilot. That version Australia pilot let
Speaker 1: the authorities know what was going on. And again I
Speaker 1: have to ask, was that the act of a friend,
Speaker 1: The circumnavigation of the spy ship, the no notification about
Speaker 1: live fire action in the Tasman Sea, these sorts of
Speaker 1: things the act of a friend. Well, if not, I
Speaker 1: would have expected Anthony Albansi to call that out, you know,
Speaker 1: just to be consistent. But look, let's give him the
Speaker 1: benefit of the doubt. Amy, this is just the Prime
Speaker 1: Minister playing to his domestic audience of Trump haters in
Speaker 1: the Labor Party. I mean, it works so well from
Speaker 1: the election, didn't it. But this is serious business. The
Speaker 1: message Anthony Albenzi is sending to the world is that
Speaker 1: he will bend over backwards to defend China's actions, no
Speaker 1: matter how irresponsible they are, how aggressive they are, how
Speaker 1: bullying they are. But at the same time he is
Speaker 1: happy to fire up and take us swinging at Donald
Speaker 1: Trump and the Trump administration. Now back in May, Albeneze
Speaker 1: ducked the chance to meet with US Vice President JD.
Speaker 1: Vance at the funeral of the late Holy Father Pope
Speaker 1: Francis in Rome. This is what he had to say
Speaker 1: when asked why he didn't try and meet with the
Speaker 1: second most powerful man in the Trump administration, the democratically elected.
Speaker 1: And I might add JD.
Speaker 4: Vance sir, well, I'm the Prime Minister. I met the
Speaker 4: President of the United States and that will occur at
Speaker 4: an appropriate time.
Speaker 1: Ah. Yes, well he bes with the President. He won't
Speaker 1: meet with any underlings yet. Check this out. Although ALBANIZI
Speaker 1: will get the chance, oh goodie, to meet jijiin big again.
Speaker 1: I think this is the fourth time that two were
Speaker 1: going to get together. The actual formal talks between Albanesi
Speaker 1: and the Chinese government will take place with China represented
Speaker 1: by this man Lee Kang, China's premier, someone who is
Speaker 1: very much the number two guy. So if it's not
Speaker 1: okay to meet with America's two, I see, well okay,
Speaker 1: But then when it comes to China, well the whole
Speaker 1: thing changes. Yes, sir, happy to meet with whomever's available,
Speaker 1: mister g Now, and don't think, by the way that
Speaker 1: this eager puppy dog Albu routine is playing with the Chinese,
Speaker 1: and he's repeated stubbing of America, even if only for
Speaker 1: domestic consumption here in Australia, has gone unnoticed in the
Speaker 1: United States. Now you probably know, of course that August
Speaker 1: is under review by the White House. Personally, I think
Speaker 1: that is going to wind up being okay, because of
Speaker 1: course every new administration is going to want to review
Speaker 1: their defense priorities, so I don't think there should be
Speaker 1: too much panic there just yet. But I'd also point
Speaker 1: out that there was also this today news that the
Speaker 1: Pentagon has confirmed it is asking Australia for undertakings on
Speaker 1: how its August submarines would be used in the event
Speaker 1: of US military conflicts, and for substantial increases in defense
Speaker 1: spending as part of their review of that three hundred
Speaker 1: and sixty eight billion dollar agreement. In other words, the
Speaker 1: US wants to know if we are in or if
Speaker 1: we are out. And you know, I don't blame them.
Speaker 1: I don't know that they would be asking these sorts
Speaker 1: of tough questions. Frankly, if it were not for the
Speaker 1: recent behavior of the Albanesi government. Now today on Insiders,
Speaker 1: Acting Defense Minister Pat Conroy had this to say about
Speaker 1: Australia joining in the fight if China, say, invades Taiwan.
Speaker 5: The sole power to commit Australia to war or to
Speaker 5: allow our territory to be used for a conflict is
Speaker 5: the elected government of the day.
Speaker 1: That is our position.
Speaker 5: Sovereignty will always be prioritized and that will continue to
Speaker 5: be our position.
Speaker 1: Look he's right, Conroy is absolutely right there. Sovereignty is
Speaker 1: number one here. But the decision on whether or not
Speaker 1: to go to war, while it may be one that
Speaker 1: ultimately Australia should have the choice, on the fact of
Speaker 1: the matter is that you know, always get that choice.
Speaker 1: History shows we don't always have that sort of luxury.
Speaker 1: And he also said this about what an ideal world
Speaker 1: would look like for Australia.
Speaker 5: We are being very clear that we want a balanced
Speaker 5: for agent where no one is dominated and no one dominates.
