Speaker 1: Live on Sky News.
Speaker 2: This is Shari.
Speaker 3: Good evening, and welcome to the show. I'm Caleb Bond,
Speaker 3: filling in for Sharry Marks and this week coming up
Speaker 3: on the program tonight, I asked the biggest Islamic groups
Speaker 3: in the country what they thought of hate preacher Hadad
Speaker 3: being ruled racist by the Federal Court. I'll tell you
Speaker 3: their response shortly. Plus no albow, Trump meeting, no tariff exemption,
Speaker 3: no Walcus guarantee. What did Pennywong actually achieve in Washington?
Speaker 3: David Gazzard and Graham Richardson, Hopefully we'll have some answers soon.
Speaker 3: And Trump announces that Israel has agreed to a sixty
Speaker 3: day cease far in Gaza, But of course, will Hamas
Speaker 3: accept the conditions. Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Sharen Haskell will
Speaker 3: discuss with me a little later now. I talked at
Speaker 3: length last night about the Federal Court's judgment against hate
Speaker 3: preacher Wizam Hadad. He was found to have breached Section
Speaker 3: eighteen C of the Racial Discrimination Act in a number
Speaker 3: of sermons in which he said Jews with the descendants
Speaker 3: of pigs and apes, that they were vile and treacherous,
Speaker 3: and on and on it goes. He also justified the
Speaker 3: killing of Jews in the end times.
Speaker 4: Some of it was.
Speaker 3: Loosely based on the Qur'an and the Hadith. But as
Speaker 3: I showed you last night, the court found that the
Speaker 3: Qoran itself doesn't actually instruct Muslims to hate Jews or
Speaker 3: say that they are inherently bad people.
Speaker 5: But the expert witnesses on Islamic theology from both sides
Speaker 5: agree that neither the Qur'an nor the Hadith teach that
Speaker 5: Jews have an inherent negative quality as a people. Ibrahim,
Speaker 5: the respondence expert, said that Islam does not encourage hatred
Speaker 5: towards Jews. I was not called on to decide whether
Speaker 5: religious belief can ever be a justification for propagating racist,
Speaker 5: bigotry and hate, but.
Speaker 3: I also pointed out that even if that's the case,
Speaker 3: it's strange how the biggest Muslim organizations in Australia have
Speaker 3: failed to the rancid hatefield preachings of Hadad. I mean,
Speaker 3: you'd think that if Hadad isn't representative of what most
Speaker 3: Muslims think, mainstream Imams, the biggest Islamic groups in the
Speaker 3: country would come out and repudiate him and say this
Speaker 3: is not on this isn't us. We can't have this
Speaker 3: kind of bile being preached in the name of our religion.
Speaker 3: Even if they hadn't said anything until now, which they hadn't.
Speaker 3: You'd think after he lost in court that they might
Speaker 3: say something, and yet they have it. I'll let you
Speaker 3: come to your own conclusions.
Speaker 4: About why that might be.
Speaker 3: And I said last night that we'd extended the opportunity
Speaker 3: for someone from the Australian National Imam's Council to come
Speaker 3: on the show and talk to me to condemn Hadad's
Speaker 3: comments or explain why they don't think they deserve condemnation.
Speaker 4: And I would have thought.
Speaker 3: They'd be pretty keen to clear the air, given that
Speaker 3: Hadad said in court that Shaik Shady, the president of
Speaker 3: the National Imams Council, was the man who took him
Speaker 3: under his wing and led him to religion.
Speaker 4: But we didn't hear.
Speaker 3: My team also extended the same opportunity to the Australian
Speaker 3: Federation of Islamic Councils and the Lebanese Muslim Association today
Speaker 3: and we didn't hear back from them either, and in
Speaker 3: venis just in case they thought I was too scary
Speaker 3: as an interviewer. We gave them the opportunity to provide
Speaker 3: a written statement instead. Funnily enough, none of the three
Speaker 3: groups took me up on that. I keep in mind
Speaker 3: this is a bloke. Well, actually bloke is probably a
Speaker 3: bit generous. This pond scum doesn't believe in democracy, has
Speaker 3: advocated for jihad and has supported ISIS is one from
Speaker 3: the archives.
Speaker 6: Supporters of IS in Australia are predictably angry at the
Speaker 6: federal government's decision with some Hadad Is, a carpet layer
Speaker 6: turned militant activist who ran the Al Rissala bookstore and
Speaker 6: community center at Bankstown and Sydney's West. Al Rissala became
Speaker 6: notorious for giving a platform to hardliners sympathizing with global jihad.
Speaker 7: T it hit the height of notoriety. The Al Rissala
Speaker 7: bookstore had become a lightning ride for militants enraged by
Speaker 7: the slaughter of sorting Muslims in the Syrian Civil War,
Speaker 7: but its ideology is about more than just the Syrian opposition.
Speaker 7: Our Rissala's online presence conveyed an ideology that was sympathetic
Speaker 7: to global jihad. The restoration of the Caliphate and the
Speaker 7: rejection of Western government. Wis Hadad ran the operation until
Speaker 7: last Friday, the day he says the business was finally
Speaker 7: wound up. On social media, he flies the shiharda flag
Speaker 7: used by the self proclaimed Islamic state group.
Speaker 4: That was eleven years ago.
Speaker 3: So again I'll ask, why won't three allegedly mainstream, prominent
Speaker 3: Islamic bodies in Australia come out and condemn the hate
Speaker 3: preachings of a man who's flown the ISIS flag. Of
Speaker 3: course I can't answer that question. They have to answer it,
Speaker 3: but for some reason they don't seem to want.
Speaker 4: To do so.
Speaker 3: I'll tell you what, if the Victorian Liberal Party was
Speaker 3: a girl, you'd tell your son she was crazy and
Speaker 3: never to be brought home to dinner. Again, the never
Speaker 3: ending John Pursuito and more Redeeming saga continues to drag on.
Speaker 3: Today it's that four more members of the party's administrative
Speaker 3: committee have joined Colleen Harken in challenging a loan from
Speaker 3: the party to mister Pursuito to pay what he owes
Speaker 3: to misdeeming after he was found to have defamed her. Now,
Speaker 3: if you're not aware of the recent details. In short,
Speaker 3: mister Pursuito had to pay Misdeeming two point three million
Speaker 3: dollars in legal costs on top of the three hundred
Speaker 3: thousand that he had to cough up for defaming her.
