WEBVTT - China, Australia and the warships off our coast

0:00:00.880 --> 0:00:04.920
<v Speaker 1>Australia and New Zealand ships and pad aircraft have been

0:00:05.000 --> 0:00:09.920
<v Speaker 1>monitoring the Chinese fleet while they have been traveling down

0:00:10.280 --> 0:00:13.400
<v Speaker 1>the coast of Australia. Off the coast.

0:00:13.119 --> 0:00:16.919
<v Speaker 2>So we saw a float tiller of three ships, a

0:00:17.000 --> 0:00:20.239
<v Speaker 2>large destroyer, very new vessel of the type fifty five,

0:00:20.320 --> 0:00:23.720
<v Speaker 2>the ren High class. We also saw a frigate and

0:00:23.760 --> 0:00:26.880
<v Speaker 2>then a supply ship alongside to keep the destroyers and

0:00:26.920 --> 0:00:29.400
<v Speaker 2>the frigate fueled and armed and fed.

0:00:31.360 --> 0:00:36.080
<v Speaker 3>Sam Rogavin is director of the Lower Institute's International Security Program.

0:00:36.960 --> 0:00:37.920
<v Speaker 4>Over the past.

0:00:37.720 --> 0:00:40.840
<v Speaker 3>Month, he's been watching as a floatiller of Chinese Navy

0:00:40.880 --> 0:00:46.320
<v Speaker 3>ships sailed around Australia. They fired live shots and disrupted

0:00:46.360 --> 0:00:47.800
<v Speaker 3>flights out of Sydney Airport.

0:00:47.920 --> 0:00:50.200
<v Speaker 1>It is the case that the notice was given. When

0:00:50.240 --> 0:00:56.680
<v Speaker 1>that occurs, airlines are notified and stay out of the

0:00:56.760 --> 0:00:57.880
<v Speaker 1>area air.

0:00:58.600 --> 0:01:01.560
<v Speaker 2>It was international waters and the Chinese were doing nothing illegal,

0:01:01.640 --> 0:01:04.720
<v Speaker 2>but nevertheless it was pretty provocative in my view and

0:01:05.160 --> 0:01:07.920
<v Speaker 2>could easily have been avoided if the Chinese had wanted to.

0:01:08.680 --> 0:01:12.240
<v Speaker 2>It did excite a lot of reaction in the Australian media.

0:01:12.440 --> 0:01:15.840
<v Speaker 5>Why is the Chinese Navy here and should we be worried?

0:01:16.120 --> 0:01:19.600
<v Speaker 2>Minister Anthony Aberanezi has assured the nation a flotilla of

0:01:19.720 --> 0:01:24.200
<v Speaker 2>Chinese warships has been closely watched. China's ambassador to Australia

0:01:24.319 --> 0:01:27.800
<v Speaker 2>says there is no need for his country to apologize

0:01:27.920 --> 0:01:29.160
<v Speaker 2>that they did give.

0:01:29.520 --> 0:01:32.080
<v Speaker 3>The voyage came at a time when Australia's ability to

0:01:32.120 --> 0:01:35.560
<v Speaker 3>rely on the United States is questionable and raises concerns

0:01:35.600 --> 0:01:38.640
<v Speaker 3>about whether we're prepared to handle our own security in

0:01:38.680 --> 0:01:45.120
<v Speaker 3>the event of an attack. From Schwartz Media, I'm Daniel James.

0:01:45.400 --> 0:01:49.320
<v Speaker 3>This is seven AM today Sam Rogavin on why the

0:01:49.400 --> 0:01:55.040
<v Speaker 3>Chinese military circled Australia and what we should do about it.

0:01:55.040 --> 0:02:03.280
<v Speaker 3>It's Friday, March twenty one. So China set one of

0:02:03.360 --> 0:02:06.960
<v Speaker 3>the largest warships in the world, equipped with guided missiles,

0:02:07.440 --> 0:02:12.120
<v Speaker 3>to perform drills of Australia's coast. So should we be scared.

0:02:12.480 --> 0:02:14.400
<v Speaker 4>No, we shouldn't. We don't need to be scared.