Speaker 1: Specific where no one is dominating and no one is dominated. Well,
Speaker 1: you see, this is where I think we start to
Speaker 1: get into some trouble, some real murky waters here, because
Speaker 1: the fact of the matter is, you know, balancing these
Speaker 1: two the United States and China. Well, this moral equivalence
Speaker 1: thing with when you've got on one side a live
Speaker 1: fire exercise with zero notice or a circumnavigating spy convoy
Speaker 1: and saying that that's no different for example, as we
Speaker 1: saw before, to Australia or British or American navies maintaining
Speaker 1: freedom of movement exercises in the South China Sea. Well,
Speaker 1: and it comes back to this very reductive model that
Speaker 1: sees our entire relationship with China now as being an
Speaker 1: economic one. And I'm sorry that just doesn't work. I
Speaker 1: know Albinezi is trying to avoid picking a side here,
Speaker 1: but he is going to have to remember this.
Speaker 4: I'm here in Shanghai, China supporting Australian businesses, supporting Australian
Speaker 4: jobs and supporting our economy. We know that one in
Speaker 4: four of Australia's jobs depends upon free and fair trade
Speaker 4: and our biggest export partner is China.
Speaker 1: Yep, it's all about the Benjamins. There isn't it, Albo,
Speaker 1: no moral judgment about China and in fact, a sidelong
Speaker 1: swipe at the US, you know, that whole free and
Speaker 1: fair trade line. Maybe maybe he's just implying, and this
Speaker 1: is what I'm really worried about. But when you look
Speaker 1: at the direction that this is taking trajectory this government
Speaker 1: is taking with all of this, well, it's starting to
Speaker 1: call us around this idea that maybe, just maybe they
Speaker 1: think that we could have a better deal with Beijing
Speaker 1: in the long run. I mean, that does start to
Speaker 1: seem to be the vibe. We can trade with them,
Speaker 1: we can keep doing business with them, and nothing should
Speaker 1: be allowed to upset the apple carte. Well, at the
Speaker 1: same time, well, the United States and Donald Trump and
Speaker 1: all of that, you know, let's just keep getting into
Speaker 1: punch ups with them while ducking actually taking a meeting
Speaker 1: with the President. I think this is a terrible strategy.
Speaker 1: Yet this is the problem. Labor has done such a
Speaker 1: comprehensive job of running down any idea of what we
Speaker 1: are and who we are as a nation, for what
Speaker 1: we stand for beyond just this sort of narrative of
Speaker 1: you know, basically, if you listen to what Labor says,
Speaker 1: we're just a GDP at a dormity worry for migrants
Speaker 1: with a bit of average history thrown in. That's all
Speaker 1: we are. Well, we don't then have the language anymore
Speaker 1: to stand up and talk about things like freedom and
Speaker 1: democracy and human rights and things that once upon a
Speaker 1: time this nation cared about because we saw ourselves as
Speaker 1: part of the West and as a nation that believed
Speaker 1: in these Western democratic traditions. Well, we don't have that
Speaker 1: language anymore. It seems to stand up and say, actually, China, look,
Speaker 1: we'll do business with you, we'll trade with you, but
Speaker 1: you know what, under your current government of the Chinese
Speaker 1: Communist Party and the way that government behaves, we can't
Speaker 1: trust that government. And that actually given the CCP's treatment
Speaker 1: of Australia in the past, the wolf Warrior diplomacy, the
Speaker 1: interference in domestic politics, the treatment of Tibet remember them
Speaker 1: and the wagers, and the threats against Taiwan, well, given
Speaker 1: all of that everything else, ships the aggression, the bullying,
Speaker 1: and your demands that we muzzle our democracy, remember those
Speaker 1: points of grievance. Well, I think the Prime Minster really
Speaker 1: ought to say. If he's going to say that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump's tariffs are not the action of a friend, well,
Speaker 1: whatever we are with China, he should have the willingness
Speaker 1: and the strength to say all of this other stuff
Speaker 1: that's not on. And even if there is a bucket it,
Speaker 1: it might not be worth the effort. Well, I'm thriatened
Speaker 1: out to be joined by Paul Munk. He is a
Speaker 1: great author and thinker on all sorts of matters, and
Speaker 1: he's written a wonderful book about China. And Paul Monk
Speaker 1: joins me today here, Paul, I need to ask you
Speaker 1: here about what we think about this trip that Anthony
Speaker 1: Albinezy is going on to China, and does he understand
Speaker 1: does he get the aggressive and authoritarian nature of this regime.
Speaker 2: It's hard to believe that he does, given his rhetoric
Speaker 2: and his behavior. And if, as you pointed out a
Speaker 2: few minutes ago, or he was simply trying to be
Speaker 2: even handed, then he would be more restrained in his
Speaker 2: comments about the United States government. So one would like
Speaker 2: to be charitable and say, look, he's trying to get
Speaker 2: the best deal for Australia in the face of the
Speaker 2: bullying of the Chinese regime. But why not in that
Speaker 2: case simply take the line that say John Howard took
Speaker 2: twenty years ago, which is that we want to trade
Speaker 2: with China, we want peace with China, but we have
Speaker 2: very clear differences when it comes to politics, to democracy,
Speaker 2: to human rights, and we're just going to have to
Speaker 2: you know, look past those and trade on its merits.
Speaker 2: And we did very well in trade with China, so
Speaker 2: there's every reason to want to keep that trade going.
