Speaker 1: Thanks Andrew well, as Shari revealed would happen on this
Speaker 1: program in April, Prime Minister Anthony Alberizi today announced a
Speaker 1: Special Envoy on anti Semitism. Lawyer and businesswoman Gillian Siegel,
Speaker 1: who Shari also said was the front runner for the GIG,
Speaker 1: has been appointed to the role. This was the Prime
Speaker 1: Minister this morning.
Speaker 2: The government has made the decision to appoint a Special
Speaker 2: Envoy on anti Semitism as part of those ongoing efforts
Speaker 2: to promote social cohesion. That Gillian will advise myself and
Speaker 2: the Immigration and Multicultural Affairs Minister, but also engaged with
Speaker 2: the community.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 1: The idea is that the Special Envoy will report directly
Speaker 1: to the PM, and not just the Multicultural Affairs Minister,
Speaker 1: which happens to be the illustrious Andrew Giles, with advice
Speaker 1: on issues of anti Semitism and to publicly campaign against it.
Speaker 1: Miss Siegel, sorry, is pleased to be taking up the role.
Speaker 4: Anti Semitism erodes all that is good and healthy in
Speaker 4: a society. As such, it poses a threat not just
Speaker 4: to the Jewish community but to our entire nation.
Speaker 1: But of course, Albaniz he couldn't just appoint an Envoy
Speaker 1: for anti Semitism, because there's been an explosion of that
Speaker 1: since October seven. No, he had to also flag that
Speaker 1: a special Envoy on Islamophobia was also on the way.
Speaker 2: Shortly, we'll also be announcing an envoy on Islamophobia. That
Speaker 2: will be important as well, playing a similar role working
Speaker 2: with that community to promote social cohesion.
Speaker 1: Now it doesn't matter what this bloke does, no matter
Speaker 1: how much he tries to look like he actually cares
Speaker 1: about anti Semitism. He has to keep the Muslim voters
Speaker 1: of Western Sydney sweet. He wouldn't want to jeopardize those
Speaker 1: votes by just being honest. It's a bit like when
Speaker 1: one kid gets a LOTPTP because I don't know they
Speaker 1: needed for school, and the other kid has to be
Speaker 1: given something as well, otherwise they'll complain that their sibling
Speaker 1: got something and they felt left out, even though they're
Speaker 1: not really deserving of anything. And let's just get this
Speaker 1: out of the way. I don't like the term Islamophobia.
Speaker 1: It's not about being scared of Muslims, which phobia would imply,
Speaker 1: and that term is most often used to describe genuine
Speaker 1: criticism of Islam and its doctrines. What we should be
Speaker 1: talking about here is hatred. But let's be real. I'm
Speaker 1: sure there are individual cases of anti Muslim hatred and
Speaker 1: anti Muslim attacks in this country, no doubt, just as
Speaker 1: there would be individual examples of hatred and attacks against
Speaker 1: people of every single religion and ethnicity. That's just the reality.
Speaker 1: But you haven't seen any mass uprisings of anti Muslim hatred.
Speaker 1: You haven't seen tens of thousands of people gathering in
Speaker 1: the streets and in parks to shout anti muslim slogans
Speaker 1: that effectively call for the removal of Muslims from the
Speaker 1: Middle East. But of course we have seen tens of
Speaker 1: thousands of people gathering in streets and in parks to
Speaker 1: shout anti Semitic slogans like from the River to the Sea,
Speaker 1: which effectively call for the removal of Jews from the
Speaker 1: Middle East. Or there is only one solution into Farda revolution,
Speaker 1: which implies that violence must be used to resist Israel,
Speaker 1: because of course the second into Farda was marred by
Speaker 1: suicide bombings and the targeting of Israeli civilians, And of
Speaker 1: course you had the events of October nine on the
Speaker 1: steps of the Sydney Opera house, gas the Jews, where's
Speaker 1: the Jews? Whatever you think it is, it doesn't really matter.
Speaker 1: You had a large mob of angry men in one
Speaker 1: place shouting if the Jews and where's the Jews? I mean,
Speaker 1: why do you think they were saying? Where's the Jews?
Speaker 1: They're not inviting them down to the opera house for
Speaker 1: some champagne before the opening night of Karmen, are they?