Speaker 3: He managed to raise nearly eight hundred grand himself, but
Speaker 3: the deadline to pay was looming last month and he
Speaker 3: didn't have the rest of the cash. So there were
Speaker 3: two options. Either someone stepped in to pick up the tab,
Speaker 3: or it'd had to declare bankruptcy. Now, bankrupts aren't allowed
Speaker 3: to sit in Parliament, so that had forced a by
Speaker 3: election in his seat of Hawthorne, and there was a
Speaker 3: real risk that the could lose it. So the party's
Speaker 3: administrative Committee agreed in a secret ballot to loan one
Speaker 3: and a half million dollars to Pursuito from a party
Speaker 3: entity called Vapold, and that was meant to ensure that
Speaker 3: Pursuito didn't go bankrupt. Deeming got her money and then
Speaker 3: everyone would be able to move on. Except they haven't
Speaker 3: been able to move on because, as Stevie Wonder could
Speaker 3: have seen coming, there are plenty of people in the
Speaker 3: party not happy that members and donors are having to
Speaker 3: stump up a serious amount of money to essentially bail
Speaker 3: out a fool who picked a fight he didn't need
Speaker 3: to and never should have to bring down a female MP,
Speaker 3: and then refuse to settle, which would have stopped all
Speaker 3: of this pilava in the first place. So Miss Harkin
Speaker 3: launched an injunction on the money through the courts last week,
Speaker 3: and now four of her fellow committee members have joined her.
Speaker 3: They argue that the loan was invalid under the party's constitution.
Speaker 3: Now my understanding is that the party was made aware
Speaker 3: of the injunction on the day it was lodged and
Speaker 3: then paid the money before it could be heard in court,
Speaker 3: basically preventing the possibility of an emergency injunction. But the
Speaker 3: case will return to court this Friday. The Herald Son
Speaker 3: reported today that in new documents lodged with the court,
Speaker 3: the five member group wants the one point five to
Speaker 3: five million dollar loan to be repaid in full, with
Speaker 3: a declaration that the funds are held in trust for
Speaker 3: the members of the Liberal Party. They also want the
Speaker 3: court to declare that Vappold directors Alan Stockdale, a former
Speaker 3: Victorian treasurer current party treasurer Karen Sobles and Christopher Pius
Speaker 3: have acted in breach of trust by paying the funds
Speaker 3: to the trust account of lawyers for Missus Deeming Giles George.
Speaker 3: That would mean Misdeeming giving the money back and mister
Speaker 3: pursuito they're knowing her again, which would most likely end
Speaker 3: up in new bankruptcy proceedings that could force him out
Speaker 3: of parliament. Sources close to the case told the paper
Speaker 3: that it could go on for as long as twelve months,
Speaker 3: which is the last thing the Liberal Party needs, because
Speaker 3: there's a state election in November next year and they'd
Speaker 3: like to think that they'd have a chance of finally
Speaker 3: running Andrews turn Allen government out of town. Some senior
Speaker 3: Liberals certainly hope this loan would be the end of
Speaker 3: the matter and that they'd be able to get on
Speaker 3: with trying to win an election, but that's certainly not
Speaker 3: how it's played out, and they have no one to
Speaker 3: blame but themselves. Fancy thinking that you could just bail
Speaker 3: out a former leader who's trashed and defamed one of
Speaker 3: his own MP's exiled her from the party and that
Speaker 3: there wouldn't be a backlash from members and donors and
Speaker 3: party officials.
Speaker 4: I mean, these are the people who.
Speaker 3: Pay their hard earned money for the benefit of the party,
Speaker 3: and they do that so the party can succeed, so
Speaker 3: it can win elections, not so it can protect dopey
Speaker 3: men like Pursuito, who's done a great deal to hurt
Speaker 3: the Victorian Liberal Party in recent years and may will
Speaker 3: be the reason that they lose their fourth election on
Speaker 3: the trot because you just know Labor is going to
Speaker 3: bring all of this stuff out and all the dirty
Speaker 3: laundry that was aired during the defamation case come out
Speaker 3: again when the campaign starts, and I'm sure the proponents
Speaker 3: of this loan will be screaming and carrying on and
Speaker 3: accusing Colin Harken and co. Of tearing the party apart,
Speaker 3: But they may want to reflect on the fact that
Speaker 3: it was mister Pursuito who tore the party apart when
Speaker 3: he decided to wrongly accuse Miss Deeming of being connected
Speaker 3: to neo Nazis after she spoke at a women's rights rally.
Speaker 3: It was mister Pursuito who tore the party apart when
Speaker 3: he then moved for her to be kicked out of
Speaker 3: the party. It was mister pursuito who made matters worse
Speaker 3: when he refused to settle.
Speaker 4: The matter for one hundred rand and instead.
Speaker 3: Let it go to trial, which is what led to
Speaker 3: this massive debt and a court case where Liberal front
Speaker 3: benches gave evidence against their own then leader. And for
Speaker 3: all this, the party rewards him by saving him from bankruptcy.
Speaker 3: They should have just let him go bankrupt and forced
Speaker 3: a buy election, because let's be honest, if they're worried
Speaker 3: about the fact that they could lose a by election,
Speaker 3: I mean, they really think that Pursuto would be able
Speaker 3: to defend his seat next year after all this carry on.
Speaker 3: He's the one who caused this mess in the first place. Well,
Speaker 3: the quad meeting has wrapped up and lots of lingering questions.
Speaker 3: Penny Wong didn't do his self any favors with the
Speaker 3: media rounds afterwards.
Speaker 8: We can't secure a meeting between our leaders. There has
Speaker 8: been no tariff deal. Are you concerned?
Speaker 9: I think that the Trump administration and President Trump has
Speaker 9: made very clear to the world that he envisages a
Speaker 9: different role for America in the world. I was very
Speaker 9: grateful that the Secretary again express his regret for the
Speaker 9: meeting that was scheduled for the G seven having to
Speaker 9: be rescheduled.
Speaker 6: He did Marco Rubio guarantee that August will go ahead.
Speaker 9: I think we both understand the importance to both our
Speaker 9: countries and to the United Kingdom, and you would have
Speaker 9: seen what Secretary Rubio has previously said. The issue of
Speaker 9: Australia's defense budget was not raised with me, either in
Speaker 9: the Quad or in my Bilatural meeting.
Speaker 3: Not one hundred percent sure what she's managed to achieve.
Speaker 3: I'm not sure she is either with me now. Is
Speaker 3: labor Legend Graham Richardson and DPG Advisory Solutions founded David
Speaker 3: Gazzard Richo.
Speaker 4: I mean, it doesn't sound like.
Speaker 3: The chats were overly productive, perhaps friendly, but what really
Speaker 3: came out of this.
Speaker 8: Not a whole lot.
Speaker 10: I think I'd have to concede. I think we'd all
Speaker 10: have liked to have seen a little more come out.
Speaker 10: But you know Trump, dealing with the Trump administration is
Speaker 10: an incredibly difficult thing. Rubio himself, I think it's probably
Speaker 10: a pretty good fellow. It always looks to me to
Speaker 10: be slightly out of his death. I think they need
Speaker 10: better cattle than they've got in some of these positions.
Speaker 3: But Ruby O, David is close to the president to
Speaker 3: not come out of this meeting with a future meeting
Speaker 3: date set down to meet with the president, and it
Speaker 3: is surely a failure.