Speaker 2: But it requires something that China is openly interfering with,
Speaker 2: and that is a liberal and open world, which in
Speaker 2: the United States created after nineteen forty five. Well that's
Speaker 2: a really interesting to say that, wouldn't it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Well, it would be good to hear say that,
Speaker 1: because it's really interesting to hear you talk about this, because,
Speaker 1: of course, one of the things that we've been talking about,
Speaker 1: you know, globally over the last few years, has been
Speaker 1: the threats to democracy, the threats to that liberal order.
Speaker 1: And I'm just looking at the optics of this trip
Speaker 1: right now and what the United States must be taking
Speaker 1: away from it. And I always think that they would
Speaker 1: have a case to say that you're being fairly hypocritical
Speaker 1: if you talk about, you know, threats to the world
Speaker 1: order coming from Donald Trump. And I know, you know,
Speaker 1: there's plenty of reason why people might criticize the Trump
Speaker 1: foreign policy, But then to go and take this other line,
Speaker 1: to say, well, you know, we're going to take a
Speaker 1: morally neutral stance, and in fact, in some cases we've
Speaker 1: seen recently almost defend China say well, these things that
Speaker 1: they've done are within international laws, so we're not going
Speaker 1: to complain about them. The optics of this strike me
Speaker 1: as pretty problematic.
Speaker 2: I think they are problematic, and it worries me that
Speaker 2: this is being done on a considered basis, not because
Speaker 2: Albaneze he doesn't understand the realities, but because he thinks
Speaker 2: he does, and he's been listening too much to people
Speaker 2: like Ho White, whose recent quarterly essay simply says, we
Speaker 2: have to adjust to a harsh future in which China
Speaker 2: will be the dominant power in Asia and perhaps more widely.
Speaker 2: And if your mindset is that and you're not prepared
Speaker 2: for political and diplomatic reasons to spell out that this
Speaker 2: makes us very uncomfortable. We'll have to find a way
Speaker 2: to live with it. You just pretend that we can
Speaker 2: live with it. And I think that's the most charitable
Speaker 2: explanation one can give of Albanesi's behavior right now.
Speaker 1: But I mean, I would think that he is being
Speaker 1: in love your thoughts on this, Naiven, thinking that he
Speaker 1: can continue this sort of two faced or two sided
Speaker 1: sort of diplomacy were on the one hand, he believes
Speaker 1: we can continue to rely on the American securityumbrella and
Speaker 1: at the same time, you know, draw ever closer to
Speaker 1: China economically. That is clearly going to be untenable in
Speaker 1: the years to come if things continue on their present trajectory.
Speaker 2: Yes, in some ways it's the monster Beyle already pretty
Speaker 2: much untenable. And we've known in Australia for many years
Speaker 2: now that we're facing a cleft stick because, as everybody
Speaker 2: readily acknowledges, the United States is our major security partner
Speaker 2: by a country mile, and China's our major trading partner
Speaker 2: by a country mile, and they are rivalrous. And the
Speaker 2: problem that we've got is not only that that is so,
Speaker 2: but that the Chinese government, as you rightly pointed out,
Speaker 2: is the kind of government that bullies and dominates and
Speaker 2: lies and engages in propaganda, and it is clearly expanding
Speaker 2: its military capabilities, none of which should be welcome to us.
Speaker 2: So you know, if, for example, as Albanezi has claimed recently,
Speaker 2: you know, John Curtin, with our model, then I would
Speaker 2: like to think that the riderick would be we stand
Speaker 2: full square behind an open trading order which has benefited us,
Speaker 2: which is greatly benefited China, and we don't resile from that,
Speaker 2: and we won't be bullied. You know, we're part of
Speaker 2: a Western civilization that has created the open and prosperous
Speaker 2: liberal trading order. We stand by that, let's be very clear.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. But you know the reason why I wanted to
Speaker 1: have you on thore this week or tonight, Paul, is
Speaker 1: because you're a fantastic piece in the Australian And one
Speaker 1: of the things that we always talked about, do we
Speaker 1: know what's going on in Australian past, We know what's
Speaker 1: going on in American politics, but the third leg of
Speaker 1: the still Chinese politics, Well, it's so opaque, it's such
Speaker 1: a black box. The cremlinology there is almost impossible. You've
Speaker 1: written about some fascinating rumors that have been coming out,
Speaker 1: you know, suggesting that oh, maybe Jijinping, with all of
Speaker 1: his purges there are a sign of weakness and that
Speaker 1: he might be losing his grip on power. But then
Speaker 1: you say, well, maybe not so much in action. We
Speaker 1: need to step back and look at what's happening here
Speaker 1: with a really keen analytical eye, which of course is
Speaker 1: tough because there's so little information that comes out. What
Speaker 1: is your take, as somebody who watches these things very closely,
Speaker 1: how do you feel things are going internally for Jiji
Speaker 1: and Ping, both within his own sort of polyp euro
Speaker 1: but also does he still have the strength to run
Speaker 1: the country? Do you still have support? Are people still
Speaker 1: supportive of the CCP or the economic problems they're also
Speaker 1: starting to grind him down and create internal problems for
Speaker 1: the Chinese regime.