0:02:14.760 --> 0:02:17.240
<v Speaker 2>But nevertheless, because I think this is so novel, we'd

0:02:17.280 --> 0:02:18.680
<v Speaker 2>never seen anything like this before.

0:02:18.720 --> 0:02:20.760
<v Speaker 4>It excited a lot of reaction in Australia.

0:02:20.800 --> 0:02:23.320
<v Speaker 2>But I mean, if you're Taiwan or if you're Japan,

0:02:23.400 --> 0:02:25.840
<v Speaker 2>for instance, this stuff is commonplace and it barely creates

0:02:25.880 --> 0:02:29.000
<v Speaker 2>a headline, and Australia does it all the time. We

0:02:29.080 --> 0:02:32.560
<v Speaker 2>often sail far to the north, and our navy sometimes

0:02:32.560 --> 0:02:35.840
<v Speaker 2>sails through the Taiwan straight for instance, So we shouldn't

0:02:35.880 --> 0:02:38.640
<v Speaker 2>be too put off by that, you know. The Opposition

0:02:39.320 --> 0:02:42.760
<v Speaker 2>defense spokesman Andrew Hasty referred to this as gunboat diplomacy,

0:02:42.800 --> 0:02:45.560
<v Speaker 2>and that's true. This is a signal from the Chinese

0:02:45.560 --> 0:02:48.000
<v Speaker 2>military that they have a bluewater navy and they're prepared

0:02:48.040 --> 0:02:49.799
<v Speaker 2>to flex their muscles in our region.

0:02:49.800 --> 0:02:51.120
<v Speaker 4>This is gunboat diplomacy.

0:02:51.360 --> 0:02:55.200
<v Speaker 2>But gunboat diplomacy really only works if the nation that's

0:02:55.240 --> 0:02:59.680
<v Speaker 2>being coerced is so worried about the force that can

0:02:59.720 --> 0:03:01.919
<v Speaker 2>be used against it that it actually kind of gives in,

0:03:01.960 --> 0:03:05.880
<v Speaker 2>that caves in. But the Chinese destroyer and the flotilla

0:03:05.960 --> 0:03:10.000
<v Speaker 2>can't actually project overwhelming force against Australia. It carries a

0:03:10.040 --> 0:03:13.640
<v Speaker 2>few dozen missiles that could destroy a few buildings on

0:03:13.680 --> 0:03:17.760
<v Speaker 2>Australian soil in wartime, but that's about it, and that's

0:03:17.840 --> 0:03:20.840
<v Speaker 2>not a huge return given the expense and the risk

0:03:21.760 --> 0:03:23.799
<v Speaker 2>that China would be taking if it ever used a

0:03:23.840 --> 0:03:26.880
<v Speaker 2>fleet like this in wartime. And by risk, of course,

0:03:26.919 --> 0:03:29.280
<v Speaker 2>I mean the fact that Australia is actually quite capable

0:03:29.320 --> 0:03:34.040
<v Speaker 2>of sinking a flotilla like this. We have fairly advanced capabilities.

0:03:34.320 --> 0:03:37.400
<v Speaker 2>I'd argue we need more and we need a better

0:03:37.440 --> 0:03:41.280
<v Speaker 2>focus on anti ship capabilities, but we do have a

0:03:41.360 --> 0:03:45.320
<v Speaker 2>very modern air force that's capable of presenting a serious

0:03:45.320 --> 0:03:46.800
<v Speaker 2>threat to a flotilla of this kind.

0:03:47.200 --> 0:03:49.960
<v Speaker 3>So what's the message China is actually trying to send?

0:03:50.000 --> 0:03:52.520
<v Speaker 3>I mean, are these acts of provocation or the acts

0:03:52.520 --> 0:03:55.360
<v Speaker 3>of defense? What is the message they're actually trying to

0:03:55.400 --> 0:03:58.240
<v Speaker 3>send some of these countries, including Australia.

0:03:58.840 --> 0:04:01.200
<v Speaker 2>Well, again, we do this sort of thing ourselves, so

0:04:02.000 --> 0:04:05.760
<v Speaker 2>it's worth starting an answer to that question by asking, well,

0:04:05.760 --> 0:04:07.720
<v Speaker 2>what is it that we are trying to do when

0:04:07.720 --> 0:04:10.720
<v Speaker 2>we do this? Now, the situations are not quite analogous.