Speaker 8: Well it's not. It doesn't look good. I'm not going
Speaker 8: to defend that.
Speaker 10: But you know what Trump's like, I've been trying to
Speaker 10: deal with that administration is really pot luck.
Speaker 8: One day you're going well, the next day you're not,
Speaker 8: and you never know why.
Speaker 10: It's an incredibly difficult job that Penny Wong's got.
Speaker 8: I do not envy her task at all.
Speaker 11: Your view, David, Well, the other members of the quad
Speaker 11: have all got meetings. That's the truth to it. And
Speaker 11: I think Graham is overlooking the point that we've got
Speaker 11: an ambassador in Washington that has personally denigrated the president
Speaker 11: and he is the key lynch pin in trying to
Speaker 11: secure a meeting with the president. Now, Penny Wong says
Speaker 11: America has changed. That is true, but the other countries
Speaker 11: have all managed to secure meetings, and they probably don't
Speaker 11: have the lead in their saddlebags are having an ambassador
Speaker 11: that's personally attacked the president, and most of the cabinet,
Speaker 11: including the Prime Minister himself. So these are not good omens.
Speaker 11: And we've already heard over the course of the week
Speaker 11: the President's polster because we heard this before election from
Speaker 11: one of his former chief of staff that they've got
Speaker 11: a target on Kevin Rudd. So I think Anthony Albneazi
Speaker 11: faces an invidious choice here to withdraw his handpicked ambassador
Speaker 11: in the interests of the of the Alliance, or to
Speaker 11: leave it there and Australia doesn't get a meeting.
Speaker 4: That's true.
Speaker 3: The only thing we'd have to consider though is if
Speaker 3: they moved right on, he might come back to Australia
Speaker 3: and then we'd have to deal within here. So I'm
Speaker 3: not sure whether that's good for us either, to be honest.
Speaker 3: Part of the reason though, that things may not have
Speaker 3: gone as well as they should have, is that she
Speaker 3: took it upon herself while she was over there, Penny
Speaker 3: Wong to gift Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State a
Speaker 3: Port Adelaide, Guernsey. He's got all the trimmings, it's got
Speaker 3: his name number one and all this sort of stuff.
Speaker 3: You know, rich O, I know you're probably an NRL man,
Speaker 3: being from New South Wales, but I'm from RSA and
Speaker 3: I'm an Adelaide crows man, and I know Chris Kenny,
Speaker 3: if he's watching, will be feeling exactly the same as me.
Speaker 3: This is an absolute disgrace of all the things Penny
Speaker 3: Wong has ever done. To give a port Adelaide guernsey
Speaker 3: to the US Secretary of State is so offensive.
Speaker 8: Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. There should have been a
Speaker 8: sin George rug Jersey and I would be applauded.
Speaker 3: And my girlfriend would agree with you on that count too.
Speaker 3: I should note that Alexander Downer did exactly the same
Speaker 3: thing in two thousand and five, but with a crows Gundi.
Speaker 3: So I guess they're balancing the Ledger now. Quantus was
Speaker 3: hit by a major cyber attack today. The personal information
Speaker 3: of six million customers, names, birthdays, phone numbers, email addresses
Speaker 3: have all been breached. Thankfully, David, there was no credit
Speaker 3: card information or passports being passed on. I think most
Speaker 3: of this comes from their quarters Frequent Flyer pro but
Speaker 3: it seems like every second day now we see one
Speaker 3: of these cases where there is a hack, a significant
Speaker 3: hack on large amounts of user data that then ends
Speaker 3: up on the dark web and sold for nefarious purposes.
Speaker 3: We have to be seriously careful about this stuff. Will
Speaker 3: ask the question, why do we keep handing so much
Speaker 3: data over for free? It's so valuable, that's why people
Speaker 3: keep hacking it.
Speaker 11: Well, this is I agree with you on that, Caleb.
Speaker 11: You're almost forced to You don't have a choice. Sign
Speaker 11: up to a new bank account, you get to a restaurant,
Speaker 11: you order a meal with a QR code. They're collecting
Speaker 11: your data. But what you don't know is the safety
Speaker 11: of that data. So if you're going to move into
Speaker 11: the next frontier and jump into the next frontier and
Speaker 11: offer these AI driven solutions and tech solutions, you've got
Speaker 11: to have the capability of protecting people's data, no doubt
Speaker 11: about that. The government keeps threatening a big stick on this,
Speaker 11: but there seems to be no unified effort to force
Speaker 11: big corporates in particular that do store valuable information with
Speaker 11: the threats to make them update their cybersecurity controls. So
Speaker 11: you know, in the case of Connis today, they've promised there,
Speaker 11: well they're going to go out and review all of
Speaker 11: their call centers because this one seems to have happened
Speaker 11: through Philippines. But that should have happened that this is
Speaker 11: part and parcel of running a serious international business. You
Speaker 11: are going to be under cyber attack. It is just
Speaker 11: the new cost of doing business. So you know, at
Speaker 11: some point, I think we need practical guidelines from the
Speaker 11: government about what the minimum standards are for companies that
Speaker 11: are in this space, so that customers and voters everywhere
Speaker 11: can have the confidence that their data is protected.
Speaker 3: And of course, Richo, the the Fedial government wants to
Speaker 3: bring in all these age verifications for social media etc.
Speaker 3: Very soon, and that will involve private companies collecting biometric
Speaker 3: data and god knows what happens to it after that.
Speaker 3: I mean, the amount of stuff that these companies have
Speaker 3: on us now is obscene and seemingly there's no real
Speaker 3: protection of it.
Speaker 8: I think a lot of these companies know more about
Speaker 8: us than we know ourselves.
Speaker 10: I mean, it's quite terrifying the amount of data that
Speaker 10: they've been able to collect on individuals. I don't think
Speaker 10: you consider out anymore and talk about privacy because we
Speaker 10: have very little left and with each day it seems
Speaker 10: to be eroading more.
Speaker 3: Yeah, look, this should be front and center for governments,
Speaker 3: but it just doesn't seem to be creecket Australia. Goodness,
Speaker 3: they've decided to be politically correct again.
Speaker 4: Second year in a row.
Speaker 3: There won't be a game on Australia Day next year,
Speaker 3: which is only the second time. It should be noted
Speaker 3: in thirty one years that they haven't had anything on
Speaker 3: Australia Day.
Speaker 4: But they're a bit tricky about it.
Speaker 3: They insist it isn't about Australia Day because they say
Speaker 3: that if the Big Bash Final is washed out the
Speaker 3: night before the Sunday, the twenty fifth, then they'll play
Speaker 3: it on Australia Day instead, So they claim, David, they
Speaker 3: have no issue with.
Speaker 4: Australia Day whatsoever. But it seems a.