Speaker 2: I think there are certainly internal problems in China, and
Speaker 2: I think it's been clear for quite some time that
Speaker 2: many informed people inside the PSC another thing of the diaspora,
Speaker 2: have felt that Cheatinping has been taking China and altogether
Speaker 2: the wrong direction, and it would be good for China
Speaker 2: in fact, objectively speaking, if there was a major course correction.
Speaker 2: But as you rightly say, the regime is so opaque.
Speaker 2: I mean, it simply lies routinely about domestic realities. And
Speaker 2: so all these rumors that he's about to be displaced,
Speaker 2: there's been a silent coup, he's lost power, he's going
Speaker 2: to retire, he's going to flee the country. He's alienated
Speaker 2: his wife and his daughter, and they're not to be found.
Speaker 2: This is tantalizing stuff, but one can't substantiate any of it.
Speaker 2: What we do know is that for the past few
Speaker 2: years is intensified a purging process which is in fact
Speaker 2: been conducting from the beginning under the banner of anti
Speaker 2: corruption drives, and an extraordinary number of very high ranking
Speaker 2: military and civilian officials have been perched, have been sacked
Speaker 2: in many cases accused of what the party calls violations
Speaker 2: of discipline or of corruption, and such as the language
Speaker 2: that's used that it's very difficult to discern in how
Speaker 2: many of those cases have they been removed though they
Speaker 2: were She's appointees, because he's lost faith in them, because
Speaker 2: they've genuinely committed violations, and how far is it, because
Speaker 2: he's simply trying, as Stalin and Maher did before him,
Speaker 2: to keep everybody off balance and fearful in order to
Speaker 2: sustain autocratic rule. And unfortunately we know that in both
Speaker 2: Stalin and males case they did that, and they were
Speaker 2: able to maintain power. They couldn't be removed if she
Speaker 2: was less of an autocrat, even though Numrouno, as I
Speaker 2: remark in My Peace, then one could conceive of him
Speaker 2: being removed bloodlessly the way Krushchyov was by Breshenev and
Speaker 2: Corsogen and now there's a nine sixty four. But he
Speaker 2: is an autocrat, and so without the army, for example,
Speaker 2: ceasing to be the army of the party, or siding
Speaker 2: in some decisive sense to Guy's team as in particularly,
Speaker 2: it's very difficult to see how he could be at
Speaker 2: with thrown.
Speaker 1: Indeed, Paul Monk, we're gonna have to leave it there,
Speaker 1: but it's fascinating times and I think, as you've pointed
Speaker 1: out and others pointed out, you know she has studied
Speaker 1: exactly what went wrong for some of those other autocrats.
Speaker 1: It is determined not to repeat their mistakes. Thank you
Speaker 1: so much for your time, Paul, Monk really appreciate Now
Speaker 1: stick around because after the break we're gonna be joined
Speaker 1: here with a super panel, Gemmatagnini and Christy McSweeney. After
Speaker 1: the break, welcome back to the program. James Borrow here
Speaker 1: all week for Paulburray Live. And joining me now is
Speaker 1: PR Council's Magic Director, Christy McSweeney And here in the
Speaker 1: man cave a lady at Gemmatagnini of GT Communications. Hey,
Speaker 1: thanks so much. Both of you guys are joining me
Speaker 1: this evening here. We've got to start off though. We've
Speaker 1: got to start off though, talking about this whole trip
Speaker 1: to China and the morally neutral way in which Anthony
Speaker 1: Alberizi has characterized this trip as if it's just all
Speaker 1: about doing business, as if there weren't all sorts of
Speaker 1: other geopolitics and foreign policies and really a clash of
Speaker 1: values system all operating in the background. Here's a little
Speaker 1: bit of Anthony Alberizi in Shanghai today.
Speaker 4: It's a great honor to represent Australia in international forums
Speaker 4: and this is an important engagement.
Speaker 1: That we will have.
Speaker 4: In the fact that I am leading a very large
Speaker 4: business delegation speaks to the importance of the economic relationship
Speaker 4: between Australia and China.
Speaker 1: Jema Targdini, I want to start with you. It seems
Speaker 1: to me that there's an incredible amount of naivete, forced naivete,
Speaker 1: perhaps on the part of the Prime Minister here, because
Speaker 1: he is visiting a totalitarian country run by the Chinese
Speaker 1: Communist Party, which has designs on being a regional, if
Speaker 1: not a global hedgemond, that is, to be the dominant
Speaker 1: superpower in the Pacific, if not around the world, something
Speaker 1: which has of course huge implications for us. Now he's
Speaker 1: telling us that this is just all about jobs, but
Speaker 1: I feel like that's leaving me in an awful lot
Speaker 1: of people called because where is this moral leadership that
Speaker 1: Anthony Albanezi likes to talk about when it comes to Australia.
