Speaker 1: From the Sky News Center.
Speaker 2: This is Paul Murray Live.
Speaker 1: Well, hello and good evening. Thank you Anika James Borrow
Speaker 1: here for Paul Murray Live tonight and throughout the rest
Speaker 1: of the week. Well buckle up, kids, because we've got
Speaker 1: a big night here tonight with one of your favorites,
Speaker 1: none other than the Great Bronwyn Bishop. And we're also
Speaker 1: going to have an update very soon on the all
Speaker 1: important Tasbanian election which is coming up this Saturday. But first,
Speaker 1: I don't know about you, but if I were the
Speaker 1: Prime Minister of Australia and someone compared me to Guff Whitlam, well,
Speaker 1: I'd say them's fighting words and ask whoever called me
Speaker 1: that if they wanted to step outside. But not our
Speaker 1: Earthny ALBINIZI not our elbow. The Prime Minister today took
Speaker 1: in the sites in China on day four of his
Speaker 1: Great Tour, visiting the Great Wall and taking plenty of
Speaker 1: tourist snaps for back home, though I'm not sure whether
Speaker 1: or not he got the fact that this was the original.
Speaker 1: The Great Wall was the original Trumpian, big beautiful wall
Speaker 1: designed to keep invading foreigners out. That's right. They weren't
Speaker 1: all that hashtag welcome back to the Ming dynasty, which
Speaker 1: had not yet realized how enriching diversity could be. But
Speaker 1: there was Albert Easy on the wall, proudly stating that
Speaker 1: his trip there well was in the footsteps of that
Speaker 1: great helmsman of the Labor Party, the man I mentioned
Speaker 1: a moment ago Guff Whitlam.
Speaker 3: Here today, of course, I have the sense of history
Speaker 3: following the footsteps of the Labor Prime Minister Goff Whitlam,
Speaker 3: who was the first prime minister to visit here in
Speaker 3: nineteen seventy three, had followed the correct decision that he
Speaker 3: made as leader of the Labor Party in nineteen seventy one,
Speaker 3: and that was, of course at the time when that
Speaker 3: was a controversial decision to recognize the paper's Republic of China.
Speaker 4: Ah.
Speaker 1: Yes, Albo standing on the shoulders of good old Saint Guph,
Speaker 1: another prime minister who hated the US president at the time,
Speaker 1: in his case it was Richard Nixon and also trashed
Speaker 1: the Australian economy. So yeah, you know what, I'm actually
Speaker 1: starting to see the resemblance there between Albo and Guff Whitlam.
Speaker 1: And I tell you what, the Chinese Communist Party sure
Speaker 1: is laying it on thick for alban easy, but worse,
Speaker 1: he's eating it up literally.
Speaker 3: The fact that President She didn't just have a meeting,
Speaker 3: but we had a lunch where President She as well
Speaker 3: invited Jody to attend. That lunch was a sign of
Speaker 3: respect to Australia, to our country.
Speaker 1: They had a large Oh goody goody. I wonder if
Speaker 1: you got to show off how good he is. It's chopsticks,
Speaker 1: how but he is. He also revealed the extent that
Speaker 1: Chinese government has gone to make him and Jody feel
Speaker 1: at home.
Speaker 3: I've got to say that the band there in the
Speaker 3: Great Hall played a different version of Paul Kelly's to
Speaker 3: her Door of mid not ELL's power and the passion
Speaker 3: of a range of songs as well that obviously took
Speaker 3: them a long period of time and those gestures matter
Speaker 3: powder Finger as well. They did the full kitten.
Speaker 1: Cavertle powder figure. You don't see Paul Kelly got. This
Speaker 1: guy's a really cheap date, isn't he now. The Prime
Speaker 1: Minister also revealed that he'd had eight hours of beatings
Speaker 1: oh gosh, but he didn't reveal too much more about
Speaker 1: them or what came out of them. In essence, we
Speaker 1: kind of have to take him at his word at
Speaker 1: this point that what we are agreeing to and where
Speaker 1: we are disagreeing when we must, that's all going to
Speaker 1: work out. But there are some signs, and we flagged
Speaker 1: them last night and two nights ago, that behind the
Speaker 1: scenes things might be a little less rosy because there
Speaker 1: is still that issue of the Port of Darwin and
Speaker 1: it has come up again today. You see, Wal Jijin
Speaker 1: Ping was happy to play the smiling chieftain. He left
Speaker 1: the dirty work to his number two head kicker Lee Kang, who,
Speaker 1: in a thinly veiled swipe and Australia is now bipartisan
Speaker 1: position on the Port of Darwin, said quote, we hope
Speaker 1: that the Australian side will treat Chinese enterprises visiting Australia
Speaker 1: fairly and properly and solve the problems encountered by enterprises
Speaker 1: and market acts, investment review and other aspects. That's code
Speaker 1: for we don't want you kicking us out of Darwin. Now.
Speaker 1: I don't know about you, but I wonder if the
Speaker 1: Prime Minister had the wit to turn this demand around
Speaker 1: and say short thing, premiere. I mean, Chinese companies already
Speaker 1: have a great deal in Australia. They can invest in agriculture,
Speaker 1: buy farmland, mining, critical industries, operate without mandatory cultural integration
Speaker 1: and face far fewer restrictions. So how about it, China,
Speaker 1: if we turn this around and say you can keep
Speaker 1: your lease on the Port of Darwin when Australian agribusiness say,
Speaker 1: can operate farms in mainland China, or we can buy
Speaker 1: property there, or all sorts of other things that they
Speaker 1: can do here that we can't do there. But yeah, nah,
Speaker 1: I don't see that happening. Meanwhile, though, there's been another
Speaker 1: glowing editorial in the state masthead Global Times, which gave
Speaker 1: its lead editorial the upbeat title today looking forward to
Speaker 1: seeing China Australian relations cruise steadily into the stratosphere. They
Speaker 1: wrote that, compared with the minefield status described by the
Speaker 1: Global Times editorial three years ago, Today's China Australia relationship
Speaker 1: is like a plane flying in the stratosphere after passing
Speaker 1: through the storm zone. Well gosh, how colorful, although at
Speaker 1: what cost? Which has basically been that now Australia has
Speaker 1: to shut up about everything China does in international forums
Speaker 1: and elsewhere. It only raises protest at the absolute minimum
Speaker 1: when there's no other choice in the press. But despite
Speaker 1: what that paper claims, China does not see us as equals. Indeed,
Speaker 1: this is a trap. It's being set for us and
Speaker 1: for Anthony Albanesi and Anthony Albanese's commitment commitments to the
Speaker 1: paper to what the paper called multilateralism means that in
Speaker 1: the long run there will actually be more global conflict,
Speaker 1: not less. And kudos to one of the journalists on
Speaker 1: the trip who picked up on this when Albanzi spoke
Speaker 1: at the Great Wall.
