Speaker 1: I'm Daniel James and you're listening to seven AM. When
Speaker 1: the United States launch strikes in Iran, Australia was quick
Speaker 1: to back the move. Prime Minister Anthony Alberzi says it's
Speaker 1: about defending global security, but critics say that argument sounds familiar.
Speaker 1: More than two decades ago, another Australian prime minister used
Speaker 1: almost identical arguments to justify joining Australia's wars in Afghanistan
Speaker 1: and Iraq. Back then, Alberanzi himself warned those decisions would
Speaker 1: redefine Australia as a willing backer of US militarism, no
Speaker 1: matter whether it's in the national interest or not. Today
Speaker 1: Political editor at Craikey Burnet Keane and why he believes
Speaker 1: the Prime Minister has undergone a remarkable transformation and what
Speaker 1: it means for Australia as the conflict grows. It's Saturday,
Speaker 1: March seven. Bernard, great to have you on seven AM.
Speaker 1: You wrote this week that Anthony Albernezi's transformation into Deputy
Speaker 1: Sheriff John Howard is complete. What did you mean by that?
Speaker 2: People with I guess longer memories will recall that John
Speaker 2: Howard half accepted half struggled with the suggestion that he
Speaker 2: might have been the Deputy Sheriff of the United States
Speaker 2: both before the George W. Bush presidency and the Afghan
Speaker 2: and Iraq ventures and afterwards.
Speaker 3: And if terrorists ever get their hands on weapons of
Speaker 3: mass destruction, that will, in my very passionate belief and argument,
Speaker 3: constitute a direct, undeniable and lethal threat to Australia and
Speaker 3: its people.
Speaker 2: The suggestion was that he was so loyal to the
Speaker 2: United States that effectively Australia was an agent of the
Speaker 2: United States its foreign policy and military policy in this region.
Speaker 2: And it's hard to see much of a difference between
Speaker 2: John Howard and Anthony Albanezi in that regard.
Speaker 4: I want to see the possibility of Iran getting a
Speaker 4: nuclear weapon removed once and for all, and I also
Speaker 4: want to see a removal of the ongoing threat that
Speaker 4: has been there for such a long period of time.
Speaker 4: I've Iran endangering peace and security and stability, not just
Speaker 4: in its own region, but here in Australia.
Speaker 2: Of course, Australia is much more so than it was
Speaker 2: under John Howard a base for US military activities aimed
Speaker 2: at China. We're a supply dump for US military supplies
Speaker 2: for all. With China, we're becoming a submarine base for them.
Speaker 2: We spend a lot of money building up as Tinder
Speaker 2: Northern Territory to be a B fifty two bomber base.
Speaker 2: We have training for marines here. We've become even far
Speaker 2: more integrated into the US military machine than under John Howard,
Speaker 2: and with the principal goal of fighting a war against
Speaker 2: a key power in our own region, which really does
Speaker 2: make us much more of a deputy sheriff I think
Speaker 2: now than under John Howard. Even if the kinds of
Speaker 2: retoric and rationale that we're seeing from Anthony Alberizia, I
Speaker 2: guess a kind of a poor photo copy of what
Speaker 2: we heard from John Howard. Around Iraq, there was a
Speaker 2: pretense back during the lead up to the Iraq War
Speaker 2: that international law mattered.
Speaker 1: As a quaint nation.
Speaker 2: Well, we're all agreed that now, except for the Albanezi
Speaker 2: government itself, we're all agreed in the opposition agrees international
Speaker 2: law and the so called rules based international la is
Speaker 2: a thing of the past.
Speaker 5: For primer, mister Karney, you've said that Canada will not
Speaker 5: participate in US military action in Iran, So can you defineh.
Speaker 2: Point is there's a failure of imagination going on right now,
Speaker 2: and we're seeing it pretty sh We contrasted with Mark
Speaker 2: Carney being here In Anthony Albanese's response, Mark Carney, Canadian
Speaker 2: Prime minist has been very clear that the world has changed.
Speaker 2: The international rules based order is no more. International law
Speaker 2: has been jumped, and you know we've got to adjust
Speaker 2: to that.
Speaker 6: And now you know, more uncertain, more divided world. Canada
Speaker 6: and Australia our middle powers charting on our own course
Speaker 6: with confidence, ambition and partnership.