Speaker 6: Well, it's not possible to lead from a moral perspective
Speaker 6: when you actually don't stand for anything. And I don't
Speaker 6: say that to be tried. I genuinely don't you take
Speaker 6: that grab that we just saw a minute ago is
Speaker 6: utterly unconvincing. It was kind of like your regional sort
Speaker 6: of regional Australia, and we love regional Australia here at sky.
Speaker 6: Don't get me wrong, but he's the Prime Minister of
Speaker 6: Australia and there is nothing even closely resembling gravitas, let
Speaker 6: alone leadership. It's like, hey, here with the guys from
Speaker 6: the Midwest of Wam, we're going to go meet with
Speaker 6: some people about some jobs in China. Is he going
Speaker 6: to talk to the Chinese government about the government about
Speaker 6: its intent towards Taiwan? Is he going to talk about
Speaker 6: the youngers? Is he going to talk about any number
Speaker 6: of things that are elevated above the level at which
Speaker 6: she seems only capable of operating. We talk so much
Speaker 6: about you know, ceilings, glass and otherwise, but it seems
Speaker 6: to me that the Prime Minister has this ceiling that
Speaker 6: he's just not capable of rising through from a leadership perspective.
Speaker 1: And Chrissy mcsweety, I mean here we have this huge
Speaker 1: Australian delegation. Now I am fairly sure that defact would
Speaker 1: have advised everybody, including the Prime Minister, do not bring
Speaker 1: your real phone. We will give you some sort of
Speaker 1: burner communication devices, because of course China is going to
Speaker 1: be spying on all of your devices and everything while
Speaker 1: you are there for six days, and yet we have
Speaker 1: this sort of you know, which gives us, in fact,
Speaker 1: this huge sort of elephant in the room about the
Speaker 1: nature of the Chinese regime to me, and I don't know,
Speaker 1: tell me if I'm being unfair here, but this seems
Speaker 1: really cringe to use a word the way that Albanezy
Speaker 1: is saying, Oh, no, no, everything's fine here. These guys agree,
Speaker 1: we can all be powers, we can all make money. Well.
Speaker 1: At the same time, as I said in my editorial,
Speaker 1: you know, whenever it comes to the United States giving
Speaker 1: them a big rhetorical whack for the domestic labor consumption.
Speaker 7: It's certainly a tight rope. What I find really interesting
Speaker 7: is that this appears to be a confected reason to
Speaker 7: go to China, and there's a strategy behind why the
Speaker 7: Prime Minister wants to go. Now in the middle of
Speaker 7: this impasse we have with the United States around raising
Speaker 7: our defense spending like the rest of Europe has committed
Speaker 7: to do, and this impasse around how much we're contributing
Speaker 7: to the orcust weather, We're willing to have a conversation
Speaker 7: with the Americans to say, look, we're contributing a number
Speaker 7: of things in kind the defense West rotation. The Darwin
Speaker 7: Marines are based in the Than territory for four months
Speaker 7: of the year. There's things that we're doing that we
Speaker 7: haven't pointed out amid this conversation. We haven't had that
Speaker 7: mature conversation or credit Andrew Hasty.
Speaker 8: With that line.
Speaker 7: But I'm going to let you in on a little
Speaker 7: secret here. The only announcement that I can see that
Speaker 7: the Prime Minister has put on the table for a
Speaker 7: reason to go to China is an announcement between a
Speaker 7: new agreement between Tourism Australia and Trip dot Com. Now
Speaker 7: that is a very small fry announcement that's usually reserved
Speaker 7: for the regional General Manager of Tourism Australia based in China.
Speaker 7: It does not ever warrant a Prime ministerial and Business
Speaker 7: delegation visit. So they're really really trying to lay it
Speaker 7: on quite fixed, suggesting that that is a significant reason.
Speaker 7: And the other reason they're coming up with is of
Speaker 7: course to herald their success in restabilizing the relationship with
Speaker 7: China that they so heavily at the fate of Simon
Speaker 7: Birmingham as a failure. Of course, you know, we don't
Speaker 7: actually think it was some quite good things came out
Speaker 7: of that. The Coalition was responsible for executing the China
Speaker 7: Australia Free Trade Agreement. So to make Gemm's point as well,
Speaker 7: that announcement that seems to be the leech pin of
Speaker 7: the trip. I will add to Gemma's comments about it
Speaker 7: is really not a lot of gravitas there that we're
Speaker 7: trying to pass off to the thriving public as to
Speaker 7: why we need to go to China right now in
Speaker 7: the middle of our United States issues.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, it's interesting, let's us bring us to
Speaker 1: the next topic here. And you know, tourism of course
Speaker 1: obviously involves a lot of small businesses, medium size and
Speaker 1: enterprises and so on. And this also comes amidst Jim Chalmers,
Speaker 1: now the treasure announcing that there's going to be three
Speaker 1: priorities three for his coming economic roundtable. I would love
Speaker 1: let's have a little grab here, a little look at
Speaker 1: what Jim Chalmer's talking about productivity here in the context
Speaker 1: of this roundtable.