Speaker 5: We have seen this kind of piece through trade approach,
Speaker 5: you know, between Europe and Russia, and that did not
Speaker 5: really turn up to well and the fact that it
Speaker 5: led to significant vulnerabilities and energy supplism.
Speaker 6: Are you not concerned that this will happen.
Speaker 7: With Yeah, well, our relationship is very different and I
Speaker 7: don't think you can translate one thing across some other
Speaker 7: part of the world of which Australia is not a participant.
Speaker 3: So I'm not sure what the biasis of that is.
Speaker 1: That's your the basis of that is. You know, the
Speaker 1: question there is really really straightforward. But Albaniz he was
Speaker 1: doing kind of his old play dumb and act like
Speaker 1: you don't understand really what the guy is talking about. Routine,
Speaker 1: but you know what, this is the issue here. Australia
Speaker 1: has to play a really careful game right now. You see,
Speaker 1: we've talked about this before, and we see what China
Speaker 1: is doing. China is trying to make itself look like
Speaker 1: the reasonable actor on the world stage, the reasonable great power.
Speaker 1: And here we have to admit that Donald Trump hasn't
Speaker 1: made it easier for US and for the West, because
Speaker 1: they've now made trade an issue, a wedge issue that
Speaker 1: China can use. But really, Albin Easy, Prime Minister, the
Speaker 1: alliance with a free democratic nation like the United States
Speaker 1: is far more important in the long run, because what's
Speaker 1: happening right now is that as the Prime Minister travels
Speaker 1: through China, he is being told exactly what he wants
Speaker 1: to hear about Australia being the good boy of the
Speaker 1: global order. It's patronizing and he's falling for it. And
Speaker 1: now they're saying to the world. China is saying to
Speaker 1: the world, look at Australia, be like them, trade with us,
Speaker 1: break away from the US and we can all be
Speaker 1: friends and there will be what's the phrase, I'm looking
Speaker 1: for peace in our time. It's all very clever, but
Speaker 1: it's also very sinister and dangerous. You know, we know
Speaker 1: how the cuddly panda can turn fierce and at some
Speaker 1: point there will be a real conflict of visions, of values,
Speaker 1: of interests.
Speaker 2: Here.
Speaker 1: There is a limit to how close we can get
Speaker 1: to a close totalitarian state. Here's National's leader David britt
Speaker 1: Little Proud earlier today.
Speaker 8: The reality is is that there are strategic threats that
Speaker 8: are arising in China is lifting their military military dominance.
Speaker 8: In fact, Penny Wong even said that last week. So
Speaker 8: the fact this just points and highlights to the inadequate
Speaker 8: situation that Anthony Albanezi hasn't seen the importance or urgency
Speaker 8: to go to Washington and meet with President Trump to
Speaker 8: shore up Orcus and the relationship that we have there.
Speaker 1: And it's interesting to note that Petty Wong has also
Speaker 1: previously in recent months even said quite correctly that Australia
Speaker 1: needed to diversify its trading relationships so that we weren't
Speaker 1: so reliant on China. And yet now her boss, the
Speaker 1: Prime Minister, is saying no, no, no, we're all in
Speaker 1: and we're going to double down. But as to that
Speaker 1: meeting with Donald Trump that David little Proud referred to, well,
Speaker 1: you know, I think we know why that's not happening.
Speaker 1: When Albinizi goes to ge he gets faded and toasted.
Speaker 1: But it's now looking more and more like whatever meeting
Speaker 1: does occur between Albo and Donald Trump, well that's going
Speaker 1: to be a far less pleasant interaction, which I think
Speaker 1: is really sad that it has come to it that
Speaker 1: this is the way it's going to be, because it
Speaker 1: did not have to be like this. Remember, it doesn't
Speaker 1: matter that Albanese is a labor left ee and that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is a right wing Magga Republican. Keir Starmer
Speaker 1: and Donald Trump, different sides of politics get along just fine,
Speaker 1: but Alberizi has chosen a different course. If Albanzy wasn't
Speaker 1: more concerned though, with domestic politics, well then maybe we'd
Speaker 1: have a better foreign policy. All right, let's move on
Speaker 1: now to some other critical matters. Now we all saw
Speaker 1: last week when Gillian Siegel headed down her report on
Speaker 1: anti Semitism. The government was quick to accept this. Now
Speaker 1: that the election is over, gosh, what a coincidence. But
Speaker 1: not everyone in the government is happy. Ed Husick, the
Speaker 1: deposed Cabinet minister, was on Radio National this morning and
Speaker 1: he was having a chat about Jillian Siegel's report, and
Speaker 1: guess what. It turns out that ed Husick did not
Speaker 1: like what he read.
Speaker 9: I think I'd be concerned the suggestion that young people are,
Speaker 9: as a report is suggesting, at risk of becoming fully
Speaker 9: fledged anti Semite studio missing disinformation, I think runs the
Speaker 9: risk of being a bit too sweeping.
Speaker 1: At Husick also did it like the report singling out
Speaker 1: the ABC of all institutions for bias when covering the
Speaker 1: Israel Gaza war.
Speaker 9: I wasn't entirely comfortable that she just singles out public
Speaker 9: public broadcasting. You know, there's a role to play across
Speaker 9: media on these issues, and I didn't necessarily think it
Speaker 9: was justified to point out the public broadcaster.
Speaker 1: Look, I watched the ABC and listen to it, so
Speaker 1: you don't have to, and I could tell you they
Speaker 1: deserved to be called out for their bias reporting around Israel,
Speaker 1: and particularly the case that Jillian Siegel spoke about, which
Speaker 1: was that hospital that was supposedly bombed by Israel but
Speaker 1: turned out to have been hit by a shell fired
Speaker 1: by Hamas. Anyway, Cusick was also concerned about the definition
Speaker 1: of anti Semitism that the report urged Australia to adopt.
