Speaker 1: Live on Sky News.
Speaker 2: This is Sharry.
Speaker 3: Good Evening.
Speaker 4: Welcome to the show tonight bombshell revelations about how Palestinian
Speaker 4: visas were issued without any manual checks at all. Security
Speaker 4: insiders tell me visitor visas have been approved in an
Speaker 4: automated process, with intelligence agencies later scrambling those exclusive details
Speaker 4: in a moment.
Speaker 3: The Prime Minister.
Speaker 4: Today under pressure over questions around national security. Shadow Immigration
Speaker 4: Minister Dan Tian will be on the show a bit
Speaker 4: later and will cross live to the US after the
Speaker 4: first day of the Democratic National Convention. I'll get Republican
Speaker 4: US Acting Attorney General Matthew Whittaker's take on the star
Speaker 4: studded show later on, But first tonight to our exclusive
Speaker 4: revelation that visas to Palestinians have been approved without any
Speaker 4: manual security checks at all. Concerned security insiders told me
Speaker 4: today that visitor visas have been approved for Gazans in
Speaker 4: an automated process. This has left intelligence agencies later scrambling
Speaker 4: to ensure that none pose a risk to national security.
Speaker 4: This shocking revelation comes as figures show Australia is taking
Speaker 4: more Palestinians from Gaza than almost anywhere in the developed world,
Speaker 4: and far more than surrounding Islamic countries. Yet the Albanezi
Speaker 4: government security process is weaker than other nations. Data shows
Speaker 4: Australia has issued visas to two nine hundred and twenty
Speaker 4: two Palestinians, one thy five hundred are already in the country.
Speaker 4: By contrast, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway and Spain were among
Speaker 4: thirty five countries not to take in any Palestinians since
Speaker 4: octob seven. Of our five Eyes allies, the US accepted
Speaker 4: only seventeen one hundred and sixty eight to the UK,
Speaker 4: twenty seven to New Zealand, and forty one to Canada.
Speaker 4: Neighboring Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia have taken in none,
Speaker 4: according to data compiled by the Coalition, and Spain is fascinating.
Speaker 4: It's one of the leading pro Palestinian countries politically, it's
Speaker 4: already recognized Palestine as an independent country. Yet it's taken
Speaker 4: in no Palestinians since October seven. And there's a reason.
Speaker 4: The intense security risk. It's something the powerful chair of
Speaker 4: the United States Congressional Foreign Affairs Committee spoke to me
Speaker 4: about on Thursday. Michael McColl said that her mask sympathizers
Speaker 4: could be ticking time bombs.
Speaker 5: You have to properly vet individuals before you bring them
Speaker 5: in to your country, otherwise you could be bringing in,
Speaker 5: you know, ticking time bonds, hamas or other terrorists that
Speaker 5: could cause problems.
Speaker 4: Now, these guasans were given visitor visas, as ad Husick said,
Speaker 4: because it's faster. Well Inside has told me today that
Speaker 4: the visitor visa process is clunky and out of date.
Speaker 4: It involves an online questionnaire where an electronic assessment classifies
Speaker 4: people into.
Speaker 3: Different risk categories.
Speaker 4: There would be a ping an alert if a person's
Speaker 4: name hits a watch list, an Interpol red notice or
Speaker 4: Australia's Movement Alert list. But unless someone's name is flagged
Speaker 4: on a watch list, then they're not referred for a
Speaker 4: manual security assessment, no manual checks. I'm told there's a
Speaker 4: bias in the system to grant the visa because these
Speaker 4: visas are usually for people visiting family members, not for
Speaker 4: people coming from.
Speaker 3: A terrorist hotspot.
Speaker 4: If there's no red flag based on someone's name or
Speaker 4: their own answers to the online questionnaire, then the visa
Speaker 4: is automatically granted. And this can happen as we know
Speaker 4: in as little as one hour.
Speaker 5: Now.
Speaker 4: I asked Home Affairs about this today. They said they
Speaker 4: couldn't respond to my questions until tomorrow, and I'll bring
Speaker 4: you their answers if I have them tomorrow night. But
Speaker 4: we know that a visa was granted in just one
Speaker 4: hour after an online application filled out by this man
Speaker 4: am Endlan for his mother. And as you know, DEFAT
Speaker 4: officials have admitted that visas are coming through in one hour.
Speaker 5: Taken look globally, a very large number of.
Speaker 2: Visit of visas would be done inside. And now.
Speaker 4: This follows the admission by the AZO Director General, Mike
Speaker 4: Burgess that security checks for Palace Indians were only done
Speaker 4: if certain triggers were established, and that was the line
Speaker 4: that the Prime Minister misquoted and misled Australians over. Now
Speaker 4: it's actually a fraudulent use of the visa system to
Speaker 4: give Gazans visitor visas.
Speaker 3: Are they here in a holiday?
Speaker 4: Well no, because Tony Burke, the Minister, has said that
Speaker 4: he's not going to send anyone back to Gaza. The
Speaker 4: Coalition hounded the Albanese government in parliament again today about
Speaker 4: why our security process is weaker than other countries Today.
Speaker 6: It was reported that before approving visas for people coming
Speaker 6: from the terrorist controlled gars of war zone, Canada requires
Speaker 6: applicants to submit to face to face interviews and biometric
Speaker 6: testing in a third country, Egypt. Why didn't the government
Speaker 6: have a similar arrangement in place before granting more than
Speaker 6: two nine hundred tourist visas.
Speaker 5: Well.
Speaker 4: In response to the Prime Minister says, not all Palestinians
Speaker 4: support Hamas.
Speaker 7: People are from Gaza or the West Bank for that matter,
Speaker 7: certainly not automatically Hamas supporters and shouldn't be set still
Speaker 7: as boys.
Speaker 3: And that's right. Of course.