Speaker 9: And I don't mind what you call it. I think
Speaker 9: the productivity challenge is central to our economic reform efforts.
Speaker 9: It already is, but we're looking to build consensus on
Speaker 9: the next steps in that agenda, and so I think
Speaker 9: productivity and economic reform are inseparable. I set up the
Speaker 9: press Club and the Prime ministers set out the press
Speaker 9: Club that this is all about building consensus, building on
Speaker 9: the progress that we've made, building on our substantial agenda.
Speaker 9: Productivity will be the major focus, but it won't be
Speaker 9: the only focus.
Speaker 1: Jimmy, if I consume any more of that word salad,
Speaker 1: I'm going to have to have my suits taken and
Speaker 1: I'm going to start losing weight. As a business owner yourself,
Speaker 1: what do you make of this roundtable? And I'm going
Speaker 1: to ask both of you this question because you have
Speaker 1: both got business here. But Jemmy Toddini, what would you
Speaker 1: like to see from a productivity point of view, from
Speaker 1: a tax point of view, from an economic reform point
Speaker 1: of view? As a business owner? That Kiam Chalmers has
Speaker 1: probably missed as he prepares to sit down.
Speaker 8: How long have you got FLT take a bit of
Speaker 8: time like yammering away? What did he just say? He
Speaker 8: said nothing?
Speaker 1: First of all, it was a word soul.
Speaker 6: He literally just insulted the Australian public because he said
Speaker 6: absolutely nothing. Weirdly enough, I was thinking about the treasurer
Speaker 6: on the weekend because I was reading the papers. You
Speaker 6: would never give control of the books of a small company,
Speaker 6: a large company, let alone a nation to a dude
Speaker 6: who has an arts degree with a major in Paul Keating,
Speaker 6: who's never run a business, he's never been in the
Speaker 6: real economy, who's never run a business, who has no
Speaker 6: skills to deliver the task that he is trusted with,
Speaker 6: and that is reflected in all of mister Chalmer's economic policy.
Speaker 8: You need to be able to.
Speaker 1: Ret doctor Cham.
Speaker 8: I will not coctor to you if I need a
Speaker 8: heart attack.
Speaker 6: I don't want him in his PhD standing by Thanks
Speaker 6: very much, fair.
Speaker 1: Sure it took him a lot of.
Speaker 6: Time in academy land, which he's clearly never left. But
Speaker 6: let's start with the obvious things. You cannot keep spending
Speaker 6: and spending and spending. Every household in Australia needs to
Speaker 6: live within its means.
Speaker 8: Every business.
Speaker 6: I've been in business for twenty two years this July,
Speaker 6: I am old and I have learned a thing or two.
Speaker 8: You have to live within your means.
Speaker 6: He is going around wanting to tax people on money
Speaker 6: they have not made yet. What kind of socialist utopia
Speaker 6: does the dude want us to live in if you
Speaker 6: want to improve productivity? And he has to recognize that
Speaker 6: the private sector is the engine for productivity. Not everyone
Speaker 6: can work for the public sector. Imagine being actually accountable
Speaker 6: for the job that you do. I mean, I could
Speaker 6: go on and I will go on if you give
Speaker 6: me another ten seconds.
Speaker 8: Suriously, it's not like that. It is literally other worldly.
Speaker 6: Australia used to have an economy that was the envy
Speaker 6: of the world, amongst the envy of the world. And
Speaker 6: we are so far behind in so many areas. And
Speaker 6: why would you invest here? The sovereign risk here, there's
Speaker 6: all of that stuff, and you've got a treasurer who goes,
Speaker 6: I know what we'll do.
Speaker 8: We're going to tax people on money they have not earned.
Speaker 1: Christy very quickly just from you business order yourself. How
Speaker 1: do you react to Albert Easy with all of his
Speaker 1: talking about suddenly, oh, now we need the private sector
Speaker 1: to fill the gap. They've suddenly woken up to this
Speaker 1: after the election.
Speaker 7: The private sector going to do what they always do,
Speaker 7: which is turn up and curry favor with the government.
Speaker 7: But I'll just give you an insight into what the
Speaker 7: private sector actually thinks. Ten eleven years ago here in
Speaker 7: Sydney held the G twenty. I worked for the Trade Minister.
Speaker 7: We had a Trade and Investment Forum with what's called
Speaker 7: the B twenty, that is the business delegation that a
Speaker 7: companies leaders of governments through the G twenty. At that
Speaker 7: investment forum there was business leaders from leading nations that
Speaker 7: Australia was seeking to gain foreign direct investment from, largely
Speaker 7: through our infrastructure projects. Nicholas Moore, the formacy of Macquarie,
Speaker 7: and that forum for us. Every single one of them
Speaker 7: said Australia is way down the list of choices because
Speaker 7: your industrial relationship system just makes no investment sense and
Speaker 7: productivity is strangled. Projects don't get delivered on time despite
Speaker 7: our best efforts because of the unions. And there will
Speaker 7: be no investment uptake into Australia until we broke some
Speaker 7: type of new accord. And I don't think a labor
Speaker 7: government is going to do it.