Speaker 9: I just think the issue of definition instantly brings into
Speaker 9: question whether or not people will be able to raise
Speaker 9: their concerns about the actions, for example, of what the
Speaker 9: Nyahu government is doing in Gaza and how that would
Speaker 9: be traded under a definition.
Speaker 1: Look, I mean Ed Musick has his point of view,
Speaker 1: and of course he is one of the first two
Speaker 1: Muslim members of Parliament. But I think we have to
Speaker 1: take some issue with this because, as I said before,
Speaker 1: the ABC has been biased demosterbly so. And while I
Speaker 1: don't think anyone can deny that young people are more
Speaker 1: at risk of falling under this way of anti propaganda
Speaker 1: from left or right, we also have to note that
Speaker 1: as far as incidents such as the recent attacks on
Speaker 1: synagogues and restaurant goers go, well, there's no way that
Speaker 1: we can talk about any of that stuff coming under
Speaker 1: the banner of legitimate criticism of Israeli policies, which is
Speaker 1: what we always hear when people worry about defining anti
Speaker 1: Semitism in that sort of way. And as well, I'd
Speaker 1: also note that Ed Husick, who was booted from cabinet
Speaker 1: in the most recent reshuffle, is now freelancing on this
Speaker 1: issue all over the place. I'd be curious to see,
Speaker 1: of course, if he is as critical of an expected
Speaker 1: forthcoming report on Islamophobia and what sort of restrictions that
Speaker 1: report urges on Australian society. I suspect that he won't
Speaker 1: be quite as enthusiastic because he also was talking about
Speaker 1: policing the Internet with the Australian Financial Review and he
Speaker 1: said that he had quote watched this from the perspective
Speaker 1: of Islamo phobia for years, that the platforms don't take
Speaker 1: this seriously unquote, So I think that there might be,
Speaker 1: when it comes to anheustic in these issues, a bit
Speaker 1: of a double standard at work. But there's also another point,
Speaker 1: and I want to make this pretty clear either way,
Speaker 1: whether we're talking about anti semitism or islama phobia. And
Speaker 1: I know that there's far more anti semitism out there
Speaker 1: in terms of incidents and reported attacks and all sorts
Speaker 1: of things like that, that islama phobia and that antisemitism
Speaker 1: is a real scourge on our society that needs to
Speaker 1: be stamped out. Because in my opinion, it is a
Speaker 1: symptom of a deeper sickness in our society. The way
Speaker 1: we combat it as a free society matters. And when
Speaker 1: we are talking about limiting free speech, I think we
Speaker 1: have to be very careful about either way calls to
Speaker 1: restrict speech that might just be offensive, because frankly, I
Speaker 1: think Australian society could do with more free speech, because
Speaker 1: the best way to fight hate and bad ideas is
Speaker 1: to expose them and fight them and argue back with
Speaker 1: the truth and good ideas. Now, finally, while we're on
Speaker 1: the subject of multiculturalism, which of course that touches, there
Speaker 1: is an absolutely bonker's story out of the UK. You
Speaker 1: need to know about why well, because things that happened
Speaker 1: in the UK tend to wind up landing here in
Speaker 1: Australia eventually. Now look at you're screen here. This girl
Speaker 1: is Courtney, right, she's twelve. She's a British school girl
Speaker 1: and she wore this Union jack dress to her schools
Speaker 1: cultural celebration day recently. The only problem, well, the culture
Speaker 1: she was celebrating was her own British culture. And I know, yeah,
Speaker 1: the Left says, oh well British, they don't have any culture.
Speaker 1: White people don't know culture. But there she was, and
Speaker 1: she went in the dress, and she was turned back
Speaker 1: and not allowed to participate, despite having prepared a whole
Speaker 1: little speech about British culture and fun things like drinking
Speaker 1: tea and the royal family. Here's her dad, Stewart Field,
Speaker 1: explaining precisely what happened.
Speaker 4: What did Courtney do?
Speaker 10: She came home a few days before with a letter
Speaker 10: saying that she was going to take part in the
Speaker 10: Cultural Diversity Day at school. She wanted to pick her
Speaker 10: own dress. Quite an independent younger went into school and
Speaker 10: I had a phone called an hour from work saying
Speaker 10: from Courtney saying that she wasn't allowed into school, that
Speaker 10: she was being isolated, and what.
Speaker 4: Was she wearing that meant that she was not allowed
Speaker 4: into school?
Speaker 10: He was wearing the you would say, a typical Jerry
Speaker 10: sort of stroke spos girl's union jack dress with a bolt. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, the school has since apologized sort of, and even
Speaker 1: Labor Prime Minister Kiir Starbar's office has weighed in, with
Speaker 1: a spokesperson saying, I think the school has put out
Speaker 1: a statement on this, so I'm not going to comment further.
Speaker 1: But the Prime Minister has always been clear that being
Speaker 1: British is something to be celebrated. Oh really, I think
Speaker 1: that's kind of funny because it is in Britain, a
Speaker 1: country where saying you are proud of your country or
Speaker 1: that things like say Western culture is under threat from
Speaker 1: mass migration can get you labeled a far right terrorist
Speaker 1: ideologue by the government, and where tweeting about that sort
Speaker 1: of thing can earn you a visit from the cops.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure I'm buying Keir Starbar on this one here,
Speaker 1: but as I say, let's not get too cocky here,
Speaker 1: because in many ways Australia is going down the same
Speaker 1: path all right now as we know hot times in
Speaker 1: Tasmania where they have been in a state of political
Speaker 1: chaos since Premier Jeremy Rockliffe lost a motion of no
Speaker 1: confidence last month, which has sent voters back to the
Speaker 1: polls this Saturday in a snap election. How much fun
Speaker 1: is democracy here? Joining me now to discuss is Matthew Denham,
Speaker 1: regional correspondent for The Australian. Matthew Denhalm. There have been
Speaker 1: talks of another hung parliament. Give us your ideas here,
Speaker 1: what is the most likely result this Saturday. What's the tip.
Speaker 6: Well, look, it's much like it will be a hung parliament.
Speaker 11: It's very hard to see either major party Labor or
Speaker 11: Liberal getting the required eighteen seats for a majority. So
Speaker 11: really at the moment, the Liberals are on fourteen seats,
Speaker 11: Labors on ten. The polls are suggesting that the lib
Speaker 11: are kind of holding their ground and Labors kind of
Speaker 11: going nowhere. So it looks like a pretty similar result
Speaker 11: to the one that basically resulted in a situation where
Speaker 11: the parliament and the Premier couldn't get on. So it's
Speaker 11: a pretty interesting time down here.