Speaker 3: Little convenient that for nearly thirty years you have matches,
Speaker 3: whether they're tests, then one days and eventually t twenties
Speaker 3: on Australia Day, and then the last two years, when
Speaker 3: things are heating up, not there.
Speaker 11: Anymore, the Boxing Day tests, the Australia Day test. Icons
Speaker 11: of Australia will get the fact that there's a group
Speaker 11: of Australians who feel aggrieved by this, but we also
Speaker 11: get the fact that we've had a referendum about treating
Speaker 11: people differently and most Australians have rejected that idea. Now
Speaker 11: you can be sensitive towards the views of our Indigenous
Speaker 11: brothers and sisters without having to stop playing a cricket game.
Speaker 11: I mean, it's a day of unifying all Australians, no
Speaker 11: matter what race, creed or color. Playing a sporting game
Speaker 11: on Australia Day I just I mean you kind of
Speaker 11: weep over the pointless virtue see signaling of our sporting codes. Thankfully,
Speaker 11: it appears to me that we've sort of crossed that
Speaker 11: rubicon and people are starting to underwind those positions and
Speaker 11: they're listening to the view of the majority, and the majority,
Speaker 11: you know, to want to support Australia Day and they
Speaker 11: want to support things like the Australia Day Test.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they should have the Australia Day Test back in
Speaker 3: Adelaide where it belongs, I reckon rich O. The New
Speaker 3: South Wales Liberal members are weighing up whether to fund
Speaker 3: a court challenge and indignified Bradfield candidate Zill Capteriian in
Speaker 3: a bit to have her failed election result overturned and
Speaker 3: a prompt buy election in the country's most marginal seat
Speaker 3: that's directly from the Sydney Morning Herald today. The some
Speaker 3: members are apparently lobbying the party to challenge it in
Speaker 3: the Small Claims Court, sorry, at the Court of Disputed Returns,
Speaker 3: because of course there was a recount and then the
Speaker 3: seat went to nicol Itt Buller, the Teal seat.
Speaker 4: Why would you bother?
Speaker 3: I mean, surely they're on a hiding to nothing if
Speaker 3: they try to challenge this in court. They've had the recount,
Speaker 3: it came back with the result.
Speaker 10: Yeah, I think you're wasting your time. Look, when you
Speaker 10: look at a seat like Bradfield, it is extraordinary that
Speaker 10: we're even talking about it. If you drive around Bradfield,
Speaker 10: trying to imagine how the Liberals don't win it by
Speaker 10: our country mile is very difficult. It's the kind of
Speaker 10: the seat that you'd think they'd be getting seventy five
Speaker 10: percent of every time. I don't understand what's happened to
Speaker 10: the Liberal vote in Bradfield, but obviously an awful lot
Speaker 10: of people have lost confidence in them.
Speaker 8: Now that suits me to say, I admitted, but it's
Speaker 8: a fact that Well.
Speaker 3: Just quickly before we go, gents, I'll ask you about
Speaker 3: you know, Kanye West, controversial American rapper Tony Burke said
Speaker 3: today that his Australian visa had been canceled because he
Speaker 3: released a song called Hale Hitler, and of course his
Speaker 3: wife is Australian, so he apparently had a visa that
Speaker 3: meant he could sort of come and go from Australia
Speaker 3: as he likes.
Speaker 4: Richo. Correct decision, I'd.
Speaker 10: Say, so, Look, I don't think we need this fella.
Speaker 10: You know, I don't know problems in Australia. Why import
Speaker 10: another one? The guy?
Speaker 8: I mean, I can use the crude expression the guy
Speaker 8: is a dickhead. Everyone knows that.
Speaker 4: David.
Speaker 11: Look, I'm for free speech right that I'm an ex journalist,
Speaker 11: so that's my sort of starting position. I can accept
Speaker 11: that some of these people aren't savory characters. I don't
Speaker 11: really care if Kanye Weste comes or not. To be
Speaker 11: perfectly honest, I just want an even application of the rules.
Speaker 4: Good point.
Speaker 11: The lead into the program was a good one about
Speaker 11: hate speech coming out of out of at a mosque
Speaker 11: in Western Sydney. There's crickets from a huge segment of
Speaker 11: society that gets worked up about Kannye or Israel Falao
Speaker 11: or people who come from Israel who are democratically elected.
Speaker 11: The thing that I think a noise Australians is there's
Speaker 11: an unequal or an asymmetrical application of the rules, the
Speaker 11: regulations and the laws that apply to one side of
Speaker 11: the of the debate not the other. So they if
Speaker 11: they're even handed in their application, in their application, I
Speaker 11: won't have a problem with it, even though I start
Speaker 11: from the principle of protecting free speech.
Speaker 3: Yep, I agree with you, David, and then look to
Speaker 3: be honest. Is it really going to make a difference
Speaker 3: with Kanye We're probably not rich O'david, thank you so
Speaker 3: much for joining me. Now the cf ME you might
Speaker 3: be administration, but they don't seem to be short of
Speaker 3: a dollar. Of course, the federal government put them in
Speaker 3: administration after reports of corruption and that the union had
Speaker 3: been infiltrated by bikis.
Speaker 4: I mean, who to thunk it?
Speaker 3: But the Herald son Today reported that they've been giving
Speaker 3: the so called gold plated redundancy packages out to officials,
Speaker 3: organizers and office staff, apparently in exchange for their silence
Speaker 3: because they're made to sign a non disclosure when they leave.
Speaker 3: So these people are getting at least four weeks pay
Speaker 3: per year of service plus a minimum three month bonus
Speaker 3: for signing up.
Speaker 4: It's a pretty extraordinary deal.
Speaker 3: The former head of the Australian Building and Construction Commission,
Speaker 3: which should still be around but it's not, John Lloyd,
Speaker 3: joins me. Now, John, I mean, you know, the union's
Speaker 3: meant to be an administration. It's meant to be being
Speaker 3: cleaned up, and they're getting rid of people and paying
Speaker 3: them off with obscene amounts of money. I mean, it
Speaker 3: would almost look like it's the union doing what the
Speaker 3: union's always done.
Speaker 12: Well it does. They're very high amounts, or at the
Speaker 12: higher end of any redundancy payment scheme most Australians they
Speaker 12: max out it after nine years. At sixteen weeks redundancy pay.
Speaker 12: These people will be getting about forty eight weeks, so
Speaker 12: well ahead of the national employment standard. And yes, it's
Speaker 12: the looks like the union is going back to old ways.
Speaker 12: There's one hundred and six staff apparently in the Victorian
Speaker 12: Office according to the latest figures, so there's a fair bit
Speaker 12: of money involved. If most of those they're given a
Speaker 12: redundancy payment, well.
Speaker 3: If they're able to do this kind of thing, what's
Speaker 3: the administrator doing. The Union is meant to be being
Speaker 3: cleaned up in some regard, they're carrying on almost like
Speaker 3: its business as usual. Of course they've cleaned out some
Speaker 3: which would call ghosts from the past, like John Setka,
Speaker 3: but it would seem as though the union still believes
Speaker 3: it can do whatever it wants, that it can make
Speaker 3: significant amounts of money and make sure people have their
Speaker 3: pockets lined as it has ever been.