Speaker 4: Not all Palestinians support Hermas, but many do. The government
Speaker 4: itself has rejected more than seven thousand visa applications from
Speaker 4: Gaza on security grounds, and there were many civilians who
Speaker 4: took part alongside Hermas in the October seven attacks, and
Speaker 4: other civilians went in and looted homes, stepping over children
Speaker 4: and families still lying there warm and bleeding. Civilians also
Speaker 4: celebrated on the streets of Gaza as bloodied Israeli bodies
Speaker 4: were paraded around and hostages dragged in. But Albinizi is right,
Speaker 4: not all Palestinians support Hermas. And here's the point, what
Speaker 4: is he doing to ensure that her Musk sympathizers or worse,
Speaker 4: actual her Musk members aren't coming to Australia. Automated visa
Speaker 4: visitor visas are not the answer. Security checks that take
Speaker 4: as little as one hour without any manual assessment is
Speaker 4: certainly not going to sort through those posing a risk
Speaker 4: from the refugees.
Speaker 3: Well, Peter dartenass today.
Speaker 4: If there was a third country where security assessments were
Speaker 4: being completed.
Speaker 8: Processing a visa application, or somebody is offshore in a
Speaker 8: third country like Jordan, means a person of concern can
Speaker 8: be stopped before getting to Australia. The last government used
Speaker 8: this process when bringing people in from Syria. The Prime
Speaker 8: Minister says the process for granting twenty nine hundred tourist
Speaker 8: visas to those coming from the terrorist control of Gaza
Speaker 8: zone followed the same process. Can the Prime Minister advise
Speaker 8: in which third party country these people were sent to
Speaker 8: for screening before they come to Australia.
Speaker 4: There's not now, Dante and who'll be on my show
Speaker 4: A bit later, he asked five times how many of
Speaker 4: the two nine hundred visas from Gaza have been counseled
Speaker 4: five times. The Prime Minister wouldn't answer and instead attack
Speaker 4: to the coalition for asking questions about this instead of
Speaker 4: other topics.
Speaker 7: I could have asked a question about the cost of living,
Speaker 7: could have asked a question about order from about the
Speaker 7: visit of the president elective Indonesia promised to doesn't.
Speaker 4: He think national security is important to worry about. It's
Speaker 4: so utterly confusing to see this lack of regard for
Speaker 4: our safety, for our children's safety. It's so utterly confusing
Speaker 4: that the Albanezy government and even Asio think it's okay
Speaker 4: for people to come here who support Humus, because Mike
Speaker 4: Burgess has said as much.
Speaker 9: If it's just rhetorical report and they don't have a
Speaker 9: ideology or support for a violent extream as an ideology,
Speaker 9: then that's not a problem.
Speaker 6: Well.
Speaker 4: Foreign Affairs editor Greg Sheridan said today that in his
Speaker 4: forty five years of journalism he can't recall any minister
Speaker 4: or official saying that it was okay to rhetorically support
Speaker 4: a terror group, let alone someone who was seeking to
Speaker 4: come to Australia. Greg Sheridan asks, is it okay to
Speaker 4: give verbal support to al Qaeda or Islamic State or
Speaker 4: even the Ku Klux Klan. He says, Jimas is not
Speaker 4: only a terrorist organization, its charter contains the most foul
Speaker 4: and vicious traditional anti Semitism.
Speaker 3: He says.
Speaker 4: The government must clarify what it means to say some degree.
Speaker 3: Of support for Hamas is no problem.
Speaker 4: He says, the Opposition would be failing its duty to
Speaker 4: the nation to leave this matter unresolved, and it is
Speaker 4: a good point. Is the Prime Minister not concerned that
Speaker 4: he's bringing people potentially to our country who hate Jews?
Speaker 3: Doesn't this change.
Speaker 4: Australia's social fabric? It seems the Prime Minister has quickly
Speaker 4: forgotten the barbarities inflicted by Hermas on October seven. He
Speaker 4: must have forgotten, or perhaps he doesn't care, because as
Speaker 4: the data shows, Australia is taking in a near record
Speaker 4: number of Palestinians from Gaza without any adequate security checks.
Speaker 4: All right, let's bring in tonight's panel, former Speaker of
Speaker 4: the House Bronwyn Bishop and Menzies Research Center executive director
Speaker 4: David Hughes.
Speaker 3: Welcome to you both. Great to see you. Brown.
Speaker 4: The Prime Minister today five times refused to say whether
Speaker 4: any Palestinians who'd already arrived in Australia have now had
Speaker 4: their visas revoked.
Speaker 3: Is this good enough?
Speaker 10: What is first becoming our cover up? Isn't it?
Speaker 11: The denials and the pathetic way in which Albanezi today
Speaker 11: tried to avoid answering those questions was made face of
Speaker 11: the political process. And you can only say that he's
Speaker 11: continually covering up of the issue.
Speaker 10: Means there's something to hide. What is it? We need
Speaker 10: to know, we need to be told.
Speaker 11: We hear the old adage that you know, to make
Speaker 11: a mistake is one thing, but to try and cover
Speaker 11: it up there's entirely another.
Speaker 10: And that's what's happening now. So when you.
Speaker 11: Look at the seriousness of national security, you realize that
Speaker 11: Albanezi removed the head of ASIO from the Security Committee
Speaker 11: of Cabinet, had to put him back.
Speaker 10: But who do you replace him with?
Speaker 11: Bowen with his climate change rubbish. You realize that there
Speaker 11: was the question of national security doesn't matter to him.
Speaker 11: He's like the kid who was still at university with
Speaker 11: his megaphone yelling out pro Palestinian stuff. Then he hasn't
Speaker 11: changed I say again again, he hasn't changed his spot
Speaker 11: he hasn't.
Speaker 4: David, the government tried to say today that the Coalition
Speaker 4: had a similar process when they accepted people from other
Speaker 4: dangerous parts of the world.
Speaker 3: Do you think that argument stands up to scrutiny.
Speaker 12: Well, I can assure you that's not the case. I
Speaker 12: was there in a senior role in the government at
Speaker 12: the time, and there's a number of visa pathways that
Speaker 12: governments can use, and those other nations that you mentioned
Speaker 12: that have taken less than one hundred people from Gaza
Speaker 12: are clearly using the humanitarian pathway, and there's two conditions
Speaker 12: that need to be met, and it's a lengthy process.