Speaker 1: Well, so if it's another hung parliament, what happens? How
Speaker 1: does the state run itself?
Speaker 11: Well, hopefully we won't have another election that would be
Speaker 11: three within sixteen months, which would just be ridiculous.
Speaker 6: Two is bad enough. Look, hopefully there's number of scenarios.
Speaker 11: Really, I mean, you could have a very minority Labor
Speaker 11: government supported by the Greens. Today the Sky News Debate
Speaker 11: leaders debate, Dean went to the Labor leader under questioning
Speaker 11: eventually kind of agreed that he would potentially govern with
Speaker 11: Green support kind of passive support if you like, not
Speaker 11: not a formal coalition. So that's a possibility with a
Speaker 11: few independents thrown in. Or we could get the Liberal
Speaker 11: Party trying to smooth things over with some independence and
Speaker 11: and you know, win enough over to continue in minority
Speaker 11: with independent support.
Speaker 1: Well let's have a little look at that debate. Here's
Speaker 1: a bit of what the candidates had said.
Speaker 12: We just heard the premiere says extolling the virtues of
Speaker 12: public ownership. Last month he wanted to sell a Royal
Speaker 12: networks and past to get rid of it, extolling the
Speaker 12: virtue I want to sell them. This is that you
Speaker 12: believe school Guard debate, then.
Speaker 1: This is serious stuff.
Speaker 2: This is for the Premier of Tasmania.
Speaker 4: You cannot make things up.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry.
Speaker 8: The person at this debate that has suggested we sell
Speaker 8: energy assets is mister Winter.
Speaker 4: Go back to your tweets if you like, a few years.
Speaker 12: Ago and now you say you never wanted to sell
Speaker 12: energy energy outsets.
Speaker 2: You cannot make things up.
Speaker 1: I'm making this o Matthew. That looks pretty fiery here.
Speaker 1: But one of the things I've been fascinated by, and
Speaker 1: I think a lot of people of the mainland are watching,
Speaker 1: is the question about Tazzi's AFL team, which now hangs
Speaker 1: in the ballots ahead of the election. Now the Greens
Speaker 1: and Cross batches apparently they're against this whole deal for
Speaker 1: the AFL to come to Tasmania. Can you explain to
Speaker 1: our viewers who might not be across all this, what
Speaker 1: these possible outcomes could mean for this stadium in Hobart.
Speaker 6: Yeah. Look, the stadium is a major issue.
Speaker 11: It's really divided opinion and there are people who post
Speaker 11: for it for a very different reasons. Some people are
Speaker 11: worried about the cost of it. It's about a billion dollars,
Speaker 11: probably more because these things usually blow out even more
Speaker 11: than they already have at a time in the States,
Speaker 11: heading toward a record debt more than a doubling of
Speaker 11: debt under this government.
Speaker 6: Across the Ford Inestamates, so.
Speaker 11: Antasi has a debt bomb and they're worried that really
Speaker 11: this is just extending that. And other people are concerned
Speaker 11: who live in the northwest or the north of the state.
Speaker 11: They want the stadium to be at your park in
Speaker 11: a lot of system which is more convenient for them.
Speaker 11: So look there there's this overall, there's quite a bit
Speaker 11: of opposition to the stadium, to the team.
Speaker 6: Everyone wants the team, but.
Speaker 11: The IFL has made it clear that the two go
Speaker 11: hand in hand and they want they want a stadium
Speaker 11: at that side in McCrory point that you're looking at.
Speaker 11: And if they don't get it, then Tessy doesn't get
Speaker 11: the team. So really, the Greens and some of the
Speaker 11: cross benches and independents are arguing that, well, you know,
Speaker 11: maybe we could renegotiate the deal with the IFL. Look
Speaker 11: that's possible, but so far the AFL has shown no
Speaker 11: appetite for that whatsoever.
Speaker 6: So the states are pretty.
Speaker 11: High and it will be fascinating to see how far
Speaker 11: either Labor or the liberals. Liberals will go in terms
Speaker 11: of budging on that position in support for the stadium.
Speaker 11: If there is a home Parliament and they need people support,
Speaker 11: they're saying they're not budging on it. We'll just have
Speaker 11: to wait and see.
Speaker 1: Sport, money and politics makes for a fascinating contest. We'll
Speaker 1: all be watching on Saturday. And good luck down there,
Speaker 1: and how about one of my favorite cities. Thank you
Speaker 1: so much, Matthew Dennel. Now stick around because after the
Speaker 1: break we're gonna be joined by your favorite Bronwyn bishop
Speaker 1: and a new face on Paul Murray Live. Ed Cavanaugh,
Speaker 1: fascinating fella with a lot to say, So stick around,
Speaker 1: don't go anywhere, We're gonna have some fun. Welcome back
Speaker 1: to the program, Paul Murray Live. Here, James Morrow sitting
Speaker 1: in for the Great Man throughout the week, and we
Speaker 1: are on Wednesdays, so we're almost through it all. But
Speaker 1: we got a great, great panel here tonight on my
Speaker 1: right here the fantastic Bronwin Bishop. You know her very
Speaker 1: very well and she's got a lot to say tonight
Speaker 1: as well as a new face here on Paul Murray Live.
Speaker 1: Welcome Ed Cavanaugh from the McKell Institute in Adelaide. Ed,
Speaker 1: thanks so much for coming on the program. A warm
Speaker 1: Paul Murray Live. Welcome to you both of you. Though,
Speaker 1: I want to start talking about because this is really
Speaker 1: the only game in town right now. News wise. It
Speaker 1: is this big Albanezi trip to China six days, no
Speaker 1: other countries, no allies on this trip here. But this
Speaker 1: issue of the port of Darwin keeps coming up, and
Speaker 1: we all recall Anthony Albanezi at the very tail end
Speaker 1: of the election there jumping onto the radio in Darwin
Speaker 1: and saying, hey, we're going to take that back to
Speaker 1: try and gazump Peter Duttwell, he's made a rod for
Speaker 1: his own back. The Chinese is saying we'll have none
Speaker 1: of that. Here's Anthony Albanez earlier today.