0:04:10.720 --> 0:04:13.640
<v Speaker 2>One of the things that Australia is trying to do

0:04:13.720 --> 0:04:16.679
<v Speaker 2>when we send warships into the South China Sea, for instance,

0:04:16.800 --> 0:04:21.200
<v Speaker 2>is to make a legal point that China's claims to

0:04:21.279 --> 0:04:26.080
<v Speaker 2>those waters has been Chinese territorial waters are wrong and

0:04:26.120 --> 0:04:27.240
<v Speaker 2>that we don't accept them.

0:04:27.760 --> 0:04:28.880
<v Speaker 4>Now in case of.

0:04:28.800 --> 0:04:31.880
<v Speaker 2>The Chinese flow tiller sailing off the coast of Australia,

0:04:31.960 --> 0:04:36.360
<v Speaker 2>nobody has any legal dispute with those waters. So China's

0:04:36.400 --> 0:04:38.120
<v Speaker 2>not trying to make a legal point. It's more a

0:04:38.160 --> 0:04:42.680
<v Speaker 2>point about one is capabilities. We can do this, and

0:04:42.720 --> 0:04:45.520
<v Speaker 2>so we choose to do it. And secondly, I think

0:04:45.600 --> 0:04:49.159
<v Speaker 2>to send a message that the Pacific Ocean is no

0:04:49.240 --> 0:04:52.279
<v Speaker 2>longer an American lake. That ever since the Cold War,

0:04:52.320 --> 0:04:57.760
<v Speaker 2>America has been a dominant maritime power in East Asia,

0:04:58.360 --> 0:05:01.279
<v Speaker 2>and China is telling us that actually that time is over.

0:05:01.360 --> 0:05:04.200
<v Speaker 3>Now. If that's the case, that America is no longer

0:05:04.240 --> 0:05:08.839
<v Speaker 3>dominant in Asia, that's obviously significant for Australia. That's happening

0:05:08.880 --> 0:05:11.400
<v Speaker 3>at a time when Donald Trump is walking away from

0:05:11.480 --> 0:05:15.040
<v Speaker 3>some of America's traditional allies. We've seen it most recently

0:05:15.200 --> 0:05:19.279
<v Speaker 3>with how Trump is handling Ukraine and Zelenski. So what

0:05:19.320 --> 0:05:21.280
<v Speaker 3>do you think this means for Australia and how much

0:05:21.320 --> 0:05:23.279
<v Speaker 3>we can rely on the United States now?

0:05:23.760 --> 0:05:26.320
<v Speaker 2>Well, actually I prefer to start in a slightly different place,

0:05:26.360 --> 0:05:29.919
<v Speaker 2>which is to separate this from Donald Trump and what

0:05:30.040 --> 0:05:33.040
<v Speaker 2>we can see, actually if we take a slightly longer

0:05:33.160 --> 0:05:38.120
<v Speaker 2>historical view, is now thirty plus years of evidence that

0:05:38.160 --> 0:05:41.600
<v Speaker 2>the United States is not fully committed to its allies

0:05:41.680 --> 0:05:46.839
<v Speaker 2>in Asia. Certainly rhetorically it remains committed. Every US president

0:05:46.880 --> 0:05:48.880
<v Speaker 2>since the end of the Cold War has talked about

0:05:48.920 --> 0:05:53.000
<v Speaker 2>the importance of Asia for American prosperity, and since the

0:05:53.080 --> 0:05:57.120
<v Speaker 2>George W. Bush administration, they've talked increasingly about China as

0:05:57.120 --> 0:06:00.760
<v Speaker 2>an adversary. But one thing that hasn't happened is that

0:06:00.800 --> 0:06:04.719
<v Speaker 2>the United States has backed up that rhetoric with, for instance,

0:06:04.760 --> 0:06:08.520
<v Speaker 2>actual military forces. So the military forces that America has

0:06:08.520 --> 0:06:11.400
<v Speaker 2>committed to Asia are now roughly the same in number

0:06:11.960 --> 0:06:14.520
<v Speaker 2>as they were in nineteen ninety one.