Speaker 1: And then you have the hate preachers who have gone
Speaker 1: effectively unpunished. Well, Lah, they don't love us and they
Speaker 1: wish they can kill all of us.
Speaker 4: You Muslim in Australia, carrying the citizenship, your blood means
Speaker 4: something else to them.
Speaker 1: If the Australian government like it or not. If you
Speaker 1: likes that are not if they were to depart me
Speaker 1: from Ausselia or not, did you hurt?
Speaker 5: Is the solution for the Umna, and there's no other
Speaker 5: way to defend the Muslims and raise This is a humilation.
Speaker 1: From the Ummah. But finding in the sake of a
Speaker 1: loss of Hannah. That same bloke brother Ismael said that
Speaker 1: at the end of times the trees will speak and
Speaker 1: tell the Muslims to kill the Jews. Now you can think,
Speaker 1: can you think sorry of any equivalent event in the
Speaker 1: other direction. Can you Can you think of a single
Speaker 1: example of a big pack of Jewish men gathering and
Speaker 1: shouting where's the Muslims? Willing them to come down for
Speaker 1: a fight? Every rally in support of Israel, and there
Speaker 1: haven't been that many of them has been a peaceful
Speaker 1: gathering calling for the release of hostages. I mean, can
Speaker 1: you think of a single violent slogan or chant that's
Speaker 1: been shouted by supporters of Israel. Can you think of
Speaker 1: an Australian rabbi who's called for the death of Muslims.
Speaker 1: The point is that yes, anti Muslim hatred does exist,
Speaker 1: but it doesn't exist on the grand public scale that
Speaker 1: anti Semitism has for the past nine months. And drawing
Speaker 1: an equivalence between the two by saying we need a
Speaker 1: special envoy for his amophobia to complement a special envoy
Speaker 1: for anti Semitism is garbage. And of course Albanezy knows
Speaker 1: that this has all gone on for too long. We
Speaker 1: know how he really feels. He's a longtime supporter of Palestine,
Speaker 1: but he knows most people aren't so sympathetic, and that
Speaker 1: under his watch, anti Semitism has been a big problem.
Speaker 1: So he kind of has to be seen to be
Speaker 1: doing something, even if it's nine months late. Not that
Speaker 1: he's willing to take any responsibility, if you can confuse.
Speaker 6: Much as flat members of the opposition, the members of
Speaker 6: the Jewish community, Holocaust survivors of not taking a strong
Speaker 6: enough leadership and sending these messages when it comes to
Speaker 6: the conflict the outside and pomatism, do you take responsibility
Speaker 6: for all contributing.
Speaker 7: To the smiling.
Speaker 2: It's a fairly provocative question. What I take responsibility for
Speaker 2: is my actions, which has been principal. My actions have
Speaker 2: opposed the decision, the actions, the terrorist action of Hamas
Speaker 2: on October.
Speaker 1: Seventh, the Prime Minister talking to our own Caroline Marcus
Speaker 1: there and just as the Prime Minister needlessly open divisions
Speaker 1: with the Voice referendum, he allowed a foreign conflict to
Speaker 1: open wide divisions in this country. Now he's scrambling to
Speaker 1: look like he's doing something because he knows it's too
Speaker 1: far gone. And look, there probably is some merit in
Speaker 1: a special envoy on anti Semitism. It's essentially an advisor
Speaker 1: to the PM. But then you could ask how blind
Speaker 1: is the bloke if he couldn't see what the rest
Speaker 1: of us have been able to see for the better
Speaker 1: part of a year. But you have to ask the question,
Speaker 1: what is this actually going to achieve? Okay, so we
Speaker 1: have a special envoy, what next? What actually changes? Is
Speaker 1: anti Semitism solved overnight? Is Albanize suddenly willing to close
Speaker 1: the divisions that he allowed to open. We already have
Speaker 1: a Human Rights Commission which has the Race Discrimination Commissioner, who,
Speaker 1: by the way, is on three hundred and eighty four thousand,
Speaker 1: nine hundred and seventy dollars a year. Why isn't a
Speaker 1: publicly funded commision or nearly four hundred k whose job
Speaker 1: is to deal with racial discrimination up to the job.
Speaker 1: Do we really need to call someone else in instead?