Speaker 12: You need to demonstrate that you meet the criteria on
Speaker 12: humanitarian grounds and you need to undergo a very comprehensive
Speaker 12: security check. Now that's a pathway that other countries are
Speaker 12: following that we followed in the past, particularly from people
Speaker 12: from war zones where it's all the more important. What
Speaker 12: concerns me here is we're letting people in on tourist visas.
Speaker 12: It's very hard once somebody's in the country, if they
Speaker 12: do found to have said something averse or support for Hamas,
Speaker 12: effectively need to be deported, which is a very lengthy
Speaker 12: process if the government goes down that path, and to
Speaker 12: have the head of our domestic intelligence service to say
Speaker 12: that somebody can still be allowed in and kind of
Speaker 12: offered support for a terrorist group is deeply, deeply concerning.
Speaker 12: So thank you for providing scrutiny on these issues, and.
Speaker 3: We'll continue to do so.
Speaker 4: And we're going to come back to this topic in
Speaker 4: the show I've got as I said dantean on a
Speaker 4: bit later. But now let's have a look at the
Speaker 4: fiasco in the New Southwle's Liberal Party and in breaking news,
Speaker 4: the New Southwello's Liberals have abandoned their bid to take
Speaker 4: the electoral Commission in New South Wales to court Brnwan.
Speaker 4: This has been a massive internal fiasco, extreme incompetence here
Speaker 4: that there are dozens of councils which now won't have Liberal.
Speaker 3: Candidates, including mine, oh including yours as well. So what
Speaker 3: do you think needs to happy?
Speaker 4: I mean there's questions over Mark Speakman's involvement, what he
Speaker 4: knew about this, the opposition leader in New South Wales.
Speaker 4: For people who don't know, he's got a very low profile.
Speaker 4: Do you think you know he needs to take some
Speaker 4: responsibility as well?
Speaker 11: Look, Cherry, I have never seen a mess like this.
Speaker 10: It's unprecedented.
Speaker 11: And what needs to happen is the slate has to
Speaker 11: be wipe clean in order that something can be done
Speaker 11: to show that the division can in fact run a
Speaker 11: federal election. There are still people, including in my olef set,
Speaker 11: which does not have an endorse candidate, despite the fact
Speaker 11: that requests have.
Speaker 10: Been made again and again for preselection.
Speaker 11: So we need to have a situation arise whereby there
Speaker 11: can be not only a competently run division, but it
Speaker 11: has to be believably competently run. Now there's been a
Speaker 11: sacrificial lamb in that the Richard Shields has been the
Speaker 11: sacrificial lamb, but that's not enough.
Speaker 3: Because it needs to go as well.
Speaker 11: All the people won't until action is taken, and the presidency,
Speaker 11: under the Constitution as it is now, has a very
Speaker 11: important role to play in. Certain decisions can't be made
Speaker 11: without the president, so he really has to consider his position.
Speaker 11: He really does, because the whole of the division is
Speaker 11: now a laughing stock and the leadership has to be
Speaker 11: seen to be in charge and it needs to have
Speaker 11: a clean fleet.
Speaker 3: David.
Speaker 4: The Daily Telegraph has reported that the Opposition leader Mark
Speaker 4: Speakman was warned that the party was headed for an iceberg,
Speaker 4: so I don't think there's a suggestion that he should
Speaker 4: step down, but clearly enough people knew that this process
Speaker 4: wasn't going to be met.
Speaker 12: John Howard said earlier in the year that he had
Speaker 12: concerns with running indoors Liberal candidates local governments because it
Speaker 12: depletes resources and the main game, of course is Canberra,
Speaker 12: and of course situations like this do take resources away
Speaker 12: from the cort responsibility of the Liberal Party, which is
Speaker 12: providing a Liberal prime minister in Canberra. Some good news, though, Sharhi,
Speaker 12: in the last ten minutes or so, I've just seen
Speaker 12: that Brian Locknae has been appointed to head a review
Speaker 12: into this situation in New South Wales, and of course
Speaker 12: no Brian was John Howard's former campaign director, so hopefully
Speaker 12: he'll steady the ship.
Speaker 10: I just think.
Speaker 11: It has to be seen by people that responsibility has
Speaker 11: been taken and it can be a competently run division and.
Speaker 10: That can't happen really if Don Harwin remains, if he's
Speaker 10: still that.
Speaker 4: But David, when you say that it takes resources away
Speaker 4: from focusing on the federal Liberal Party are you saying
Speaker 4: that perhaps long term the New Southeales Liberal Party or
Speaker 4: even other state Liberal parties shouldn't be in charge of
Speaker 4: the local council process.
Speaker 12: Well, Dean John Howard's view to an extent, think about
Speaker 12: it this way, Shari. For a federal election, the New
Speaker 12: South Wales division has to select fifty fifty candidates for
Speaker 12: fifty lower House seats. I think it's around ninety three.
Speaker 12: For state parliament. In this instance there would have been
Speaker 12: around six hundred applications, so it is a very big
Speaker 12: drain on resources.
Speaker 3: So who would run it than just individual people do
Speaker 3: it themselves.
Speaker 11: To be blunt, that's where it used to be done.
Speaker 11: Every local government conference ran a lodge its own documentation,
Speaker 11: and quite frankly, if they'd just said the day before,
Speaker 11: look we're having probably we can't get it all through
Speaker 11: the portal, do your own, which some people did because
Speaker 11: they got win that things weren't doing too well, then
Speaker 11: they could have been saved. I mean in terms of
Speaker 11: those people who have missed out. Take my own area
Speaker 11: for instance, there is.
Speaker 10: Nobody to vote for.
Speaker 11: We're disenfranchised, and there are the personal stories of people
Speaker 11: who have already spent money ready to buy core flutes
Speaker 11: and money on their own credit cards.
Speaker 4: But of course it matters not It matters as well
Speaker 4: for residents, for people who don't want radical policies or
Speaker 4: prop activism on the street.
Speaker 11: And we're in the difficult position where because of the
Speaker 11: incompetence of the division, then people are disenfranchised.
Speaker 10: They have not someone to vote for.