Speaker 1: Well, it's not this labor government, even if a labor
Speaker 1: government broke to the last accord. Anyway, stick around, we've
Speaker 1: got a lot more fired up chat debate after the break.
Speaker 1: Don't go anywhere. Hey, welcome back to the show here
Speaker 1: James Moorrow here all night and all week here on
Speaker 1: PML Palmriray Live. Great to have your company. I'm here
Speaker 1: tonight with Jemma Tognini and Christy mcsweetey. Jemma, let's go
Speaker 1: to this story here, rather depressing story here out of
Speaker 1: melbourt As. Let's be honest, most stories out of melbourd
Speaker 1: and Victoria are these days, honestly, if we crew about it.
Speaker 1: Soa songwriter, Deborah Conway, who we've spoken about many times
Speaker 1: four has revealed that her career is in the balance
Speaker 1: now because anti Semitism, which we've been talking a lot about,
Speaker 1: has reared its ugly head and basically she can't get bookings,
Speaker 1: she can't get gigs anymore. Gemma, what's going on?
Speaker 6: Well, I think it's the ugly face of the underbelly
Speaker 6: of Australia that we sort of didn't know or maybe
Speaker 6: suspected was there, and post October seven has certainly unleashed
Speaker 6: the beast, so to speak. And a great objective metric
Speaker 6: of that is a recent study, or not a study,
Speaker 6: but an analysis of attacks on synagogues, particularly fire bombing
Speaker 6: attacks on synagogues around the world. Australia has the awful, awful.
Speaker 6: I don't know what the word is that we're looking for,
Speaker 6: but Australia and Canada. Amongst all the countries of the
Speaker 6: world where these attacks have taken place, both Australia and
Speaker 6: Canada are the only ones. We've had three fire bombing
Speaker 6: attacks on synagogue since October seven, Australia and Canada. And unfortunately,
Speaker 6: and we don't want to be in the city Canada,
Speaker 6: not exactly. And as Henry Oga said in The Australia
Speaker 6: this weekend, there is a place for anti Semitism in
Speaker 6: this country and unfortunately it's in Victoria. Deb is a
Speaker 6: dear friend of mine and is Willy. She's a wonderful
Speaker 6: woman and all she's done is speak the truth. And
Speaker 6: if that's the price of speaking of truth Australia, we
Speaker 6: need a radical, radical course correction.
Speaker 1: Well yeah, and you know this is this thing that
Speaker 1: I was thinking about here, Christian McSweeney. You know we've
Speaker 1: had all this talk about this anti Semitism report that
Speaker 1: the government has finally put out now that the elections
Speaker 1: in the bag. Huh, funny coincidence on the timing there,
Speaker 1: But none of the stuff that is in there really
Speaker 1: seems like it will do much to actually, you know,
Speaker 1: change hearts and minds in terms of actually dealing with
Speaker 1: the inner hatred that seems to be running through an
Speaker 1: awful lot of places in this country, particularly on the left.
Speaker 7: Yes, of course, and I'm mention of Since Jillian Seagull
Speaker 7: has released that report, she has faced a barrage of
Speaker 7: critical media, unsurprisingly because it did point out sections about
Speaker 7: media that perhaps have engaged in less an objective reporting
Speaker 7: and her deep wish for objectivity to return to journalism
Speaker 7: and to return to universities and other arts and culture
Speaker 7: and publicly funded institutions. But there is a dirt sheet
Speaker 7: independent news website that around twenty four hours ago reported
Speaker 7: that her husband, independent of her, had made donations to
Speaker 7: Advance Australia. Wheill no Advance and they wrote as Advanced
Speaker 7: can and I just quote from this is a bigoted,
Speaker 7: promotes racist trope. Is a far right fringe lobby group.
Speaker 7: Now you can make up your subjective mind of Advance,
Speaker 7: but that was how someone who might support Advance was
Speaker 7: framed within this article. That article was subsequently then re
Speaker 7: reported on in the City Morning Herald and The Canberra Times.
Speaker 7: So far My point to this is that we've got
Speaker 7: to a position in Australia now in public life that
Speaker 7: people with a voice seem to think it's okay to
Speaker 7: write a veiled message through the media that somebody who
Speaker 7: might support the state of Israel, Australia's only democratic ally
Speaker 7: in the Middle East, might be some sort of far
Speaker 7: right sympathizer. Indeed, and that's a very very dangerous thread
Speaker 7: to weave through our media. And that actually just points
Speaker 7: probably to the framework of the report that she's released
Speaker 7: well exactly.