Speaker 1: So why was Anthony Albanezi so quick to get behind
Speaker 1: America's strukes this week, given that the there is a
Speaker 1: general consensus that it breaches international law. Why did he
Speaker 1: come out so strong when other leaders, like some of
Speaker 1: the Europeans and Kiss Darma took a more measured approach.
Speaker 2: I think that Anthony Alberneze's strategy with Trump is keep
Speaker 2: your head down, don't say anything that might upset the
Speaker 2: mad King in Washington. Kiss Armer obviously been reluctant to
Speaker 2: support the venture, refused permission for UK military basis to
Speaker 2: be an air basis to be used that earned him
Speaker 2: a rebuke. Trump's been teeing off on the Spanish government
Speaker 2: for very openly criticizing and again refusing to allow Spanish
Speaker 2: resources to be used in the conflict. Anthony Albanezi seems
Speaker 2: to be absolutely terrified of the idea that Donald Trump
Speaker 2: might say something bad about him, and therefore Anthony Alberaneesi
Speaker 2: preemptively almost leaps to do whatever Donald Trump really would like. Plus,
Speaker 2: we've got a media environment which is very pro us,
Speaker 2: particularly led by News Corp, which is an American corporation,
Speaker 2: and Albanese of course would prefer not to be criticized
Speaker 2: by the media for not being sufficiently pro us. I mean,
Speaker 2: he's spent a lot of last year being sort of
Speaker 2: criticized by the media for not being sufficiently basically groveling
Speaker 2: to Trump. And I'm sure that falls part of his
Speaker 2: political calculations about how quickly and how high he should
Speaker 2: jump when the Americans say jump.
Speaker 1: If we delve into the midst of time, burn it
Speaker 1: and go back to the year two thousand and three,
Speaker 1: a younger Anthony Albanezer had a very different perspective on
Speaker 1: our involvement in the Iraq or, saying it was an
Speaker 1: unjust war with no un backing what's changed in that
Speaker 1: time to the way he now responds to conflicts like
Speaker 1: this in twenty twenty six.
Speaker 2: Anthony Obernize is the one who can answer that question.
Speaker 2: But there's a kind of epistemological question here. I think,
Speaker 2: you know, did Anthony Albaneze actually believe that when he
Speaker 2: said it in two thousand and three and have his
Speaker 2: views changed or did he never believe it? And he
Speaker 2: was articulating that as a you know, as a political
Speaker 2: statement which is intended to strengthen his political position. There
Speaker 2: are people who are saying, look, Anthony abenez has always been,
Speaker 2: always been about Anthony Albanezi, and his statements have always
Speaker 2: been in a sense performative. Well, that's true. Obviously, it's
Speaker 2: very cynical. I'd like to think that all politicians, even
Speaker 2: you know, even the ones that I have very little
Speaker 2: time for, actually have some sense of some guiding value.
Speaker 2: But you know, it is a pretty stark contrast between
Speaker 2: the anti Albanezi of two thousand and three downs in
Speaker 2: US militarism and the anti Albanze of twenty twenty six.
Speaker 1: If we look at the political calculation here, that the
Speaker 1: domestic political calculation here, Bernard is the PM likely to
Speaker 1: regret going all in on this war if the war
Speaker 1: itself continues to drag prices up and affect our cost
Speaker 1: of living.
Speaker 2: Obviously, the longer the war goes on, the more likely
Speaker 2: we are to get a significant and prolonged oil price
Speaker 2: spike and a gas price spike in its wake. That
Speaker 2: is going to have ramifications. But if people can see
Speaker 2: that it's primarily caused by a war, they're probably less
Speaker 2: likely to blame Antony Albanesi, even though he supports that war.
Speaker 2: I think that it will be another breck in one
Speaker 2: kind of war, which is the perception that Antoni Albanese
Speaker 2: is very reflexively pro American and does not articulate what
Speaker 2: is I think a widespread view of revulsion Donald Trump
Speaker 2: that is abroad in the Australian electric We saw that
Speaker 2: since last May in the election result, and I think
Speaker 2: if Alberanezi finds himself too a drift of popular sentiment
Speaker 2: in regard to something that is as closely associated with
Speaker 2: Trump as this Iranian venture, then I think there'll be
Speaker 2: some sort of collateral damage.
Speaker 1: Coming up. The scathing review, the liberals didn't want you
Speaker 1: to see burden in a classic example of the streisand effect.