Speaker 4: All right, let's quickly turn to the RBA, because the
Speaker 4: minutes from their meeting on August fifth to six, the
Speaker 4: two day meeting, have just been released and they put
Speaker 4: more cold water on any chance of a rate cut
Speaker 4: before next year, saying it would result in inflation remaining persistent. David,
Speaker 4: though we keep hearing that there might be rate cuts.
Speaker 4: I mean, this talk, especially politically, won't let up despite.
Speaker 3: The minutes being there in black and white.
Speaker 12: It's extraordinary. Shari Anthony Alberanezi might be the first Prime
Speaker 12: Minister to never preside over an inflation rate within the
Speaker 12: RBA's target since they started setting target rates in the
Speaker 12: nineteen nineties. So their target for inflation ideally should be
Speaker 12: between two and three percent. At the moment, it's running
Speaker 12: close to four percent, and there's no likelihood of that
Speaker 12: being down for another two years.
Speaker 4: What do you think, Brian Wan, are you expecting we
Speaker 4: might see a rate cut at the start of next
Speaker 4: year or are you pessimistic given the level of both
Speaker 4: state and federal government spending, that inflation just might not
Speaker 4: come down enough to even have a rate cut at
Speaker 4: the start of next year.
Speaker 11: While the particularly the snake Darmer the Treasurer refuses to
Speaker 11: acknowledge that he's spending policies and that of other labor
Speaker 11: state governments US keeping those rates high and pleasure rates high,
Speaker 11: the Reserve Bank has no option but to keep saying
Speaker 11: that we are thinking about putting them up. If you
Speaker 11: don't get your wreck together, government, we will put them
Speaker 11: up to try and make them stop the outrageous extra
Speaker 11: spending that they're doing.
Speaker 4: All right from Bishop David Hughes, Great to see you
Speaker 4: both again. Now let's cross to the United States, where
Speaker 4: the Democratic National Convention kicked off in Chicago, and for
Speaker 4: day one, the Democrats brought out the who's who of
Speaker 4: the party to speak, including Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 13: Kamla cares cares about kids and families, cares about America.
Speaker 13: Donald only cares about himself. So it is no surprise,
Speaker 13: is it that he is lying about Kamala's record. He's
Speaker 13: mocking her name and her laugh sounds familiar. But we
Speaker 13: have him on the run now.
Speaker 4: And eyes were also on Joe Biden, who was trying
Speaker 4: to salvage his own life. I see just as much
Speaker 4: as he was speaking about Kamala.
Speaker 14: COVID no longer controls our lives. But God from economic
Speaker 14: crisis to the strongest economy in the entire world. Record
Speaker 14: sixty million new jobs, record, small business growth, record high,
Speaker 14: stock market record high far one case wages up, inflation down,
Speaker 14: way down, and continue to go down.
Speaker 4: It can talk up the US economy all he wants,
Speaker 4: but the truth is there are concerns about a recession.
Speaker 4: Well let's bring in now former US Acting Attorney General
Speaker 4: Matthew Whittaker. Thank you, great to see you again. Look,
Speaker 4: what were your main takeouts from the first day of
Speaker 4: this convention.
Speaker 1: Well, I think the Democrats going to be with you, Shari.
Speaker 1: I think the Democrats feel that the more you say things,
Speaker 1: even if they're not true, the more it might resonate.
Speaker 1: Because what's happening is is that the things that were
Speaker 1: being said from the stage last night are just not
Speaker 1: what the ordinary Americans are experienced in places you know
Speaker 1: that I travel all the time, and places where I
Speaker 1: you know, where I spend a large majority of my time.
Speaker 1: I just I see, for example, a lot of discussion
Speaker 1: about Kamala Harris and her policies. She hasn't announced any
Speaker 1: policies except price controls, which is kind of a failed
Speaker 1: socialist idea that that ultimately has never worked, and it's
Speaker 1: a cover up for when overspending by the government inflates
Speaker 1: the goods and services that people use on an everyday basis.
Speaker 1: So I think, you know, this was a way for
Speaker 1: them to get some of those folks on the stage
Speaker 1: and then off the stage. I think you're going to
Speaker 1: see much more messaging about policy, I hope, but you know,
Speaker 1: at the same time time, Kamala Harris hasn't really announced
Speaker 1: any policies except price controls.
Speaker 4: At this point, well, it seems to be that the
Speaker 4: Democrats are running a campaign mostly based on personality not policy,
Speaker 4: as you say, because the attacks on Trump came thick
Speaker 4: and fast. He was called a loser, a plague on
Speaker 4: the American conscience, a scab, even chance saying.
Speaker 3: Lock him up.
Speaker 4: So perhaps we are headed for what do you think
Speaker 4: a campaign that's more based ony on personality, on attacking
Speaker 4: Trump personally, rather than on key policy planks.
Speaker 1: I think that is the case. You know, I was
Speaker 1: at the Republican National Convention as a delegate, and I
Speaker 1: don't remember that many speakers worrying about or addressing Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: who is the nominee at the time before they did
Speaker 1: their you know, switch out a month ago. But you
Speaker 1: know you were going to see. I think the left
Speaker 1: continue to not be honest about what they stand for.
Speaker 1: This is kind of the what I would call the
Speaker 1: Obama strat know, he very much ran as a centrist.
Speaker 1: He very much ran as as kind of this idea
Speaker 1: of hope and change without any really policy provisions. And
Speaker 1: I think that's what they're trying to do with Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris is not allow her to talk about what she
Speaker 1: would do and her policies at least based on how
Speaker 1: she ran in twenty twenty and what her core philosophies
Speaker 1: are as a California Liberal, I think you're going to
Speaker 1: see her want to be very much a left wing
Speaker 1: radical in her policy approach.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we'll speaking of left wing radicals.
Speaker 4: I mean we saw I say up there endorsing Kamala,
Speaker 4: which should have many people worried. We also saw Joy
Speaker 4: Biden again have problems with his teleprompter.
Speaker 3: I have a look at this quote.
Speaker 14: Women are not without electrical not allowed, not without electoral,
Speaker 14: electoral or political power.