Speaker 1: And I also think it just means that this whole
Speaker 1: term far right now means absolutely nothing. I mean, that's
Speaker 1: the other result of this here, which is probably good
Speaker 1: because it is a meaningless term at this point. Here
Speaker 1: is anybody you know who's to the right of Albinizi
Speaker 1: or you know, wants a little bit of a restriction
Speaker 1: on immigration numbers or something like that. Oh you're far right,
Speaker 1: that's all we hear now. But you know, Jema, there
Speaker 1: was a good news story this weekend here and it
Speaker 1: was in the Australian and it's all about the gen
Speaker 1: Z and millennials in Israel, and apparently it's basically saying
Speaker 1: that once upon a time everybody in Israel thought, oh,
Speaker 1: you know this TikTok generation here, these self absorbed, selfie
Speaker 1: taking kids wouldn't be able to stomach any sort of fighting. Well, apparently,
Speaker 1: you know, it's all about how they've been on the
Speaker 1: front line since twenty twenty three, since October seventh, doing
Speaker 1: heroic work in many instances here. But the thing I
Speaker 1: was wondering about, Jemma, is we also scoff at young
Speaker 1: people in an awful lot in this country here. Do
Speaker 1: you think that if push came to show that our
Speaker 1: own self absorbed z's and millennials would be up to
Speaker 1: the fight of, you know, seeing off a threat from
Speaker 1: China or some other adversary.
Speaker 6: What are you hopeful, as we say in the mother country,
Speaker 6: that's a belladomanda.
Speaker 8: I don't I don't honestly know. I don't know. I
Speaker 8: would like to say yes, I would like to say yes.
Speaker 6: I don't know. Simply because having been to the Middle
Speaker 6: East a number of times now, Israeli youth live with
Speaker 6: an existential threat.
Speaker 8: They know that on every border a maniac's trying to
Speaker 8: wipe them out.
Speaker 6: Because they're Jewish. Australian kids don't have that context. You know,
Speaker 6: we're not going to war of good social anxiety. Like
Speaker 6: I just don't know that cometh the hour, cometh the person.
Speaker 6: I don't know if that would apply to Australian youths.
Speaker 6: I would like to think, so I don't know.
Speaker 1: Well I would hope. So, Hey, listen, that's all the
Speaker 1: time we've got here for the Pound tonight. Jemma Tagnini,
Speaker 1: Christy McSweeney, thank you so much for your time on
Speaker 1: Paul Marie Live. Stick around for a final thought. Welcome
Speaker 1: back James mara here for Palmriy Live tonight and throughout
Speaker 1: the week. Great to have your company. Now, just before
Speaker 1: we go this evening, gosh, I want to tell you
Speaker 1: about a pretty funny story that's just broken here in Sydney,
Speaker 1: and really I think has it all and in some
Speaker 1: ways says it all. Yes, this story contains people in
Speaker 1: Sydney's eastern suburbs. It's got Nimby's, it's got climate change,
Speaker 1: and it's got giant puppets. Yeah. So anyway, the story
Speaker 1: goes something like this. Apparently here in Sydney, a Sydney
Speaker 1: arts company wanted to put on a giant puppet show
Speaker 1: in Paddington. Now, Paddington is a very fashionable suburb in
Speaker 1: Sydney's East, full of beautiful Victorian terrace houses and lots
Speaker 1: of beautiful shops and boutiques and things of that sort.
Speaker 1: It's the sort of place that we in the newspaper
Speaker 1: business call a leafy suburb. Now that's the problem, and
Speaker 1: I wonder if you can see where I'm going with
Speaker 1: this here, this puppet show, Well, you'd think this was
Speaker 1: going to get over the line because it was going
Speaker 1: to be all about you guessed it, climate change. But
Speaker 1: even this was going to be too much for the
Speaker 1: residents of Pado. The locals there are apparently afraid that
Speaker 1: the puppet show will have noise impacts, rowdy crowds because
Speaker 1: of course, you know those Greta Thunberg types, as well
Speaker 1: as light pollution and even draw crime to the area. Now,
Speaker 1: according to the Citney Morning Herald, which has broken the story,
Speaker 1: one resident argued the proposal could lead to severe impacts
Speaker 1: on surrounding residents due to excessive noise, both from crowds
Speaker 1: and performances. This proposal is excessive in the extreme, This
Speaker 1: person wrote to the council. Well, this is kind of
Speaker 1: funny to be here because of course Ansky Albin Easy
Speaker 1: right now is over in China and the excuse for
Speaker 1: this trip is to promote Chinese tourism to Australia. But
Speaker 1: with this sort of thing happening in the city that's
Speaker 1: opposed to be the capital, the entertainment capital, the fun
Speaker 1: capital of Australia, what sort of message are we sending
Speaker 1: here with this sort of thing. I mean, I'm all
Speaker 1: for protecting historic areas, and I frankly think the yimbies
Speaker 1: you've heard a lot about them, have never seen a
Speaker 1: nice house. They didn't want a bulldoze for shoe box apartments.
Speaker 1: But at the same time, we got to get some
Speaker 1: life into the joint. Even if it is just some
Speaker 1: sort of weird climate change puppet show, This is an
Speaker 1: Australian wide problem and you know what, we have got
Speaker 1: to lighten up people. Now, stick around. I'm gonna be
Speaker 1: with you tomorrow night, and coming up now is the
Speaker 1: Royal Report with Caroline Trusso Sea tomorrow night,