0:06:15.360 --> 0:06:17.440
<v Speaker 4>Trump, I think is important.

0:06:17.480 --> 0:06:20.480
<v Speaker 2>Of course, I don't mean to dismiss this presidency, but

0:06:20.560 --> 0:06:24.320
<v Speaker 2>really Trump is not so much changing that picture. It's

0:06:24.360 --> 0:06:28.160
<v Speaker 2>just accelerating the relative decline of American power in Asia.

0:06:29.120 --> 0:06:31.279
<v Speaker 4>But I do think that.

0:06:30.600 --> 0:06:35.839
<v Speaker 2>The direction of American policy, whether it's more aggressive or

0:06:35.920 --> 0:06:39.240
<v Speaker 2>actually quite accommodationist, that has really serious.

0:06:38.880 --> 0:06:40.280
<v Speaker 4>Implications for Australia.

0:06:40.960 --> 0:06:46.280
<v Speaker 2>In both cases, I think it means Australia has a

0:06:46.320 --> 0:06:48.440
<v Speaker 2>good argument for behaving more independently.

0:06:51.200 --> 0:06:56.200
<v Speaker 3>Coming up after the break, what Australia needs to defend ourselves?

0:06:58.080 --> 0:07:01.839
<v Speaker 5>Hi Ruby Jones. Here tell stories that need to be told.

0:07:02.240 --> 0:07:06.000
<v Speaker 5>Our journalism is founded on trust and independence, and now

0:07:06.080 --> 0:07:09.800
<v Speaker 5>we're increasing our coverage every Saturday until the election will

0:07:09.800 --> 0:07:12.400
<v Speaker 5>bring you an extra episode to break down the biggest

0:07:12.400 --> 0:07:15.520
<v Speaker 5>political moments of the week. If you enjoy seven Am,

0:07:15.560 --> 0:07:17.640
<v Speaker 5>the best way you can support us is by making

0:07:17.680 --> 0:07:20.360
<v Speaker 5>a contribution at seven am podcast dot com dot are

0:07:20.400 --> 0:07:24.280
<v Speaker 5>you ford slash support. Thanks for listening and supporting our work.

0:07:27.000 --> 0:07:30.040
<v Speaker 3>Say've outlined this long term trend when it comes to

0:07:30.120 --> 0:07:34.640
<v Speaker 3>America's diminishing commitment to maintaining a strong presence in the Pacific,

0:07:34.920 --> 0:07:38.080
<v Speaker 3>long before Donald Trump arrived in the White House. But

0:07:38.160 --> 0:07:40.440
<v Speaker 3>what have we seen from this administration when it comes

0:07:40.520 --> 0:07:42.040
<v Speaker 3>to a stance on China.

0:07:42.480 --> 0:07:46.760
<v Speaker 2>Well, it's not clear how this administration views the contest

0:07:46.800 --> 0:07:50.640
<v Speaker 2>with China, because there are a group within the Trump

0:07:50.680 --> 0:07:55.320
<v Speaker 2>administration known as the prioritizers. These are people like Pete Hegseth,

0:07:55.360 --> 0:07:59.840
<v Speaker 2>the Defense Secretary, Getty Vance, the Vice President, and Marco Rubio,

0:08:00.040 --> 0:08:03.520
<v Speaker 2>Secretary of State, who say, look, America is over committed

0:08:03.640 --> 0:08:05.920
<v Speaker 2>in Europe and the Middle East. We simply can't afford

0:08:06.000 --> 0:08:08.200
<v Speaker 2>to do all that anymore. We have to focus on China,

0:08:08.240 --> 0:08:09.680
<v Speaker 2>which is the main adversary.

0:08:10.200 --> 0:08:16.000
<v Speaker 6>The Communist Party of China, is leads to PRC, is

0:08:16.080 --> 0:08:20.280
<v Speaker 6>the most potent and dangerous neuropure adversary this nation has

0:08:20.320 --> 0:08:23.280
<v Speaker 6>ever confronted. They have elements that the Soviet Union never possessed.