Speaker 1: I mean, look, this is at least an acknowledgment of
Speaker 1: the scourge of anti Semitism, and I'm sure many in
Speaker 1: the Jewish community will be pleased to see it. But
Speaker 1: call me cynical. I just don't know how much this
Speaker 1: will actually achieve. To me, it smacks of desperation to
Speaker 1: look like you're doing something without really doing much. The
Speaker 1: same as every time a problem comes up and a
Speaker 1: government commissions an inquiry now, Look, there might be some
Speaker 1: merit in investigating a problem further, but we have a
Speaker 1: problem here now and it needs to be dealt with,
Speaker 1: at least in part. Now. Inquiries allow cans to be
Speaker 1: kicked down the road, and I suspect this envoy will
Speaker 1: become Albanese's catch all for anti Semitism, much like those inquiries.
Speaker 1: Oh look, I can't be doing anything wrong. I'm listening
Speaker 1: to my envoy that time and waiting for advice. Johnny
Speaker 1: Mathies and Denise Williams once sang a song, good song
Speaker 1: called too much, too little, too late, and I think
Speaker 1: on all three counts this ticks the box. Also tonight,
Speaker 1: another foreign criminal has been freed under Andrew Jarles' bungled
Speaker 1: n z YQ ruling. We'll get into that. Plus Day
Speaker 1: two of lockdown is underway in Alice Springs. Will cross
Speaker 1: live to the troubled out back town to see how
Speaker 1: the community is faring, and I'll be joined by former
Speaker 1: Victorian top cop kill Glare on the latest drug scandal
Speaker 1: plaguing the AFL. Well now to new developments in the
Speaker 1: alleged political cover up behind the Britney Higgins saga. In
Speaker 1: twenty twenty one we heard both Katie Gallagher and Penny
Speaker 1: Wong initially standing by the fact that they had no
Speaker 1: knowledge of Britney Higgins's rape before the story broke. I
Speaker 1: was told by one of your senators two weeks before.
Speaker 2: About what you were intending to do with the story
Speaker 2: in my office two weeks before.
Speaker 1: I had no knowledge of this.
Speaker 8: No one had any knowledge.
Speaker 1: Okay, how dare you order now?
Speaker 8: We will move yourself.
Speaker 1: But that, of course wasn't true. The following week, Katie
Speaker 1: Gallagher fronted the Senate to admit she knew more than
Speaker 1: she initially led on.
Speaker 9: I was provided with information in the days before the
Speaker 9: allegations were first reported, and I did nothing with that information,
Speaker 9: absolutely nothing. I was asked to keep it to myself
Speaker 9: and I did. I was not involved in any way
Speaker 9: with a story that went to air.
Speaker 1: But now there are new revelations after The Australian obtained
Speaker 1: an updated statement of claim from Senator Linda Reynolds, which
Speaker 1: alleges Ms Higgins and mister Charaz Drip fed false information
Speaker 1: to Senators Gallagher and Wong as part of an effort
Speaker 1: to destroy her career. She says quote they were published
Speaker 1: in furtherance of a plan by the defendant and mister
Speaker 1: Shiraz to use the defendant's allegations of a rape and
Speaker 1: the political cover up as a weapon to inflict immediate
Speaker 1: political damage upon the plaintiff and then government. Joining me
Speaker 1: now to discuss the latest is Sam Macedoni from Macedoni Legal, Sam,
Speaker 1: what exactly has this statement of claim from Linda Reynolds elucidames.
Speaker 10: Well, it makes it quite clear that there were and
Speaker 10: were discussions prior to it becoming public between Shiraz and
Speaker 10: members of the Labor Party to wise them up in
Speaker 10: relation to this story that was going to break. And
Speaker 10: of course since then they've alleged that there was an
Speaker 10: attempt by Senator Reynolds to cover up the allegation of
Speaker 10: the rape under hassle or put pressure on Brittany Higgins
Speaker 10: not to make it public. That's been proved be incorrect.
Speaker 10: Justice Lee in the Federal Court said quite clearly that
Speaker 10: this allegation of a cover up just did not exist.