Speaker 4: Us women, we can be electric of it. Matthew, what
Speaker 4: did you make of that moment to and Biden's speech.
Speaker 1: More broadly, well, I mean, you see again someone he's
Speaker 1: trying as hard as he can, and I think that's
Speaker 1: kind of his biggest undoing and why he's not their
Speaker 1: nominee and why this isn't a convention about Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: as I think, you know, he did not instill confidence
Speaker 1: that he even understood what he was talking about. I mean,
Speaker 1: but you know, at the same time, I think the
Speaker 1: American people are really wanting authentic You know, you see,
Speaker 1: for example, Donald Trump stand up and do press conferences
Speaker 1: and take questions from a hostile press that is not
Speaker 1: in favor of him being elected. And then at the
Speaker 1: same time you see Kamala Harris and Joe Biden and
Speaker 1: really all of these politicians speak from teleprompters with remarks
Speaker 1: that they didn't even write themselves about policies and about
Speaker 1: ideas and issues that they don't even know what they
Speaker 1: stand for. So but yeah, she could still with to
Speaker 1: start contrast. Yeah, there's no doubt. There is no doubt.
Speaker 1: It is a coin flip election right now, and it's
Speaker 1: going to all depend on who shows up to vote.
Speaker 4: All right, Matthew Whittaker, thank you very much for your
Speaker 4: time now after the break, Shadow Immigration Minister Dan Tian
Speaker 4: hounded Albinizi today about how many guards and visas have
Speaker 4: been canceled after they were already issued. And I'm going
Speaker 4: to ask him what he knows about this when he's
Speaker 4: on the show next and still coming up. Will America
Speaker 4: step in to defend Taiwan if China invades and.
Speaker 3: Could this spark a world war?
Speaker 4: Well, an influential US congressman gives me his view. Welcome
Speaker 4: back with Shadow Immigration Minister Dan tin pursued the Prime
Speaker 4: Minister in question time today about how many Palestinian visas
Speaker 4: had been canceled after they were issued. Refuse to answer
Speaker 4: the question five times. You think this would be a
Speaker 4: critical question to answer. Has the government brought people into
Speaker 4: Australia who pose a risk to our national security and
Speaker 4: if their visas have been revoked.
Speaker 3: Well, what has happened to them?
Speaker 4: Home Affairs figures show that forty three visitor visas were
Speaker 4: canceled between October seven and August this year. Twenty were
Speaker 4: then restored on appeal. Well, who was the appeal made
Speaker 4: to and where are those twenty three who've had their
Speaker 4: visas counceled to discuss? I spoke with Dantean a little earlier.
Speaker 4: Dantein thank you very much for your time. You asked
Speaker 4: the Prime Minister five times today how many visas had
Speaker 4: been canceled. Is it your understanding that people were already
Speaker 4: here in Australia when their visas were canceled.
Speaker 15: Well, we're not quite sure, Sharhi, but we think that
Speaker 15: that information is incredibly important for the Australian people to know.
Speaker 15: And what we saw from the Prime Minister today was
Speaker 15: him being slippery and evasive to the most basic of
Speaker 15: questions and that these questions fundamentally go to the security
Speaker 15: of Australia. And I think this is really now becoming
Speaker 15: a character test of the Prime Minister, the fact that
Speaker 15: he's looking slippery and evasive, the fact that he won't
Speaker 15: provide this information to the Australian people. I think starts
Speaker 15: to raise big question marks about his character.
Speaker 4: Look at the Prime Minister, as you say, he wouldn't
Speaker 4: answer the question five times you asked it. If your
Speaker 4: proposition is accurate, and Palestinians from Harmas controlled Gaza were
Speaker 4: here in Australia when their visas were canceled, well what
Speaker 4: would happen to these people if they didn't have visas?
Speaker 3: Would they have to go into detention?
Speaker 15: Well it's a very good question and maybe one of
Speaker 15: the reasons why the Prime Minister refuses to answer this
Speaker 15: question because we don't know whether proper security checks were
Speaker 15: done before people came here. As a matter of fact,
Speaker 15: it seems that some people weren't given proper security checks.
Speaker 15: We don't know whether Azio was consulted before the government
Speaker 15: decided to issue tourist visas to these people coming from
Speaker 15: the Gaza war zone, because we asked that question yesterday
Speaker 15: and the government wouldn't answer it. So everywhere we go
Speaker 15: the government is just refusing to answer these most basic
Speaker 15: of questions. There has to be something that they are hiding.
Speaker 15: The PM has been slippery and evasive and it's beginning
Speaker 15: to smell. But we just don't know why he's doing this,
Speaker 15: but in the end he's going to have to come
Speaker 15: clean because it's important that the Australian people know this information,
Speaker 15: and we're going to keep asking the questions.
Speaker 4: Look, we know that nearly three thousand powers Estinians have
Speaker 4: been given visas by the Australian government. Around one thy
Speaker 4: five hundred are already in Australia for those that were
Speaker 4: given visitor visas to fast track the process. Look, these
Speaker 4: are not designed for security screening. They're meant for visitors,
Speaker 4: you know, people who were coming here to visit family
Speaker 4: members for example. So the security screening isn't as thorough
Speaker 4: for electronic applications. My understanding is, and I've been briefed
Speaker 4: by people who have been involved in this process from.
Speaker 3: A security perspective, is.
Speaker 4: That applicants can fill out a form online, it can
Speaker 4: be approved without any manual processing at all. So if
Speaker 4: the person's name doesn't hit a terror watch list or
Speaker 4: any other watch lists, it would simply be approved. This
Speaker 4: is why visas have been approved in as little as
Speaker 4: one hour. Does this sound adequate to you for the
Speaker 4: her Musk controlled wall zone.
Speaker 15: No, it doesn't, and that's why we've been asking the
Speaker 15: government these questions and that's why today one of the
Speaker 15: five questions that I asked the Prime Minister that once
Speaker 15: again he refused to answer, was were there any cancelations
Speaker 15: from people on shore? And he refused to answer that question.