0:08:23.320 --> 0:08:27.520
<v Speaker 6>They are a technological adversary and competitor, an industrial competitor,

0:08:27.520 --> 0:08:33.400
<v Speaker 6>and economic competitor, geopolitical competitor, a scientific competitor now and

0:08:33.520 --> 0:08:34.880
<v Speaker 6>every realm is an extraordiny.

0:08:34.880 --> 0:08:37.800
<v Speaker 2>And yet there's also another group that simply not that

0:08:37.920 --> 0:08:42.000
<v Speaker 2>committed to competition against China. They certainly feel there needs

0:08:42.040 --> 0:08:44.440
<v Speaker 2>to be a competition with China on an economic level,

0:08:44.480 --> 0:08:47.520
<v Speaker 2>but whether they have any commitment to the strategic contest

0:08:47.559 --> 0:08:52.760
<v Speaker 2>with China for military and diplomatic supremacy, that's an opening question.

0:08:52.960 --> 0:08:55.559
<v Speaker 2>And that group, I would argue, is headed by President

0:08:55.559 --> 0:08:58.240
<v Speaker 2>Trump himself. I just don't think there's any evidence that

0:08:58.280 --> 0:09:02.360
<v Speaker 2>he sees value in staging some kind of Cold War

0:09:02.600 --> 0:09:08.880
<v Speaker 2>style military strategic contests against China. Either way, I think

0:09:08.960 --> 0:09:12.160
<v Speaker 2>Australia needs to posture for a future in which we

0:09:12.240 --> 0:09:13.640
<v Speaker 2>have to behave more independently.

0:09:13.679 --> 0:09:15.960
<v Speaker 4>We have to be capable of strong independent action.

0:09:16.400 --> 0:09:17.800
<v Speaker 3>Okay, so what does that look like?

0:09:18.240 --> 0:09:20.040
<v Speaker 2>Well, I read a book in twenty twenty three that

0:09:20.080 --> 0:09:24.120
<v Speaker 2>recommended what I called an Ekidney strategy, and basically what

0:09:24.160 --> 0:09:26.600
<v Speaker 2>it calls for is, in a way, I kind of

0:09:26.640 --> 0:09:30.800
<v Speaker 2>return to an earlier view that dates from the late

0:09:30.880 --> 0:09:36.199
<v Speaker 2>nineteen seventies of Australian defense, where we basically we consecrated

0:09:36.200 --> 0:09:42.920
<v Speaker 2>this idea of defending Australia by defending the air and maritime.

0:09:42.440 --> 0:09:45.559
<v Speaker 4>Approaches to Australia. That's an idea that.

0:09:45.559 --> 0:09:49.640
<v Speaker 2>Went slightly out of fashion during the Global War on Terrorism,

0:09:49.960 --> 0:09:53.240
<v Speaker 2>and now in the era of Orcus, it's actually been

0:09:53.960 --> 0:09:58.400
<v Speaker 2>effectively abandoned as well, because August the Nuclear Submarine project

0:09:58.440 --> 0:10:02.360
<v Speaker 2>is an attempt to not defend Australia's air and sea approaches,

0:10:02.400 --> 0:10:07.080
<v Speaker 2>but to defend Australia by essentially supporting America's efforts to

0:10:07.600 --> 0:10:11.880
<v Speaker 2>uphold its preferred order in the Asian region by operating

0:10:11.920 --> 0:10:15.360
<v Speaker 2>submarines that can sail thousands of kilometers away and even

0:10:15.400 --> 0:10:19.320
<v Speaker 2>fire missiles onto the Chinese land mass. So I want

0:10:19.320 --> 0:10:22.880
<v Speaker 2>to return to that earlier doctrine where we focus on

0:10:23.160 --> 0:10:25.960
<v Speaker 2>the air and sea approaches to Australia and where we

0:10:26.000 --> 0:10:29.560
<v Speaker 2>basically make it impossible for any adversary to operate its

0:10:29.559 --> 0:10:33.679
<v Speaker 2>ships and its aircraft safely in those areas. And that's

0:10:33.679 --> 0:10:37.000
<v Speaker 2>an achievable task even in an era where we can

0:10:37.040 --> 0:10:40.640
<v Speaker 2>have far less confidence in America as an ally, Australia

0:10:40.720 --> 0:10:45.240
<v Speaker 2>can independently defend itself if it adopts any kidney strategy.