Speaker 3: So I've had the same position as when I was
Speaker 3: the Shadow Infrastructure Minister when the decision was made to
Speaker 3: provide a federal incentive by the Liberal Party to flog
Speaker 3: off the Port of Darwin.
Speaker 1: Well, Bronwin Bishop me thinks he's rewriting history just a
Speaker 1: little bit here. But the thing that I'm fascinated about
Speaker 1: here is China saying that we are not welcome to
Speaker 1: take back the lease of the Port of Darwin, but
Speaker 1: we couldn't, you know, have a lease over any major
Speaker 1: commercial port, any port at all in mainland China.
Speaker 4: I thought to our editorial was spot on. The fact
Speaker 4: of the matter is that before he went into any
Speaker 4: meeting in China he said, oh, well, I won't raise
Speaker 4: the Port of Darwin with Presidency, but if Presidency raises it,
Speaker 4: I'll tell him we want to take it back. Then
Speaker 4: he comes out and says, oh no, that was never raised.
Speaker 4: But of course Premier Lee is the one who's doing
Speaker 4: the dirty work. Yes, and he's the one who says
Speaker 4: you take it back and we won't buy your iron,
Speaker 4: or this is the country that put twenty billion dollars
Speaker 4: of tariffs on our products because we asked a legitimate
Speaker 4: question about COVID and if our rat once, I'll rat twice.
Speaker 4: Isn't that the socialist dictum? Absolutely it is, and that
Speaker 4: means immediately there's a thought that we will do something
Speaker 4: that they don't want their way, coercion coming our way.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 4: I just find that on this entire trip at the
Speaker 4: Prime Minister has become the ventriloicus dummy for President Z.
Speaker 4: He is actually putting out arguments that are legitimizing actions
Speaker 4: that China has taken against us, whether it's attacking our
Speaker 4: divers naval divers, or whether it's pilots in surveillance ACRA
Speaker 4: or a warship with live far going around our coastline. Oh,
Speaker 4: they did not do anything that we are doing. I
Speaker 4: mean it was pathetic, it was embarrassing, and honestly and truly,
Speaker 4: we cannot have a prime minister who won't stand up
Speaker 4: for his own country.
Speaker 1: Well, I think exactly said you framed the problem very well,
Speaker 1: ed Kavanaugh let's bring you in on this here from
Speaker 1: the perspective where you're sitting. Has Albanezy gone too far?
Speaker 1: Has the Prime Minister gone too far in trying to
Speaker 1: stabilize the relationship to the point now where we can't
Speaker 1: speak up against things that the Chinese Communist Party regime does,
Speaker 1: whether it's you know, all of the things that Broad
Speaker 1: and Bishop just mentioned, or other sorts of human rights
Speaker 1: abuses around the globe around China, or their actions in
Speaker 1: the Philippines and in the South China Sea. Have we
Speaker 1: lost our voice in the process of trying to create
Speaker 1: a better and as the Prime Minister says, more stable
Speaker 1: and orderly relationship with China, which to me seems like
Speaker 1: code for going along with what China wants.
Speaker 13: Yeah, I think that's a pretty entrepreneurial reading of the
Speaker 13: situation here. You know, you mentioned where I'm sitting tonight,
Speaker 13: and where I'm sitting is in Adelaide, and if you went,
Speaker 13: you know, to a three hundred klometers to the north,
Speaker 13: there's still hundreds of jobs that have been lost because
Speaker 13: of you know, the wine trade backlash that we had
Speaker 13: under the former government, the deterioration of the relationship between
Speaker 13: Australia and China. Basically under Scott Morrison, that was not
Speaker 13: serving anyone well, that was not serving Australia well, it
Speaker 13: was not serving Australian workers well in jobs that are
Speaker 13: trade exposed to China. I completely agree that we need
Speaker 13: to have a broader trade relationship than just with China,
Speaker 13: but we are just in denial if we're not going
Speaker 13: to admit that the relationship that we have with China
Speaker 13: is critical to well Australia's economy. I think it's yeah,
Speaker 13: go ahead, go ahead.
Speaker 1: But I'm just curious because you know, you mentioned the
Speaker 1: loss of the trade. But I'm curious because you know,
Speaker 1: Scott Morrison asked a very legitimate question, where did COVID
Speaker 1: come from? And can you open the books? And they said, well,
Speaker 1: we don't like that question, so we're going to try
Speaker 1: and break your wine industry.
Speaker 13: And then put out forty I think that's very I
Speaker 13: think that's incredibly poor behavior. Australia didn't acquiesce to those
Speaker 13: fourteen points. I think that was, you know, belligerents from
Speaker 13: Beijing's part, but it was also reflective of a deterioration
Speaker 13: under the former government of that relationship. I think you know,
Speaker 13: it's very sensible the line that the Albanese government has
Speaker 13: with its relationship China. I think that's the stuff of
Speaker 13: a mature government and I think frankly, most people in
Speaker 13: Australia want to see stability in this relationship. Most people
Speaker 13: in the southeast of South Australia, my home state, who
Speaker 13: lost their jobs in the lobster industry, would be championing
Speaker 13: just this normal, steady issue goes approach to one of
Speaker 13: our most critical relationships.
Speaker 1: Brunwin, do you want to respond to that?
Speaker 4: Yes, very nice to meet you tonight, but let me
Speaker 4: say you are so wrong. The bottom line is that
Speaker 4: we don't want to tie ourselves in trade more to China.
Speaker 4: We want to diversify more so we're less dependent on China,
Speaker 4: because China has already shown by its behavior with its
Speaker 4: first twenty million dollars worth of tariffs. And then there's
Speaker 4: coercion again. If you dare take back your own port,
Speaker 4: we will stop buying your iron ore, which is our
Speaker 4: major export. We know that they are not relations with
Speaker 4: I'm saying that we've got to diversify our feed That's
Speaker 4: what I'm saying, and we have got to have a
Speaker 4: prime minister that stands up for us and is not
Speaker 4: a toady. We have got to have somebody who is
Speaker 4: prepared to say when when the Prime Minister used the
Speaker 4: words respectful, he means obsequious and I'm sorry that is
Speaker 4: not acceptable to the Australian spirit. We have got to
Speaker 4: make our way in the world.
Speaker 13: I think there's there's a lot of there's a Brunno,
Speaker 13: there's a.