Speaker 12: Thus, yes, it seems that way, and you wonder why,
Speaker 12: particularly why they offer the incentive of an additional three
Speaker 12: months pay. The administrator has strong powers. He can obviously
Speaker 12: terminate people. He's got that power, and why he has
Speaker 12: to offer an inducement is very unquestionable in my view.
Speaker 12: And as you say, sounds like the union, which has
Speaker 12: always played hardball on these sort of things, wins. It
Speaker 12: wins big paying conditions for its members and seems to
Speaker 12: be adopting its old sort of approach that it's well
Speaker 12: above everybody else and they should be paid decent amounts.
Speaker 3: Well, we know that the CFMU was quite upset to
Speaker 3: be put into administration, and Stephen drill it to the
Speaker 3: Newscall papers has been writing these stories. Another one he
Speaker 3: had to day was a leaked tape which shows just
Speaker 3: how angry the union was at being forced into administration
Speaker 3: and particularly at the act you boss, Sally McManus, take
Speaker 3: a listen.
Speaker 1: So where the laws the bodies sland. Then these laws
Speaker 1: used to remove the fire keys, to remove criminals, to
Speaker 1: remove people who have done highly illegal activity.
Speaker 4: She lied, She lied.
Speaker 3: That was at a labor day lunch in Ballarat, by
Speaker 3: the way, she lied. Apparently, why is the union so
Speaker 3: upset that they're actually being cleaned up?
Speaker 12: Well, look, they've had a many years and years of
Speaker 12: privilege of abusing their their position of thinking they're above
Speaker 12: the law, where you know, unlawful conduct was endemic. So
Speaker 12: you know, the comfortable existence has been shaken up, and
Speaker 12: that's why they reacted so strongly to it, and shown
Speaker 12: by I think the other payment highlighted down the paper,
Speaker 12: the four hundred and fifty thousand to John Setka that
Speaker 12: was awarded by the previous administration but also as an
Speaker 12: extraordinarily high payment for separation from an organization when he's
Speaker 12: sell it was about one hundred and forty five thousand
Speaker 12: dollars a year. It's just that culture, that culture of
Speaker 12: entitlement have been above the law if you like, and
Speaker 12: doing things their way and don't caring about the consequences.
Speaker 12: And in this regard, I think one thing to be
Speaker 12: of concern perhaps might be to the members. Members pay
Speaker 12: one thousand, two hundred dollars a year membership fees, and
Speaker 12: that's where some of those fees are going now into
Speaker 12: these massive redundancy payments.
Speaker 3: But let's be honest, if this is how the union
Speaker 3: is still behaving, what hope is there that it comes
Speaker 3: out the other side of administration looking any better than
Speaker 3: it did when it went in. I mean, of course,
Speaker 3: you know there was the BLF, and then the BLF
Speaker 3: was deregistered, and along came to see if MEU. I mean,
Speaker 3: this has always existed in some way in the construction
Speaker 3: industry and whatever construction union exists at the time. So
Speaker 3: we're really on a hiding to nothing, aren't we.
Speaker 12: Yeah, that's a really big question. When you have the
Speaker 12: next union election, which I think is enduring three to
Speaker 12: five years time, who steps into power, who has influence,
Speaker 12: and now you elect a few senior positions and then
Speaker 12: they recruit other people as organizers and it's just who
Speaker 12: controls the union then? And I really think you only
Speaker 12: really ensure that things go on to the right track
Speaker 12: for the long term if not just the union but
Speaker 12: also the clients of the industry, particularly governments and also
Speaker 12: the head contractors agree to take a tougher line and
Speaker 12: ensure the proper standards are upheld. If you don't have that,
Speaker 12: I think there's a huge risk that you and you
Speaker 12: will return to its old wines.
Speaker 3: Quite right, John Lloyd, thank you for joining me, and
Speaker 3: keep in mind John used to run the COP on
Speaker 3: the beat, the Building and Construction Commission, which the Labor
Speaker 3: Party dismantled because of course that's what the CFIM you wanted.
Speaker 3: They didn't want anyone having oversight on what they were
Speaker 3: doing on construction sites. And then when all these reports
Speaker 3: came out that there was infiltration by barking gangs into
Speaker 3: the the Labour Party said, we didn't know that was happening.
Speaker 4: How could that possibly have happened?
Speaker 3: Well, maybe if it kept the COP on the beat,
Speaker 3: it wouldn't have happened in the first place.
Speaker 4: Stupid stuff still to come.
Speaker 3: Two more renewable projects could be on the verge of
Speaker 3: barting the bullet Albaneze's renewables future is on shaky ground.
Speaker 3: Aiden Morris joins me a little later. But first, the
Speaker 3: battle of the egos is back on, with trumpet his
Speaker 3: former best friend Elon Musk once again taking their private
Speaker 3: spat into the public domain. Adam Crichton, we will sorry
Speaker 3: with me next. Donald Trump's Big Beautiful Bill has passed
Speaker 3: through the Senate with the casting vote of Vice President JD.
Speaker 4: Vance.
Speaker 3: He had to come down and vote because three Republicans
Speaker 3: voted against it, so that put the count at fifty
Speaker 3: to fifty. But not everyone was so pleased. Just before
Speaker 3: the legislation got through, Trump's former breast best friends orr
Speaker 3: Elon Musk went on another social media tirade, posting that
Speaker 3: every member of Congress who campaigned on reducing government spending
Speaker 3: and then immediately voted for the biggest debt increase in
Speaker 3: history should hang their head in shame and they will
Speaker 3: lose their primary next year if it is the last
Speaker 3: thing I do on this earth. The US President then
Speaker 3: threatened to deport Elon Musk.
Speaker 2: His upset is that he's losing his ivy mandate.
Speaker 8: And music sad.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he's very upset about things. But you know he
Speaker 2: could lose a lot more than that, don't you tell you?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 2: Elan can lose a lot more than that made after Boozio. Elan,
Speaker 2: you know, you know doj Dojh's the monster that might
Speaker 2: have to go back and eat Ilin.
Speaker 3: It's nothing if not entertaining with me now as senior
Speaker 3: fellow and chief economist at the IPA Adam Christ and
Speaker 3: Adam It's it's the greatest reality show of all time
Speaker 3: really watching this go on between these two men, and
Speaker 3: you know from how the marty you've fallen, I suppose.
Speaker 3: But to Tomsk's point about the big spending in this bill,
Speaker 3: there is huge spending in this bill. They have increased
Speaker 3: the dead celing. It also comes with.
Speaker 4: Tax cuts, etc.