Speaker 1: The other big political news of the week was the
Speaker 1: Liberal Party election review. They tried to keep it under
Speaker 1: wraps because of a cranky Peter Dutton. That only increased
Speaker 1: the attention to it, and this week the whole thing
Speaker 1: was leaked. What did it say that was so bad?
Speaker 2: Well, it was pretty critical of Peter Dutton, you know,
Speaker 2: speaking of them, who really has much sympathy for Peter Dutton.
Speaker 2: I think it was actually pretty harsh on Dutton. Observation
Speaker 2: that the review team made was which Nick mentioned of
Speaker 2: Prue Gowd made the observation that no one who contributed
Speaker 2: to the review was prepared to be self critical, which
Speaker 2: is pretty funny. I said, every everyone was happy to
Speaker 2: criticize everyone else. No one engaged in any sort of
Speaker 2: reflection on their own on their own performance.
Speaker 1: Is that Spider Man meme where you know half doesn't
Speaker 1: spider matter? Or pointing at each other and blaming each.
Speaker 2: Other exactly, Yeah, they're all pointing at each other saying, look,
Speaker 2: that's where your big problem is. I think that it
Speaker 2: had touched on a couple of things that I think
Speaker 2: are really problematic for the Liberals. Obviously, one is quote
Speaker 2: unquote the women problem. It came back to that issue
Speaker 2: several times and made the point that, look, Liberal's been
Speaker 2: talking about this issue for a long time, no one's
Speaker 2: ever done a deep dive on how they can actually
Speaker 2: fix it. Angus Taylor, of course knifed the first female
Speaker 2: leader of the Liberal.
Speaker 1: Party, so not a great start.
Speaker 2: Yeah, not probably not in a strong position to be
Speaker 2: leading the charge on a greater female representation. It talked
Speaker 2: about the age gap and the fact that structurally, systematically
Speaker 2: the Liberal Party is an old person's and Angus Taylor
Speaker 2: coming out so strongly against any sort of tax reform
Speaker 2: that might benefit younger generations at the expense of you know,
Speaker 2: older asset owners people like me probably said another signal
Speaker 2: along those lines. And of course the issued with migrant communities,
Speaker 2: which is really highly relevant given Taylor's almost made immigration.
Speaker 2: You know, he said the immigration is going to be
Speaker 2: one of his big issues. He's saying that there's too
Speaker 2: many migrants coming and they're not good enough, which is
Speaker 2: not the kind of signal that is going to win
Speaker 2: back migrant communities. You know, who's shown over a course
Speaker 2: of a couple of elections that they're not overly happy
Speaker 2: with the Liberal Party.
Speaker 1: I mean you mentioned the report was very hash on
Speaker 1: Petere Dutton. He's even threatened to sue defamation. What did
Speaker 1: it say about him specifically that irked him so much.
Speaker 2: I think it was kind of the focus on his
Speaker 2: personal characteristics that I think really upset.
Speaker 1: Him, sort of character assessment stuff.
Speaker 2: Well, it talked about him. The original version talked about
Speaker 2: him as being grim and introverted, not characteristics you want
Speaker 2: in an alternative prime minister. That was taken out. But
Speaker 2: it also talks about, you know, women not liking Dutton,
Speaker 2: Dunton not appealing to female voters, which he took as
Speaker 2: a kind of a reference to the fact that has
Speaker 2: a quite distinctive appearance. Whether the review is intended that
Speaker 2: or not, I don't know, but I guess if I'd
Speaker 2: been described similar ways, I might think, well, geez, she's
Speaker 2: having a crack the way it looks not to flash.
Speaker 2: But the overall tone of the comments about Dutton kind
Speaker 2: of suggest that he was a bit of a loner.
Speaker 2: He didn't trust anyone, he was a bit paranoid, and
Speaker 2: he concentrated power in his own hands and as a result,
Speaker 2: everything got stuffed upe. I think there are elements of
Speaker 2: that that are true. But the idea that Dutton came in,
Speaker 2: you know, almost like the mini Trump, that he was
Speaker 2: portrayed as you know, somewhat inaccurately and somehow took over
Speaker 2: the party and look took it off in directions it
Speaker 2: shouldn't have gone. And you know, I did all these
Speaker 2: crazy things that you don't do in normal campaigns. I
Speaker 2: think that is a little unfair. I think that overly
Speaker 2: focusing on either Dutton's appeal or the way Dutton did
Speaker 2: things risks kind of shifting the responsibility away from the
Speaker 2: people who allowed that to happen, which includes his parliamentary colleagues.