Speaker 15: So there is something going on here. The Prime Minister
Speaker 15: has been slippery and evasive. And there's only one reason
Speaker 15: that we can think of that he's been slippery and evasive,
Speaker 15: and that is that him and Andrew Giles cooked up
Speaker 15: some scheme in a rush and now it's come back
Speaker 15: to bite them because what they're now having to do
Speaker 15: is chase their tails to make sure that the security
Speaker 15: of the Australian people has been looked after, and the
Speaker 15: Prime Minister doesn't seem to want to admit that, he
Speaker 15: doesn't want.
Speaker 2: To run up to it.
Speaker 15: Have to remember that Andrew Giles and the PM are
Speaker 15: from the left wing of the factions in the Labor Party.
Speaker 15: Andrew Giles was obviously a lawyer that did a lot
Speaker 15: in the humanitarian space, so we knew where his heart
Speaker 15: lay when he was appointed. And it seems like him
Speaker 15: and the Prime Minister have heard in this case. And
Speaker 15: Minister Giles might have been removed, but the Prime Minister
Speaker 15: is still there, and I think we've got every right
Speaker 15: to keep pursuing him and keep asking these questions of it.
Speaker 4: Just finally, we've seen data today that Australia has been
Speaker 4: more generous, if you can put it that way, or
Speaker 4: you risking national security is another way to put it.
Speaker 4: But Australia has taken more people from Gaza than any
Speaker 4: other virtually any other developed country around the world. Even
Speaker 4: pro Palestinian countries like Spain have taken no one from Gaza.
Speaker 4: What has this said say to you about our approach
Speaker 4: to national security under alban Easy.
Speaker 15: I think the big question that this raises is was
Speaker 15: that a vision that was taken by Prime Minister Albanesi
Speaker 15: at the time with the then former Immigration Minister Andrew
Speaker 15: Giles more about politics than about a humanitarian solution or
Speaker 15: about trying to do something that was in our national interests.
Speaker 15: So I think what it keeps pointing to is that
Speaker 15: this was a political decision, it was made in political haste,
Speaker 15: and it has jeopardized our national security. That seems to
Speaker 15: me what these figures show. Now, if the Prime Minister
Speaker 15: would come clean, we might be able to say, well,
Speaker 15: maybe it wasn't all about politics. But the fact that
Speaker 15: he won't come clean I think points to the fact
Speaker 15: that this was all about politics and national security was
Speaker 15: a secondary consideration in the haste. We know that they're
Speaker 15: being attacked by the Greens constantly on this issue. I
Speaker 15: think they've panicked and I think that's what we're starting
Speaker 15: to get to the bottom of. And you know, I
Speaker 15: think if we keep pursuing this, sadly, I think we're
Speaker 15: going to see that the Prime Minister and Anthony Albana easy, sorry,
Speaker 15: the Prime Minister and Anthony Andrew Giles were up to
Speaker 15: their eyeballs in this again and it's a calamity.
Speaker 4: Yeah, all right, Dante, and really appreciate your time.
Speaker 15: Thank you very much, Thanks Shari.
Speaker 4: And after the break, a powerful US politician tells me
Speaker 4: whether he thinks America would step in to defend Taiwan.
Speaker 5: Unlike Ukraine, Taiwan cannot win this by themselves.
Speaker 4: And if former intelligence officer will also join me to
Speaker 4: discuss what a potential Chinese invasion would mean for Australia.
Speaker 3: That's coming up.
Speaker 11: Well.
Speaker 4: China's aggression in our region is sparking concern both here
Speaker 4: and in the US. As Foreign affairs experts prepare for
Speaker 4: how they would respond to a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
Speaker 3: But when I sat down with.
Speaker 4: The United States Congressional Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Michael McCall
Speaker 4: on Thursday, I asked him about this very topic. We
Speaker 4: haven't played these remarks before.
Speaker 3: Here's what he had to say.
Speaker 4: There are concerns about China invading or reunification with Taiwan.
Speaker 4: What time frame do you expect this could happen in
Speaker 4: And I know you confident that the US would intervene
Speaker 4: and come to Taiwan's defense or aid in the event
Speaker 4: that that should happen.
Speaker 5: It's a great question. I mean, unlike Ukraine, Taiwan cannot
Speaker 5: win this by themselves. That you would need to help
Speaker 5: in the United States, in the allies in the Pacific.
Speaker 5: And I think the people of the United States will
Speaker 5: have to answer that question the people Australia.
Speaker 2: But I will tell you the one thing that.
Speaker 5: Gives me some hope in the last year and a
Speaker 5: half are these alliances we've seen take place between Japan
Speaker 5: South Korea, who were bitter enemies, the Philippines all being
Speaker 5: allies reaching out to Vietnam, and now Indonesia and now
Speaker 5: recently August the United States, UK and Australia coming together
Speaker 5: in an alliance to basically deter this Malayan influence that
Speaker 5: we're seeing from China. Remember, we don't have a NATO
Speaker 5: in the Pacific like we have in Europe, and so
Speaker 5: the alliances are so important and that has come.
Speaker 2: Together rather well.
Speaker 5: In addition to the supplemental bill that I helped get
Speaker 5: passed provided funding for the region and for protection, and
Speaker 5: then the final piece that I got passed in the
Speaker 5: Congress was.
Speaker 4: The August But just to clarify that answer, when you
Speaker 4: say it would be up to the American people and
Speaker 4: the Australian people whether America would come to the aid
Speaker 4: of Taiwan, given as you just said, it wouldn't be
Speaker 4: able to defend itself without that help.
Speaker 3: So do you think it's not.
Speaker 4: We don't know for certain whether the US would step in,
Speaker 4: that's an open question at this point.
Speaker 2: Well, I think I think deterrence is key.
Speaker 5: You project power of strength, you get peace, you project weakness,
Speaker 5: you invite aggression.
Speaker 2: Conflict and war.
Speaker 5: And I think that's where we're seeing ourselves today, whether
Speaker 5: it be in Ukraine and Eastern Europe, Middle East, and
Speaker 5: now that I call it two hot wars and.
Speaker 2: One hot zone, you know right here.