Speaker 3: And I suppose there would be a lot of people
Speaker 3: in the Republican Party thinking, well, you know, if Donald
Speaker 3: Trump is not interested in cleaning up the books and
Speaker 3: DOGE wasn't as effective as many people thought it would be,
Speaker 3: then who on earth is going to do it?
Speaker 4: Well?
Speaker 13: Certainly, look, I'm very sympathetic to Elon on this issue.
Speaker 13: The fundamental question is this bill soon to be law,
Speaker 13: has not changed the fundamental trajectory of the US budget.
Speaker 13: I mean, the basic fact is the US government spends
Speaker 13: about seven trillion dollars a year and it only raises
Speaker 13: five trillion dollars or so in taxes, and that is
Speaker 13: two trillion dollar deficit. It is absolutely enormous and totally unsustainable.
Speaker 13: And basically this has been going on pretty much since
Speaker 13: since the COVID pandemic, and basically US presidents hope that
Speaker 13: the financial crisis is going to happen on the next
Speaker 13: president's watch, and that is what Donald Trump is hoping.
Speaker 13: And it's a big gamble because, as you point out,
Speaker 13: debt is extremely high in the US. I mean, basically
Speaker 13: it makes the Victorian government look like some sort of
Speaker 13: paragon of fiscal refugee by comparison. You know, it's well
Speaker 13: over one hundred percent of GDP. Now, of course it's
Speaker 13: a reserve currency, so it gets a very long leash
Speaker 13: from financial markets.
Speaker 14: But it's a real problem. And I sympathize with Elon.
Speaker 13: I mean, he found a couple of hundred billion dollars
Speaker 13: of savings and they couldn't even do that. To stand
Speaker 13: his anger, Plus it was great personal financial cost to him.
Speaker 14: You know, the share price of Tesla fell greatly.
Speaker 13: It cost him a lot of money, So I understand
Speaker 13: why he's angry and.
Speaker 3: Elon obviously feels personally aggrieved by all this, to the point,
Speaker 3: you know, as I said before, he's saying that if
Speaker 3: it's the last thing he does on earth, it'll be
Speaker 3: to stop these Republicans who voted for it from winning
Speaker 3: their ritary. That's pretty extraordinary intervention.
Speaker 13: Now, it's an extraordinary intervention, I would say, the most
Speaker 13: serious so far, and would certainly worry a lot of
Speaker 13: Republican backbenches because there's no preferential voting system in the US,
Speaker 13: so if he does launch a new party, it could
Speaker 13: well split the Republican vote and be absolutely chaos for
Speaker 13: them at the next election, which is next year for
Speaker 13: the Congress. So that's a very serious threat, and I'm
Speaker 13: actually shocked he did it, because I mean, he's making
Speaker 13: powerful enemies. Of course, he's a powerful man himself, but
Speaker 13: I don't know why he wants to do that. I mean,
Speaker 13: to his credit, he's obviously very principle and doesn't really
Speaker 13: care much about him share price or his wealth because
Speaker 13: he stands to lose a lot more of that.
Speaker 14: I would say by going down this path.
Speaker 4: He's not mucking around.
Speaker 3: Meanwhile, Trump's got an inventive on his immigration policy. He's
Speaker 3: unveiled this new migrant to teach in center in Florida,
Speaker 3: which is surrounded by alligators and pythons, which is meant
Speaker 3: to deter people from escaping.
Speaker 14: Here.
Speaker 3: He was touring this so called alligator Alcatraz.
Speaker 8: No, but this is air conditioned facility.
Speaker 11: So if any of the news claims are keeping him
Speaker 11: out in the hot human solf Florida, that is wrong.
Speaker 3: It's probably sixty.
Speaker 8: Good to bree here to be one.
Speaker 4: Hey, Baiden wanted.
Speaker 3: Me in here.
Speaker 7: Okay, he wanted me.
Speaker 2: It didn't work out that way, but he wanted me
Speaker 2: in here.
Speaker 4: So I love the idea, to be honest.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's probably cheaper than paying security to look
Speaker 3: after the perimeter.
Speaker 14: Yeah.
Speaker 13: Look, it's very trump this, I mean, I don't think
Speaker 13: it hurts him. His fans love this sort of thing.
Speaker 13: He loves this sort of thing. It's made for TV,
Speaker 13: of course, which of course.
Speaker 14: Is his specialty.
Speaker 13: Look, he promised in coming into office that he would
Speaker 13: crack down on you know, on the illegal immigration, and
Speaker 13: that's what he's doing.
Speaker 15: You know.
Speaker 13: Of course it's controversial, but we always criticize politicians for
Speaker 13: not living up to their words.
Speaker 14: But he is doing that on this issue.
Speaker 13: So look, it's you know, it's unusual, it's unorthodox, but
Speaker 13: it also does send a powerful signal to would be
Speaker 13: immigrants not to come. And I think, you know, much
Speaker 13: of the benefit from this policy is probably that this
Speaker 13: is going to ricochet all around the world and you know,
Speaker 13: it will probably change the minds of some people who
Speaker 13: are otherwise thinking of coming this. Remember when Biden came
Speaker 13: in in twenty twenty one, there was a huge influx
Speaker 13: of people into the US and that's because of perception,
Speaker 13: and perception really matters.
Speaker 14: And I think Trump is right to do things like this.
Speaker 3: I want to see if they can get one going
Speaker 3: up in Queensland. How good would that be David Chrisphole
Speaker 3: to get on top of it. Jeff Chambers in the
Speaker 3: Odds Today exposed that Australia's top seventeen public service boffins
Speaker 3: have all received pay bumps with the total value of
Speaker 3: up to sixteen point three million dollars. Treasury boss Jenny
Speaker 3: Wilkinson now joins the one million dollar club, along with
Speaker 3: Australia's most senior bureaucrat, Stephen Kennedy. And you know, I
Speaker 3: know that if you want serious people to do these jobs,
Speaker 3: you do have to pay them well, but when you
Speaker 3: compare what the heads of these departments get versus what
Speaker 3: the ministers who are controlling the departments get, I mean
Speaker 3: it is a big difference.
Speaker 14: Look, it certainly is.
Speaker 13: I think it's just outrageous the levels of these pay
Speaker 13: and I think it brings great shame to Australia to
Speaker 13: be honest. I mean, if you look at the head
Speaker 13: of the UK Treasury for instance, which you could argue
Speaker 13: is a much a much harder job than being the
Speaker 13: head of our treasury, that the pay is something like
Speaker 13: one hundred and eighty thousand pounds of years. That's three
Speaker 13: hundred and sixty thousand Australian dollars, So it's vastly lower.
Speaker 13: We really stand out globally on these metrics, and it's embarrassing.