Speaker 2: Lot of sport in this, there's a lot of theater.
Speaker 2: There's a lot of fun sort.
Speaker 4: Of No, there's no fun at all program this. But
Speaker 4: in fact, in fact, when I watched when I watched.
Speaker 2: Him of that type of approach, when I watched him on.
Speaker 4: The Great Wall of China today, I looked at it
Speaker 4: and it's been there a hell of a long time
Speaker 4: and it hasn't changed any since I was there in
Speaker 4: nineteen seventy five, and it's still the same stuff that
Speaker 4: s trotted out. Mao was alive then, and z is
Speaker 4: perpetuating the sort of China that Mao had. We had
Speaker 4: a change in direction that the worst for Seed under Ping,
Speaker 4: and I had indeed did meet Domsaping when he was
Speaker 4: standing in for Cho and Lie when China LII was dying.
Speaker 4: That was a different path they were taking. But under
Speaker 4: this president, President z when he says he wants to
Speaker 4: have war and he's preparing for war, you've got to
Speaker 4: take him at his word. He means it. And I
Speaker 4: think we are seen as the vassal state they want.
Speaker 4: You've got bloggers in China who are saying Australia's the
Speaker 4: next Taiwan, and why bother with Taiwan. Take Australia its
Speaker 4: defenses and it's much richer, and it's got the food
Speaker 4: and the minerals we want. Now, if we have a
Speaker 4: prime minister who speaks more like the governor of a
Speaker 4: vassal state instead of the prime minister of a sovereign nation,
Speaker 4: we are in trouble.
Speaker 1: And do you want to respond to that?
Speaker 13: Yeah, look, I just think you know Bronwin mentioned her
Speaker 13: lengthy engagement with China, I too you. I've been on
Speaker 13: the ground in China. I've been through his Injiung. I
Speaker 13: remember crossing the border from Mongol enters in Jihan getting
Speaker 13: apprehended at the border. I'm not endorser of the Jijinping
Speaker 13: model of governance in China. I'm just a pragmatic viewer
Speaker 13: of this, this relationship we have over decades built.
Speaker 2: Up and economic dependence of some form with Beijing.
Speaker 13: I completely support diversifying that relationship, but it is just
Speaker 13: not in the interests of everyday people in Australia to
Speaker 13: be just beating the chess for its own sake and
Speaker 13: then sacrificing jobs in states like mine. I just don't
Speaker 13: support that. Well, I don't know that people do in
Speaker 13: Australia arether No.
Speaker 1: Look, I think I think.
Speaker 4: That is worth more than I loves.
Speaker 1: I think I think I think go up to make
Speaker 1: that the last word on that here, because there's so
Speaker 1: much more to talk about here. One thing here now
Speaker 1: it's not sexy, but it is important. Tax reform. The
Speaker 1: Commonwealth Bank Australia has urged Chim Chalmers to consider major
Speaker 1: tax reform to revive productivity. That includes slashing income taxes,
Speaker 1: changing the GST, capping superannuation concessions, and even introducing wealth taxes.
Speaker 1: There's a lot, probably I think, for both sides of
Speaker 1: politics on this, but one thing that I find really
Speaker 1: vexing is the way income tax keeps getting turned up
Speaker 1: every year through bracket creep and the lack of indexation.
Speaker 1: This was brought up very briefly during the campaign, but
Speaker 1: I did some mass on this. If the top tax
Speaker 1: rate of one hundred ninety thousand dollars a year had
Speaker 1: been indexed from the time of two thousand and seven
Speaker 1: when it was just one eighty, but it only just
Speaker 1: a little bit, there'd be like two hundred and ninety
Speaker 1: thousand dollars a year. And so we see how the
Speaker 1: government keeps taking more and more money, and it's the
Speaker 1: pay as you go taxpayer who keeps copying it every year. Broadway, Bishop,
Speaker 1: is tax reform dead in this country?
Speaker 4: Well, under this government, tax reform is a euphemism, and
Speaker 4: it's a euphemism for it's how do we increase the
Speaker 4: tax take. That's what they want because they are a
Speaker 4: spend and tax organization. Not tax and spend, but spend
Speaker 4: and tax. Now, before the election, the snake charmers I
Speaker 4: call the treasurer said the budget's in great shape. Immediately
Speaker 4: after the election, it's unsustainable and we're going to have
Speaker 4: a round table and guess what I'm going to put
Speaker 4: up taxes? That is what he has got in mind.
Speaker 4: And when you start to read all that stuff, history
Speaker 4: will tell you that We did in fact have indexation
Speaker 4: of Marshall tax rates under Malcolm Fraser, and it was
Speaker 4: not a success because people didn't appreciate it, and the
Speaker 4: tax tape went down and he had to find other
Speaker 4: ways to look at tax tax to be raised, and
Speaker 4: so they reversed it. And the other reason that the
Speaker 4: difficulty will come about the GST. And I was at
Speaker 4: the forefront end fighting for the a GST to come in,
Speaker 4: but it was to replace the wholesale sales tax, which
Speaker 4: had taxes of thirty percent on and that was the
Speaker 4: real trade off that allowed that tax to get up
Speaker 4: when John Hart took it to the election in ninety eight.
Speaker 4: But if you do the calculation, you will still find
Speaker 4: that you will raise more money through bracket creep than
Speaker 4: you will by raising the gs.
Speaker 1: Absolutely well, I'll sort of add on this. Your thing
Speaker 1: takes an awful lot of work I think around tax
Speaker 1: and tax reform. One of the things I'm concerned about though,
Speaker 1: and I want your thoughts on this, is while the
Speaker 1: tax take goes up, so to do the number of
Speaker 1: jobs created by government. So four and five jobs recently
Speaker 1: have been created in the public not the private sector.
Speaker 1: It's crowding out the private private enterprise. This isn't sustainable.
Speaker 1: What does what do you and your institute make of
Speaker 1: this current situation where the Treasury says, well, we're going
Speaker 1: to have to both raise taxes and cut spending.
Speaker 13: Look, I welcome this debate that has been put on
Speaker 13: the table. I think you know, Ron is right. We
Speaker 13: haven't really seen substantial tax form in this country for
Speaker 13: a quarter of a century. Been a pretty long time coming.
Speaker 13: There's a couple of things going on here. I think
Speaker 13: you're right in calling out the fact that we have
Speaker 13: way too much tax coming from just regular working people.