0:10:45.840 --> 0:10:49.640
<v Speaker 3>And so what kind of escalation in our capability we

0:10:49.720 --> 0:10:52.760
<v Speaker 3>need just to defend Australia as a land mass alone.

0:10:52.559 --> 0:10:56.120
<v Speaker 2>Well, a lot more capability to shoot down aircraft and

0:10:56.200 --> 0:10:58.280
<v Speaker 2>sink ships. That's basically it. Now, there are a lot

0:10:58.280 --> 0:11:02.120
<v Speaker 2>of ways to do that. Talking point in Australian defense policy.

0:11:02.960 --> 0:11:07.640
<v Speaker 2>The perennial debate is submarines, and submarines are very useful

0:11:07.679 --> 0:11:09.920
<v Speaker 2>for sinking ships, but they're not the only way to

0:11:09.920 --> 0:11:12.960
<v Speaker 2>do it. There are much cheaper ways to achieve the

0:11:12.960 --> 0:11:16.080
<v Speaker 2>same effect, and we do that by purchasing a lot

0:11:16.120 --> 0:11:19.560
<v Speaker 2>of highly advanced and stealthy missiles that can be mounted

0:11:19.600 --> 0:11:24.000
<v Speaker 2>on aircraft and can be mounted on diesel submarines. We

0:11:24.000 --> 0:11:27.880
<v Speaker 2>should also be focusing on mine warfare, and we need

0:11:27.960 --> 0:11:34.440
<v Speaker 2>capabilities to defend ourselves against incoming missiles, not just slow

0:11:34.960 --> 0:11:40.000
<v Speaker 2>cruise missiles, but fast hypersonic missiles or ballistic missiles. Our

0:11:40.080 --> 0:11:44.000
<v Speaker 2>northern bases are not well protected in that regard. But again,

0:11:45.000 --> 0:11:47.800
<v Speaker 2>with those kind of improvements and with that refocus, I

0:11:47.840 --> 0:11:52.440
<v Speaker 2>think it's perfectly possible for Australia to mount a plausible

0:11:52.440 --> 0:11:54.000
<v Speaker 2>defense even without American help.

0:11:54.600 --> 0:11:56.959
<v Speaker 3>So with that in mind, how would you categorize our

0:11:57.000 --> 0:11:59.640
<v Speaker 3>approach at this point? What are your thoughts in orcus

0:11:59.679 --> 0:12:03.320
<v Speaker 3>since specifically our plan to have nuclear submarines as part

0:12:03.320 --> 0:12:04.320
<v Speaker 3>of our capability.

0:12:05.120 --> 0:12:07.800
<v Speaker 2>I tend to think that from middle power such as Australia,

0:12:07.840 --> 0:12:12.280
<v Speaker 2>when we pursue a strategy like that, we are escalating,

0:12:12.760 --> 0:12:15.200
<v Speaker 2>and when you escalate against the great power, you lose.

0:12:15.559 --> 0:12:19.319
<v Speaker 2>We're far better off pursuing capabilities that keep any dispute

0:12:19.400 --> 0:12:23.440
<v Speaker 2>or any conflict at a much lower level, and we

0:12:23.520 --> 0:12:25.720
<v Speaker 2>leave it up to the adversary to escalate if they

0:12:25.800 --> 0:12:28.559
<v Speaker 2>choose to. So what we should be focusing on is

0:12:28.920 --> 0:12:33.120
<v Speaker 2>an ability to absorb punishment if we have to, and

0:12:33.160 --> 0:12:39.480
<v Speaker 2>to protect the continent from military attack. But we I

0:12:39.480 --> 0:12:44.800
<v Speaker 2>think it's counterproductive to pursue capabilities that actually threaten China's

0:12:44.960 --> 0:12:49.679
<v Speaker 2>territory and its key interests. I think Australia has learned

0:12:49.720 --> 0:12:53.040
<v Speaker 2>some appropriate lessons here from the economic pressure campaign that

0:12:53.120 --> 0:12:56.800
<v Speaker 2>we suffered from twenty nineteen to twenty twenty two. And

0:12:56.840 --> 0:12:59.920
<v Speaker 2>in that campaign, despite all the pressure that China app

0:13:00.440 --> 0:13:04.760
<v Speaker 2>by imposing tariffs and other sanctions against our exports.