Speaker 13: You know, you could have all of these salaries and
Speaker 13: you would get exactly the same sorts of people in
Speaker 13: the jobs. So you know, this argument about you know,
Speaker 13: we pay million dollars a year and we get great talent, well,
Speaker 13: you know, look at the last ten years of policy
Speaker 13: making it in Australia. I mean, do you think the
Speaker 13: ndis is you know, is great policy well, that's the
Speaker 13: product of these so called million dollar salaries. You know,
Speaker 13: it's very embarrassing and you know it just makes Australians
Speaker 13: hate the government. I mean basically, it's not it's not
Speaker 13: good for social cohesion, it's not good for this country.
Speaker 13: And you know it should be seven hundred, six hundred
Speaker 13: thousand dollars, not a million dollars. You can be very
Speaker 13: well in Canberra on six hundred thousand dollars.
Speaker 3: I think, yeah, there's no doubt about that. I'm with
Speaker 3: you on that, Adam Crichton, thank you so much for
Speaker 3: joining me.
Speaker 14: As always.
Speaker 3: Coming up after the break, Trump gets to Israel to
Speaker 3: agree to a new guys As cease fire, but the question,
Speaker 3: of course is whether Hamas will play ball. Saran Haskell
Speaker 3: will be on the program to discuss a little later,
Speaker 3: and Australia's renewable energy projects are falling left, right and center.
Speaker 4: Another two today.
Speaker 3: Aidan Morris will join me next to discuss the impact
Speaker 3: this will have on alban Ezi's far Fitch green dream
Speaker 3: Don't go away. I think every day this week there's
Speaker 3: been another story about a renewable energy project falling over
Speaker 3: the other day, it was the biggest green hydrogen plant
Speaker 3: in the country. Today it's a double hit with news
Speaker 3: that offshore Wind develop a Blue Float Energy is considering
Speaker 3: selling its Victorian project and getting out of Australia, while
Speaker 3: the Victoria to New South Wales Electricity Interconnector, which is
Speaker 3: supposed to be integral to getting renewable energy across the
Speaker 3: country after coulfied stations shut down in a few years,
Speaker 3: that's been hit with a two year delay, with me
Speaker 3: now as Director of Energy Research at the Center for
Speaker 3: Independent Studies, Aidan Morrison, it doesn't get any better.
Speaker 4: How can anyone still be clinging.
Speaker 3: Onto the idea that we will reach our net zero
Speaker 3: targets in time. We're not going to do it. Everyone
Speaker 3: in the energy sector knows we're not going to do it.
Speaker 3: Everyone knows we're not going to hit eighty percent renewable
Speaker 3: by twenty thirty. At what point do we just say
Speaker 3: this is not happening. Let's just do our best with
Speaker 3: what we have now.
Speaker 15: Look, that's a really good question, because it's been very
Speaker 15: clear all the markers for a very long time have
Speaker 15: been that these things just do not add up and
Speaker 15: cannot stack up. The economics of hydrogen green hydrogen has
Speaker 15: never been there. It's never made any sense in an
Speaker 15: engineering or economic sense. Same with offshore wind. Offshore wind
Speaker 15: even the CSIRO admits it's nearly double what normal onshore
Speaker 15: wind would cost and those projects are startling struggling to
Speaker 15: get past, so there's never been a realistic prospect this work.
Speaker 15: The v and I West one, that transmission line being
Speaker 15: pushed back, that's a little bit different because the question
Speaker 15: we should ask there is to why that was brought
Speaker 15: forward in the first place. Actually, the a email analysis
Speaker 15: said that wasn't required till twenty thirty one, assuming we've
Speaker 15: built all the other renewable things that we're not currently
Speaker 15: succeeding in building, so there's really no case that was required.
Speaker 15: They made an odd case to say it had to
Speaker 15: be rushed forward by getting extra funding from the federal
Speaker 15: government to bring it forward to the date of twenty
Speaker 15: twenty eight, and now they're having to admit just a
Speaker 15: few months later that that doesn't work and that was impossible.
Speaker 15: So questions should be asked about why the Australian Energy
Speaker 15: Market Operator was pulling forward these dates when there was
Speaker 15: really no chance they could even deliver on them. It's
Speaker 15: a really bizarre circumstance and serious questions have to be
Speaker 15: asked about that.
Speaker 4: Well, well, in your view, Aid, and why might that be?
Speaker 15: Look in my view it has to be connected to
Speaker 15: the cases for the other transmission projects like Humelink. We
Speaker 15: have a private company in New South Wales Transgrid and
Speaker 15: they stand to benefit and get a profit from building
Speaker 15: transmission lines, and their big project, Humlink, had a huge
Speaker 15: cost increase, and I actually think that the business case
Speaker 15: was massaged to overcome that cost increase by pulling V
Speaker 15: and I West forward because there were better benefits if
Speaker 15: there was another big cable for it to link up to.
Speaker 15: And so now I think there's serious questions to be asked.
Speaker 15: Why was the market operator who are now they're the
Speaker 15: ones that currently own V and I West, doing a
Speaker 15: favor for another private company when their project probably should
Speaker 15: have been pushed back as well.
Speaker 3: Wasn't that the biggest question in all of this because
Speaker 3: we've been told we need, you know, ten thousand kilometers
Speaker 3: of new power lines and whatever to make all of
Speaker 3: this renewable business work. But of course it's in the
Speaker 3: interests of private investors to have all these power lines
Speaker 3: build because they're regulatory assets, so they're guaranteed to get
Speaker 3: a profit out of them. It's the same of course,
Speaker 3: you know, ten to fifteen years ago we were talking
Speaker 3: about gold plating the poles and wires because they know
Speaker 3: they're going to get money back if they invest in it.
Speaker 3: I mean, is this nothing more than basically a Ponzi
Speaker 3: scheme to line the pockets of the investors at the
Speaker 3: expense of us, the paying consumer.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's exactly right.
Speaker 15: And that's why I think we have to consider the
Speaker 15: transmission spend a little bit differently, because we can be
Speaker 15: fairly confident that for things like offshore wind and things
Speaker 15: like hydrogen, if there are private companies putting together proposals
Speaker 15: for that, eventually reality will hit them and they will
Speaker 15: pull out their own private funding. But transmissions different because
Speaker 15: these companies get to send the bill to consumers. The
Speaker 15: regulator writes a rule and says you get to send
Speaker 15: the build of the consumers, whether it makes sense or not.
Speaker 15: So we should be extremely cautious about our institutions who
Speaker 15: are meant to be looking after consumers rights and consumers' bills,
Speaker 15: pushing through big transmission projects because private companies still benefit,
Speaker 15: and of course all the other private companies get to
Speaker 15: buy up land and build a wind farms and solar
Speaker 15: farms with government subjects around them, they can benefit too.
Speaker 15: So it really is a potential hotbed that's really ripe
Speaker 15: for conflicts of interest and corruption to arise. And so
Speaker 15: we should be extremely careful about scrutinizing decisions about where
Speaker 15: big power lines get built and when they get built,
Speaker 15: and why the timeline is as fast as it is,
Speaker 15: because I don't think there's any case to building this
Speaker 15: sort of transmission at the timeline that's been currently advanced, well.