Speaker 13: It's just that is unsustainable in the long term. It's
Speaker 13: disincentivizing work, it has all these sort of problems. I
Speaker 13: generally am supportive of the fact that we need to
Speaker 13: shift away the tax burden from working people towards other
Speaker 13: forms of revenue. The question then becomes, what is that revenue?
Speaker 13: What does that actually look like? And I really welcome
Speaker 13: what the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, you know, hardly a
Speaker 13: socialist den sort of came out with this week, and
Speaker 13: that is, you know, looking at creative ways of taxing
Speaker 13: effectively wealth better in this country while also incentivizing investment
Speaker 13: and that type of Well, at some point there will
Speaker 13: have to be certain taxes that increase in to compensate from.
Speaker 4: No, there's another way.
Speaker 2: There's another way about tax reform.
Speaker 4: There's another way.
Speaker 1: I know what you're going to say.
Speaker 4: There are three big expenditure items in the budget, Defense
Speaker 4: anddis and the entire renewable energy program, particularly rewiring the nation.
Speaker 4: That rewiring the nation, you free up a huge number
Speaker 4: of tradespeople who are able then to go into the market,
Speaker 4: and we won't have a shortage of skills exactly. We
Speaker 4: will be able to afford both defense increases and the
Speaker 4: ndii IS.
Speaker 1: And bron will want to leave it there because we're
Speaker 1: going to go to a break here. But I'm glad
Speaker 1: you mentioned rewiring the nation because when we come back,
Speaker 1: a lot of controversy around offshore wind farms and whose
Speaker 1: fault could it be? Is name Donald Trump? Well we'll
Speaker 1: find out after the break. Stick around. Welcome back to
Speaker 1: the program. James Morrow filling in for Paul Murray live
Speaker 1: tonight and throughout the week. We're having a lot of
Speaker 1: fun here. We've got Bronwin Bishop here in the man Cave.
Speaker 1: It's an open all genders band cave tonight here and
Speaker 1: joining us from adelaide Ed Kavanov from the McKell Institute,
Speaker 1: a newcomer here to the panel. We spoke a moment
Speaker 1: ago about rewiring the nation and green energy in the transition. Here, Bronwin.
Speaker 1: There was a story here on the ABC website that
Speaker 1: caught my eye and it said offshore wind companies cool
Speaker 1: Australian interest as public investment is considered. And then it
Speaker 1: went through a whole bunch of sort of different reasons
Speaker 1: why offshore wind farms aren't actually taking off and why
Speaker 1: they're being canceled. But what this article said was that
Speaker 1: the real problem was when Donald Trump intervened to stop
Speaker 1: construction on a multi billion dollar wind from off the
Speaker 1: coast of New York. The decision reverberated around the world.
Speaker 1: Robert bench If, I did a little research on this,
Speaker 1: and I'm not sure which one they're talking about, but
Speaker 1: I know that wind farm has been being canceled at
Speaker 1: least since twenty twenty three, when Joe Biden was office,
Speaker 1: off the coast of Sweden, off the coast of New
Speaker 1: Jersey and elsewhere. Can we stop blaming Donald Trump for everything? Oh?
Speaker 4: Well, I don't think they will because he is all powerful,
Speaker 4: and he is making a huge number of decisions that
Speaker 4: are right for the world, like canceling wing farms, which
Speaker 4: we do not need here, and we don't need net
Speaker 4: zero by twenty fifty commitments either, and we don't need
Speaker 4: a cop conference here either. So I think we're seeing
Speaker 4: the rest of the world seeing that the world cannot
Speaker 4: get by without fossil fuels and all nuclear impossible. There
Speaker 4: is a place for renewables, but we cannot have renewals
Speaker 4: only it does not work. The rest of the world
Speaker 4: has woken up to it, and we, as usual, are
Speaker 4: a couple of years at least slow behind.
Speaker 1: What's funny because we have been you know, adopters have
Speaker 1: many things in the past, but now we see to
Speaker 1: be lagging ad around the world, governments are saying we're
Speaker 1: going to walk back our net zero commitments here, our
Speaker 1: power bills are going up and up and up, and
Speaker 1: we're never going to get that two hundred and sew
Speaker 1: and five dollars back. Is it time? I mean, if
Speaker 1: we're really honest about it and take the politics out
Speaker 1: of it, to wind back this headlong rush for net zero.
Speaker 13: I think, frankly, it's incredibly sad that perspective. I think
Speaker 13: that the perspective where you have, you know, basically there's
Speaker 13: been people in power for the last like thirty years
Speaker 13: in Australia that have led us into this general situation
Speaker 13: we're in around you know, the issues we're having with
Speaker 13: climate and just saying, oh, don't worry about it, it's
Speaker 13: not an issue. Let's us not do anything about it.
Speaker 13: That's just a fatalist approach. It's just not constructive. It
Speaker 13: doesn't help people in my generation, the people coming up
Speaker 13: at all. One of the bizarre things about that argument too,
Speaker 13: is just how fundamentally opposed it is to the opportunities
Speaker 13: in the economy that are driven by net zero. You know,
Speaker 13: Australian jobs in renewal energy construction, Australian jobs that are
Speaker 13: enabled by the improved investment environment from net zero. So
Speaker 13: I just think, you know, that is a frankly, a
Speaker 13: really sad approach, just saying, look.
Speaker 2: We should just not pursue this at all.
Speaker 13: We have the most unique capacity in the world to
Speaker 13: take advantage of net zero.
Speaker 2: We should be seizing that opportunity. We shouldn't be scared.
Speaker 1: Of it, right not.
Speaker 4: That argument just makes my blood boil. We are blessed
Speaker 4: with an energy source in this country. We've got uranium,
Speaker 4: we've got oil, we've got coal, we've got the abs
Speaker 4: of gas. We have got everything here, and yet we
Speaker 4: export it to every aspect of the world and we
Speaker 4: don't use it here. Now, I am shamedly voted for that.
Speaker 4: I voted for the legislation that said that nuclear power
Speaker 4: was to be banned. And I apologized profusely for ever
Speaker 4: having voted for it, because it was wrong. But the
Speaker 4: fact of the matter is that other parts of the
Speaker 4: world are waking up to the fact that you cannot
Speaker 4: do without fossil fuel. You just cannot do it.