0:13:04.840 --> 0:13:06.480
<v Speaker 4>Australia never retaliated.

0:13:06.920 --> 0:13:09.160
<v Speaker 2>Our exports were able to find new markets for their

0:13:09.200 --> 0:13:13.440
<v Speaker 2>products and so effectively the Chinese pressure campaign failed, and

0:13:13.520 --> 0:13:16.199
<v Speaker 2>at a certain point when our government changed in twenty

0:13:16.240 --> 0:13:20.520
<v Speaker 2>twenty two, the Chinese recognized this and their policy changed.

0:13:20.720 --> 0:13:23.160
<v Speaker 2>So I think the appropriate lesson from that is you

0:13:23.160 --> 0:13:25.000
<v Speaker 2>don't need to escalate, You don't need to make a

0:13:25.000 --> 0:13:28.400
<v Speaker 2>lot of fuss. You just need to build a strong

0:13:28.440 --> 0:13:30.480
<v Speaker 2>defense with an ability to absorb pressure.

0:13:32.360 --> 0:13:34.920
<v Speaker 3>Sam, thanks so much for your time and for your analysis.

0:13:35.280 --> 0:13:36.320
<v Speaker 4>Thanks Daniel, appreciating.

0:13:45.160 --> 0:13:48.520
<v Speaker 3>Also in the news, Peter Dutton and Anthony Alberonizi have

0:13:48.600 --> 0:13:52.440
<v Speaker 3>both vowed to protect the Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme, saying medicines

0:13:52.480 --> 0:13:54.720
<v Speaker 3>on the scheme will never become a bargaining chip in

0:13:54.800 --> 0:13:58.880
<v Speaker 3>trade negotiations with the US President Donald Trump. The assurance

0:13:58.880 --> 0:14:01.320
<v Speaker 3>has come after a powerful drugs lobby in the US

0:14:01.840 --> 0:14:05.400
<v Speaker 3>asked President Trunk to put tariffs on Australian pharmaceutical imports

0:14:05.440 --> 0:14:09.400
<v Speaker 3>to the US, arguing the PBS is discriminatory and threatens

0:14:09.440 --> 0:14:12.600
<v Speaker 3>billions of dollars and lost sales for American drug makers.

0:14:13.320 --> 0:14:16.800
<v Speaker 3>At least six Australian universities have had American research funding

0:14:16.880 --> 0:14:20.280
<v Speaker 3>paused or counseled since Donald Trump took office. The ABC

0:14:20.440 --> 0:14:24.240
<v Speaker 3>has reported Australian University has received about four hundred million

0:14:24.240 --> 0:14:28.040
<v Speaker 3>dollars in US government funding last year, making it Australia's

0:14:28.080 --> 0:14:32.400
<v Speaker 3>largest research partner. According to the ABC, American government staff

0:14:32.480 --> 0:14:35.520
<v Speaker 3>are now flagging all research grants with a foreign partner,

0:14:35.920 --> 0:14:39.160
<v Speaker 3>meaning they will be reviewed and could be canceled. I'm

0:14:39.240 --> 0:14:42.680
<v Speaker 3>Daniel James. This is seven AM, and tomorrow I'm bringing

0:14:42.720 --> 0:14:47.000
<v Speaker 3>you a fascinating conversation with polster and political strategist Cos Samaris.

0:14:47.400 --> 0:14:50.400
<v Speaker 3>He lays out exactly how polling works and which group

0:14:50.440 --> 0:14:53.480
<v Speaker 3>of Australians is ultimately going to decide the outcome of

0:14:53.520 --> 0:14:55.840
<v Speaker 3>the upcoming election. See it then

0:15:00.920 --> 0:15:02.640
<v Speaker 2>No One