Speaker 3: Assumingly doing it by force to just very quickly aiden
Speaker 3: the telly. At a story today that government contractors have
Speaker 3: been caught trespassing on private property quote unquote in a
Speaker 3: bid to forcibly acquire land for renewable energy transmission lines.
Speaker 3: So these people are from energy code. They've been told
Speaker 3: by the landowner not to go on the land, and
Speaker 3: he found them there.
Speaker 15: Anyway, Look, it doesn't surprise me if you spend any
Speaker 15: time with people around the areas where these power lines
Speaker 15: are going to go, you'll hear no end of stories
Speaker 15: of misconduct and extreme arrogance and failing to comply with
Speaker 15: a whole bunch of rules and regulations. So I'm a
Speaker 15: little surprised that this is some of the first instances
Speaker 15: being reported, because there is plenty more where that came from,
Speaker 15: I can guarantee you. So there's no real wonder why
Speaker 15: a lot of people in the bush are really fed
Speaker 15: up because the assumption, I suppose, the arrogance that the
Speaker 15: country needs this and these infrastructure is doing is everyone
Speaker 15: a favor. I think it's really rubbed a lot of
Speaker 15: people in the bush the wrong way. And that's I suppose,
Speaker 15: just one instance of what I'm sure is very many.
Speaker 3: I should note Energy Code says it was an accident,
Speaker 3: but the go aiden, thank you for joining me, don't
Speaker 3: go anywhere yet.
Speaker 4: Trump's foreign policy.
Speaker 3: Credentials of ballooning, of course, after getting Israel to accept
Speaker 3: the conditions for a Gaza sease far after the deal
Speaker 3: with Iran, But ofcause will Hamas agree?
Speaker 4: That is the question?
Speaker 3: Scharen Haskell will join me right after this quick break.
Speaker 3: The major breaking news today Trump announcing that Israel has
Speaker 3: agreed to a sixty days cease far in Gaza. The
Speaker 3: US President urged Hamas to take the deal, warning that
Speaker 3: it will not get better, it will only get worse.
Speaker 3: And this of course comes after his success with Israel
Speaker 3: and Iran joining me. Now is Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister
Speaker 3: Sharen Haskell, Sharen welcome. What more can you tell us
Speaker 3: about this potential deal.
Speaker 16: Well, on Monday, Prime Minister Natanio is going to go
Speaker 16: to Washington and he's going to speak to President Trump
Speaker 16: a little bit more in depth about the details. But
Speaker 16: it's important to understand as well. We said yes to
Speaker 16: a ceasefire three months ago with the whitpop proposal. Then
Speaker 16: he put another proposal goes further a few steps towards
Speaker 16: Commas's demands. Israel said yes to that as well. Only
Speaker 16: three weeks ago he put the third proposal that took
Speaker 16: a few steps further towards Tamas's demands, and Israel said
Speaker 16: yes again. We you know, our goal is not a war.
Speaker 16: Our goal is to bring back our family members as
Speaker 16: quickly and as safely as possible. And the problem is
Speaker 16: that Hamas continues and continues to refuse and to say no.
Speaker 3: So in your view, then do you think they should
Speaker 3: be a ceas far or not?
Speaker 16: Well, yes, there could have been a ceaspired three months ago,
Speaker 16: but The problem is that we are facing not a
Speaker 16: logic person or a logic entity with value similar to
Speaker 16: me and you cherish line. We are standing against a
Speaker 16: terrorist organization, a death cult where its highest achievement is
Speaker 16: death murdered him. And so if that's then it is
Speaker 16: very very difficult to speak to them, to negotiate with them.
Speaker 16: This is very complex, and so the reason the reasonable
Speaker 16: logic of me and you, you know, if you can't
Speaker 16: count on commas to have the same logic, and that's
Speaker 16: what makes it far more difficult. But we've seen before
Speaker 16: President Trump putting so much pressure, whether it was on
Speaker 16: Kamas or his Baladh or on Iran, So I have
Speaker 16: confidence in trying to break through this time towards that ceasefire.
Speaker 3: Of course, this meeting you mentioned before between Benjaminitya, who
Speaker 3: the Israeli Prime Minister, and Donald Trump at the White
Speaker 3: House next week, I think it's the third meeting.
Speaker 4: Of course, we.
Speaker 3: Had some strong words from the President Tanitanyaho last week
Speaker 3: about Israel and Iran, and then had a phone conversation
Speaker 3: that ended up in plans being turned back on what
Speaker 3: terms do you think they will be speaking?
Speaker 16: You know, it hasn't been easy for Israel. Throughout many
Speaker 16: of these East fire we had to make a lot
Speaker 16: of concessions. Every time there's a ceasefire in Gaza, we
Speaker 16: have to withdraw our troops. It means that the terrorist
Speaker 16: organization Ramas is taking more and more positions that we've
Speaker 16: already cleared from the terrorist organization. It means that later
Speaker 16: on our soldiers have to go back in to the
Speaker 16: same area they've already cleared risk their lives. Sometimes we've
Speaker 16: lost the lives of our soldiers because of that. Just
Speaker 16: in a cease fire, Gaza was flooded with humanitarian a
Speaker 16: that was delivered through the terrorist organization Ramas. And you
Speaker 16: need to understand that humanitarian a. There was billions, millions
Speaker 16: of dollars that went into the pockets of Ramas. Because
Speaker 16: of that means was the first time they could pay
Speaker 16: salaries to all of their terrorists for the first time
Speaker 16: since the seventh of October. With that money, they recruited
Speaker 16: new terrorists to fight Israel. And so when we speak
Speaker 16: about concessions that we need to make, it is difficult,
Speaker 16: it's not easy, but we're willing to do that in
Speaker 16: order to first bring back our family members back home.
Speaker 16: They are being held in the dungeons of torture of Ramas.
Speaker 16: Look when in Hebrew, when you cheer, you know, with
Speaker 16: the glasses with wine, you cheer to life. Israel is
Speaker 16: about life. Our culture is about life. It's about protecting
Speaker 16: our children. And so you know, our goal is to
Speaker 16: make sure that our children can live here safely and securely,
Speaker 16: not just us, but to create stability in our region
Speaker 16: so that we have prosperity and peace among everybody.
Speaker 3: Sure, and we've run out of time, but I was
Speaker 3: going to talk about these satellite image is now coming
Speaker 3: out of Iran that they're building a new road into
Speaker 3: the Ford our uranium Enrichmond facility. It seems that they're
Speaker 3: going in there to assess the damage. So we shall
Speaker 3: see what comes out of that. Sharin Haskell, thank you
Speaker 3: for joining me tonight, and thank you for joining me
Speaker 3: at home as well. I'll be back here tomorrow at
Speaker 3: eight pm to round out the week coming up now
Speaker 3: though in the man cave of course for Murray