Speaker 5: I think ultimately the American people would because they don't
Speaker 5: want to see an aggressive communist China, but they also
Speaker 5: would need to be educated as to why and isle
Speaker 5: off the coast of China is so important. And we
Speaker 5: can talk about freedom and democracy. But you know TSM
Speaker 5: st at a recent tour, that's ninety percent of the
Speaker 5: advanced global manufacturing of semi connector chips for the world.
Speaker 2: If China invades.
Speaker 5: Taiwan, that facility shuts down and so does ninety percent
Speaker 5: of the global supply of advanced semi connected chips. Think
Speaker 5: about the economic downturn, the economic chaos and catastrophe that
Speaker 5: that would bring to the world.
Speaker 4: You are on a bipartisan trip, but do you think
Speaker 4: there would be a different position should Kamala Harris be
Speaker 4: in the White House versus Donald Trump when it comes
Speaker 4: to coming to Taiwan's defense.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I can tell you this.
Speaker 5: The current administration, I think is responsible for a lot
Speaker 5: of this aggression we've seen. We haven't led like the
Speaker 5: United States has in the past, and we've invited aggression.
Speaker 5: And quite frankly, it started with Afghanistan. I know Donald
Speaker 5: Trump will tell you this never would have happened under
Speaker 5: his watch. I personally a grieved that when I talked
Speaker 5: to him, you know, he said, look, I told Putin,
Speaker 5: if you invade Ukraine, I'm gonna hit you hard.
Speaker 2: And he told, you know, Chairman Chief, excuse me.
Speaker 5: If you invade won I'm gonna bomb the you know what,
Speaker 5: And you know what he meant it. And that's a
Speaker 5: fear factor of deterrence that we really don't see from
Speaker 5: this administration.
Speaker 2: But we had it then. We don't have that now.
Speaker 5: And I think Kamala Harris would just be an extension
Speaker 5: of the Biden administration.
Speaker 2: It's up to China.
Speaker 5: It's up to Chairman she if he wants to continue
Speaker 5: this aggression, if he invades Taiwan, if he threatens the Philippines.
Speaker 2: If he takes the China South China Sea. We have
Speaker 2: to respond to this. We have to be leaders of
Speaker 2: the freeway.
Speaker 3: It's America up to the font.
Speaker 2: I believe they would be.
Speaker 5: And if you look at not only the principles at
Speaker 5: stake here and communists China trying to take the Pacific,
Speaker 5: I think, but also the economics of sixty percent the
Speaker 5: trade goes through the Taiwan Straits South China Sea and
Speaker 5: then again shutting down ninety percent with the advanced semi connectors,
Speaker 5: the world would have an economic.
Speaker 2: Shutdown, all right.
Speaker 4: And that full interview, if you're interested in looking at
Speaker 4: it somewhere, will be on the Sky News website a
Speaker 4: bit later. But joining me to discuss this further is
Speaker 4: the former head of the China Desk for the Defense
Speaker 4: Intelligence Organization here in Australia, also an author of Thunder
Speaker 4: from the Silent Zone Rethinking China, Paul Monk.
Speaker 3: Paul, great to have you back on the program.
Speaker 4: Look that response, Sure, that response there from the chair
Speaker 4: of the Foreign Affairs US Congressional Committee. That doesn't fill
Speaker 4: you with a high degree of confidence that the US
Speaker 4: necessarily would step in to defend China. What did to
Speaker 4: defend Taiwan? What did you think of what he just
Speaker 4: had to say?
Speaker 16: Well, it brings to mind remarked by Henry Kissinger made
Speaker 16: as the Arab Spring unraveled, that being America's enemy is dangerous.
Speaker 16: Being its friend is likely to be fake because of
Speaker 16: the nature of US political system and the freedom of
Speaker 16: speech in the country. It's actually very difficult in many
Speaker 16: circumstances to sustain a foreign commitment if it becomes costly
Speaker 16: and drawn out. This has been demonstrated again and again
Speaker 16: in the last half century. So what has to be
Speaker 16: thought through here is what exactly are American options to first,
Speaker 16: as Michael McCall expressed, a deter China from attempting to
Speaker 16: invade Taiwan or an event that that begins to do
Speaker 16: something decisive that requires a lot of thought and.
Speaker 4: That deterrence apologies, go ahead, go on, Well, that determines
Speaker 4: going to say that deterrence is so important. But I
Speaker 4: think Joe Biden's withdrawal from Afghanistan, the way he did it,
Speaker 4: the fact that he has withheld weapons from Israel, all
Speaker 4: of this seems makes it look like the US is
Speaker 4: weak on a global stage.
Speaker 3: So do you think that terrence is there at the moment?
Speaker 16: It's being sorely tested because we all know now that Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, Pyongyang,
Speaker 16: for what it's worth, are increasingly aligned in the belief
Speaker 16: that if they push hard enough, the US system will crack.
Speaker 16: And without a strong leadership from the United States and
Speaker 16: the cloud that it has, the rest of US would
Speaker 16: be to drive we don't have the independent capacity to
Speaker 16: deal with the world in which those rogue states are
Speaker 16: going becoming openly aggressive. We've more or less held the
Speaker 16: line to this point in the Middle East and Russia,
Speaker 16: but it is tenuous in both cases. And if we
Speaker 16: have an American administration of whatever stripe that says, look,
Speaker 16: we're jack of this, we don't think there's votes in
Speaker 16: sustaining these efforts, then it's by no means clear that
Speaker 16: the line will be held either in Ukraine or in
Speaker 16: the Middle East.
Speaker 2: In Israel.
Speaker 16: Yeah, that's seriously drubbling. If in those circumstances she says, right,
Speaker 16: now's the time to strike, then chaos comes to Asia.
Speaker 4: Yeah, indeed, it's very concerning, especially that alliance you speak
Speaker 4: about between Iran, China, North Korea and Russia. We're seeing
Speaker 4: the supplying of weapons as well among them.
Speaker 3: So all of that.
Speaker 4: Next time we will have more time with you. I apologize,
Speaker 4: but great to see you again. Now up next to
Speaker 4: New South Wales labor clashes with the Albanezi government over
Speaker 4: the move to block a mine.