Speaker 1: And what did the review actually say about the current leadership?
Speaker 1: I mean, you spoke about migrant communities and Angus Taylor's
Speaker 1: immigration agenda. What did the report say about Jane Hume
Speaker 1: and Angus Taylor?
Speaker 2: Doesn't talk about Angus Taylor in person at all, doesn't
Speaker 2: name him. It reflects rather critically on the decision that
Speaker 2: was made in the budget lock up last year to
Speaker 2: oppose the labor's tax cuts, which obviously Taylor was part of.
Speaker 2: There's still a bit of mystery about whether you know
Speaker 2: who drove that, whether it was Dutton and how much
Speaker 2: Taylor requiesced. Jane Hume, on the other hand, is mentioned
Speaker 2: mentioned very critically for her extraordinary capacity to alienate migrant
Speaker 2: communities and particularly Chinese community, with a throwaway reference to
Speaker 2: Chinese spies.
Speaker 5: You don't need to go out that far on the
Speaker 5: polling Booth's Claire. There might be Chinese spies that are
Speaker 5: hanging out for you, but for us, there's dozens, thousands,
Speaker 5: hundreds of young people that are out there handing out
Speaker 5: how to vote cuts.
Speaker 2: Imagine being the labor operatives. He saw that during the campaign.
Speaker 2: They must have just thought new beauty.
Speaker 5: That's what the newspapers are saying. I think they're getting it.
Speaker 2: I think they're getting a bit desperate. It's really interesting
Speaker 2: to read the report about the issue of migrant communities
Speaker 2: and the fact that the Liberals are kind of a
Speaker 2: bit performative about it. It's go and have a photo op.
Speaker 2: And there are people amongst the candidates who lost, there
Speaker 2: are people saying, you know, we've actually got to really
Speaker 2: change our mindset about migrant communities. Amelia Hamer, who lost
Speaker 2: narrowly lost Cuon she made an absolutely fascinating observation that
Speaker 2: it's not like the nineteen seventies. She made the point
Speaker 2: little people come here, but they don't set for their
Speaker 2: ties with their home country anymore. They go back and forth.
Speaker 2: They see themselves as being the product of two countries
Speaker 2: and that's really odds with the kind of hardline if
Speaker 2: you don't like it, to leave it kind of mentality
Speaker 2: of the right.
Speaker 1: And finally, Bernard, as you mentioned, the report noted that
Speaker 1: past election reviews have identified some of these recurring issues,
Speaker 1: like their problem with women, but the recommendations have been
Speaker 1: largely ignored. Will this time be any different and what
Speaker 1: lessons need to be learned most urgently by the Liberal Party?
Speaker 2: The review is more interested in the structure and in
Speaker 2: how they sold policies and who was doing that. So
Speaker 2: it's trying to make much more concrete recommendations and one
Speaker 2: of those is much more engagement with migrant communities and
Speaker 2: young people. And one of the things that observed was
Speaker 2: there's very few women actually within the leadership of the
Speaker 2: Liberals Secretariat or its campaign HQ, and that's got to
Speaker 2: be remedied. So there was a focus on more doable
Speaker 2: recommendations if you like, but the fact that they we're
Speaker 2: so key to bury. It really suggests that despite the
Speaker 2: effort to actually make them more implementable, they suffer the
Speaker 2: same fate as previous recommendations, and obviously labor will be
Speaker 2: hoping that no, they don't keep the memo this time
Speaker 2: and just keep on making the same sort of mistakes
Speaker 2: and alienating the same sort of communities.
Speaker 1: Bernard, thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 2: My pleasure.
Speaker 1: Seven AM is a daily show from Solstice Media. It's
Speaker 1: made by Atticus Bastow, Ariel Richards, Chris Dangate, Crystal Color,
Speaker 1: Nicole Johnston, Travis Evans, Zolnvecho and me Daniel James. Our
Speaker 1: theme music is by Ned Beckley and Josh Hogan of
Speaker 1: Envelope Bordio. Thanks for listening to seven IM have a
Speaker 1: great weekend.