Speaker 14: And in this country, Sydney, and you live in South
Speaker 14: Australia on an extension cord from Victoria because you blew up,
Speaker 14: you're only got out.
Speaker 4: The extension. And if the extension cord is cut, you
Speaker 4: have no power. You're gone. And in New South Wales.
Speaker 2: We're taking it from extraordinary to listen.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's give let's give it a chance.
Speaker 2: Literally the truth. I'm sorry, that's right. I will first point,
Speaker 2: you made my point for me.
Speaker 13: You were in Parliament voted against nuclear energy twenty five
Speaker 13: years ago. Now you're you know, on TV saying we've
Speaker 13: got to adopt it now.
Speaker 2: But you were, but you were.
Speaker 13: The idea that we're not using coal and oil is
Speaker 13: just bizarre. We have you know, Victoria has seventy percent
Speaker 13: of its entire energy is based on coal an entire state.
Speaker 13: Fifty of the Australian energy mix is still coal. The
Speaker 13: idea that South Australia is reliant on East Coast and
Speaker 13: is just in an inverse of the truth pretty much
Speaker 13: every single summer day in Australia in South Australia. South
Speaker 13: Australia exports energy to the rest of the country because
Speaker 13: of it's zero policies. So you have a beautiful and
Speaker 13: colorful story about the issue here, it just literally does
Speaker 13: not bear any reality with what's happening on the ground
Speaker 13: here in this state and frankly in the energy mix
Speaker 13: across the entire country.
Speaker 1: And the one question though about all of this, I
Speaker 1: think people want to hear about this is why their
Speaker 1: power bills are so high. And I'm going off of
Speaker 1: memory here, but I think South Australia has some of
Speaker 1: the highest power bills in the country.
Speaker 13: The power bill was a lower in summer when we're
Speaker 13: not actually dependent on coal on coal imports.
Speaker 2: This is the reality of situation.
Speaker 1: Just go ahead, go ahead, go ahead.
Speaker 2: Please look.
Speaker 13: The one point I'd make is the energy mix that
Speaker 13: Bronwin is calling for, an entire dependency infinitum in Australia
Speaker 13: on coal and on oil, is basically exposing the entire
Speaker 13: Australian economy the oscillations of a global energy market. It
Speaker 13: is completely crazy. Basically, no one should be doing that,
Speaker 13: No one should be advocating for that. We have incredible
Speaker 13: sovereign capacity to generate energy here in Australia.
Speaker 2: Why would we not seize that?
Speaker 1: Well, all right, let's let's let's uh, let's call that
Speaker 1: one a drawer there for now, because we got a
Speaker 1: couple of seconds left here. I wanted to ask about
Speaker 1: this one final topic because it does have to do.
Speaker 1: It's tied to China. Labor has refused to reveal whether
Speaker 1: TikTok lobbyists pushed for YouTube to be included in the
Speaker 1: ban on under sixteen's accessing the Internet. Broadwin, having been
Speaker 1: in government, do you understand why the Communications Minister's office
Speaker 1: is being so cagy about this introductory meeting that they
Speaker 1: had with the Chinese own TikTok, Yes, I do, because.
Speaker 4: The Albanize is in China and was this part of
Speaker 4: the deal? Is what pant went on closed doors when
Speaker 4: the media were removed from the meeting to our meeting
Speaker 4: between presidency and alban What has he gone into? They
Speaker 4: want to broaden the so called broaden the free trade
Speaker 4: agreement and increde AI Chinese AI coming into Australia. I mean, seriously,
Speaker 4: we said Huawei couldn't come. How are we going to
Speaker 4: look after our own integrity as a nation? And TikTok
Speaker 4: of course belongs to the Chinese, and YouTube of course
Speaker 4: belongs to Americans. So is it part of this again?
Speaker 4: This trade off that's going It's.
Speaker 1: A great question. Ed got fifteen seconds here? Can you
Speaker 1: give you a quick take? How concerned should we be
Speaker 1: about tech talk and all of this?
Speaker 13: We look conspiracy is always fun to play around with.
Speaker 13: I think the reality in this is you have a
Speaker 13: lot of politicians who are a little bit older, who
Speaker 13: don't know really how young people actually interact with a
Speaker 13: lot of social media platforms, including YouTube. I don't support
Speaker 13: the ban on YouTube, and I think that's necessarily a good
Speaker 13: idea I think it's a useful tool for a lot
Speaker 13: of younger people.
Speaker 1: I agree with it. We will agree on that.
Speaker 4: Unity, team less and more ignorance.
Speaker 1: All right, hey, listen, let's all end on that agreement
Speaker 1: that we all like the kids on the YouTube great
Speaker 1: stuff for the math homework and a lot of other things. Yeah,
Speaker 1: exactly right. And Kavanaugh, thank you so much for the
Speaker 1: Kell Institute for joining us here on Paul Murray Live.
Speaker 1: Braden Bitcham has always now stick around because we've got
Speaker 1: some fun with AOC after the break. Welcome back to
Speaker 1: the program. James Morrow here for Paul Murray Live. Well,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump has been out there again having a chat
Speaker 1: about none other than Alexandria Okazia Cortes, who is a
Speaker 1: potential candidate for the twenty twenty eight presidential election, although
Speaker 1: she's only pollie at six percent, and he says that
Speaker 1: in a contest of IQs against AOC, he'd win. Have
Speaker 1: a look at what he had to say earlier today,
Speaker 1: you know, HEOC.
Speaker 15: Look, I think she's very nice, but she's very low
Speaker 15: IQ and we really don't need low IQ. Between her
Speaker 15: and Pocket. We're gonna give them both an IQ test
Speaker 15: to see who comes out past.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 15: I took my test. I took a real test. I'd
Speaker 15: walt to Reed Medical Center and I haste it. I
Speaker 15: got every one of all those questions. Right now, it's
Speaker 15: time for them to take a test. Anyway, have a
Speaker 15: good time.
Speaker 1: You gotta love it. AOC dumb what me worry? Well,
Speaker 1: this is the woman who, of course was claimed that
Speaker 1: unemployment was only low in the US because everyone had
Speaker 1: two jobs, and once got in trouble for tweeting that
Speaker 1: she thought oil was going up was a good thing
Speaker 1: because of green policies. Well, there you go. That's all
Speaker 1: the time I've got tonight. But stick around here because
Speaker 1: coming up right now, it's the Late Debate