Speaker 3: My panel will discuss this next. Welcome back.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 4: Chris Mins's labor government in New South Wales is a
Speaker 4: loggerheads with the Albanesi government and in particular Tanya Plibisek
Speaker 4: over a new gold mine in New South Wales. Now
Speaker 4: Tanya Plibiseka the eleventh hour decided to block it under
Speaker 4: indigenous heritage legislation, and The Daily Telegraph reports that she
Speaker 4: issued a Section ten statement blocking the site despite the
Speaker 4: Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council not opposing the mine, with
Speaker 4: the minister instead backing a rival indigenous group who are
Speaker 4: against the project. Look, the New Suteas government is very
Speaker 4: annoyed about this to discuss. Let's bring in tonight's political
Speaker 4: panel Nationals MP Keith Pitt and Gillard's fromer Presek Darren Barnett.
Speaker 3: Welcome to you both.
Speaker 4: Keith, Is there a reasonable excuse for this mind.
Speaker 3: To be blocked?
Speaker 17: Well, sharing not in my mind, and you've seen the
Speaker 17: New South Wales government approved it and for Aboriginal heritage.
Speaker 17: The only y my understanding is for the federal government
Speaker 17: to overrule it using Section ten as the state government
Speaker 17: has already made a decision which was the opposite of
Speaker 17: this one. So we've seen activists get involved with Barossa v. Shaw,
Speaker 17: We've seen the federal labor government crack down and make
Speaker 17: changes around the gas sector for L and G after
Speaker 17: they spent fifty billion dollars over ten years and put
Speaker 17: market prices in place, and now you have this decision
Speaker 17: for a gold mine in your South Wales, which received
Speaker 17: every single approval that it needed. As far as I'm aware,
Speaker 17: being rubbed out by Tanya plebisk for one group regarding
Speaker 17: original heritage, this is sovereign risk, writ large Darren.
Speaker 4: There seems to be a repeat pattern of behavior here
Speaker 4: from Tanya Plebisek.
Speaker 3: What do you think.
Speaker 9: Look, I think there's a lot of wariness from everyone
Speaker 9: in Parliament in Canberra regarding any sort of repeat of
Speaker 9: Juk and Gorge, the disaster that we saw in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 9: and that's bipartisan. There was lots of activity on that
Speaker 9: from Susan Lay when she was Environment Minister under the
Speaker 9: previous government. Now, no one in that environment portfolio wants
Speaker 9: a repeat of that scenario, and I imagined that that
Speaker 9: would be why Tania Pilibusek has acted with such caution
Speaker 9: in this case. Now, I also think there will have
Speaker 9: to be a common sense solution that if they are
Speaker 9: able to change the design of the mind or the
Speaker 9: tailing stam that there might be a way through, but
Speaker 9: it does seem an interesting decision, to say the least,
Speaker 9: if it was to be blocked solely on these grounds.
Speaker 9: Let's hope there's a middle way and that all the
Speaker 9: parties can work together to find it.
Speaker 3: Keith, do you want a quick response to that.
Speaker 17: Absolutely, They've already done the hydrology, the design, the infrastructure,
Speaker 17: they've costed it, looking for a final investment decision and
Speaker 17: everything was approved. Why would you invest in this country
Speaker 17: if you can have tenure plebosec knock your project out
Speaker 17: when you've done everything right, all right.
Speaker 4: From the start of next week, and by the way,
Speaker 4: we'll keep coming back to that topic this week because
Speaker 4: it's going to be a very big political story as
Speaker 4: this war heats up between Men's and al but easy government. Now,
Speaker 4: from the start of next week, Labour's contentious right to
Speaker 4: disconnect laws will take effect. This, of course, empowers employees
Speaker 4: to ignore their bosses outside of work hours. Darren, do
Speaker 4: you think this is going to change the way businesses operate?
Speaker 9: I think it will, but it depends on the type
Speaker 9: of work that you do and frankly, the level that
Speaker 9: you are in that company that junior workers who perhaps
Speaker 9: are not on high wages, they may have a very
Speaker 9: good case in being able to plan their day and
Speaker 9: do their work when they get to work, but certainly
Speaker 9: people in senior positions, you cannot expect to turn your
Speaker 9: phone off at five pm and go home and nothing
Speaker 9: else will change before the next morning. The modern world
Speaker 9: doesn't work that way. So I think it's going to
Speaker 9: depend on the workplace and depend on the job. But
Speaker 9: if it means that some people who are currently expected
Speaker 9: to do things that are unfair have some form of recourse,
Speaker 9: then I support it.
Speaker 4: It's not even about unfair, it's about that hours, Keith Peter,
Speaker 4: Are you going to stop contacting your staff after six
Speaker 4: o'clock even if it's a parliamentary sitting day?
Speaker 17: Jari I wouldn't bear that didn't happen, and they get
Speaker 17: paid allowances for those things. But out in the real world, Shaw,
Speaker 17: I'll give you a live example. In the sugar cane industry,
Speaker 17: people drive haulouts. That's where you put the sugar cane
Speaker 17: in the back and your toilet with a tractor or
Speaker 17: truck or whatever you might be doing. And you know
Speaker 17: they're not super highly paid individuals but almost every single
Speaker 17: day they start time depends on the weather, crop availability,
Speaker 17: where you can get on the land, but that something
Speaker 17: changes overnight, whether you've got bins, and they'll receive a
Speaker 17: text to say we're starting at five, we're starting at eight,
Speaker 17: we're starting at seven. How on earth can you run
Speaker 17: that business if you can't contact them to change their
Speaker 17: start date because you've got nothing for them to do.
Speaker 17: These are the challenges. Labour just wants to plaster things
Speaker 17: across the country. It doesn't always work.
Speaker 4: I'll tell you what the lawsuits related to this legislation
Speaker 4: are going to be extraordinary or the industrial action all right,
Speaker 4: Keith Pitt, Darren Bunnett. Great to see you both, Thank
Speaker 4: you and thanks thanks everyone for watching us. See you
Speaker 4: tomorrow at eight o'clock. And right now, as always, here's
Speaker 4: Paul Murray.