Speaker 10: In fact, he said, the facts on that were pretty short,
Speaker 10: but they were pretty large on speculation, So there was
Speaker 10: just nothing there. But yet this is something that has
Speaker 10: now been uncovered by Senator Reynolds in this matter, in
Speaker 10: particular the giving of information. For instance, the pre recording
Speaker 10: of the Project interview was made known to them to
Speaker 10: allow them ammunition to attack Senator Reynolds in Parliament over
Speaker 10: this allegation. Of course she denies it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and obviously all of this will be tested in
Speaker 1: the processes the defamation proceedings that are currently going on
Speaker 1: between Linda Reynolds and mister raz and Ms Higgins. But
Speaker 1: if this is correct that it was being used as
Speaker 1: a political hit job, and I don't mean the political
Speaker 1: hit job that Miss Higgins had perhaps suggested the cover up,
Speaker 1: but a hitjob against Reynolds and the government. What do
Speaker 1: you think that means for the former government, the Labor Party,
Speaker 1: in particularly people like Wong and Gallagher.
Speaker 10: Well, part of the statement of claim indicates that there
Speaker 10: were meetings between Chiraz and our Prime minister. So to
Speaker 10: me that is a very worrying thing to think that
Speaker 10: people of that height in the Labor Party were getting
Speaker 10: together to plan something that would derail the then coalition government.
Speaker 10: I know that mister Morrison's going to give evidence in
Speaker 10: these proceedings if they come to trial on the second
Speaker 10: of August. So there's a lot to be heard, I think,
Speaker 10: and will be surprised with what comes out.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and the whole thing. I mean, I've said so
Speaker 1: many times I'm not the only one that pretty much
Speaker 1: anyone who's touched this case has failed to come out
Speaker 1: unscathed in some way or another. And of course we
Speaker 1: had the defamation trial, which you know, in some ways
Speaker 1: was highly damaging to Lehreman and in some ways highly
Speaker 1: damaging to Miss Higgins as well, because of course Justice
Speaker 1: Lee did not find her to be the most convincing
Speaker 1: witness he had ever come across. But I think there's
Speaker 1: still a question in the back of a lot of
Speaker 1: people's heads in the public that we need a full
Speaker 1: inquiry into all of this, because we've still got that
Speaker 1: sum of money that was paid to Miss Higgins by
Speaker 1: the Federal government's compensation for her treatment when she worked
Speaker 1: in Parliament House, and this does nothing to dissuade a
Speaker 1: lot of people from thinking, well, there's still a lot
Speaker 1: of questions to answer.
Speaker 10: Well, the big question is why was she paid, because
Speaker 10: you know, it was paid on the basis that she
Speaker 10: was damaged by things that was said by members of
Speaker 10: the Liberal Party. But the judge, Justice Lee has said
Speaker 10: that just didn't happen. I mean, even he questioned, I
Speaker 10: think the need to make a payment to her. I mean,
Speaker 10: it's a very complic cad story. But I think that
Speaker 10: we haven't heard the end of it yet, and there's
Speaker 10: still a lot more to come out of it, and
Speaker 10: I don't think we've really got anywhere near the basic
Speaker 10: understanding of what happened and who said what, and what
Speaker 10: were the reasons for these discussions.
Speaker 1: In a case like this, given of course, that it
Speaker 1: is so intrinsically linked to politics, was it basically impossible
Speaker 1: for it to not be politicized in some way?
Speaker 10: Look, I think it was. I mean, basically, if there
Speaker 10: was a straight out allegation by miss Higgins to the
Speaker 10: police that she had been raped, and it was left
Speaker 10: at that level, that is police level, without involving members
Speaker 10: of the parliament and suggesting that some people were trying
Speaker 10: to cover it up, and otherwise it would have been okay.
Speaker 10: But they've made it political, which gives weight to the
Speaker 10: fact that what Senator Reynolds is now saying is that
Speaker 10: there was a bit of a conspiracy and a bit
Speaker 10: of a planned to drip feed information that was going
Speaker 10: to damage the Coalition Party.
Speaker 1: And of course you know that the reason we're talking
Speaker 1: about all of this is the defamation trail that's coming
Speaker 1: up between Miss Reynolds and Miss Higgins and mister Charaz
Speaker 1: that's meant to kick off next month. Justc it's a
Speaker 1: short praises of where all that's sitting at, what it
Speaker 1: will look like.
Speaker 10: Well, the case is set down for hearing on the
Speaker 10: second of August. It's been allocated four to six weeks
Speaker 10: to be completed. There've been a series of mediations that
Speaker 10: have taken place to try and have the matter resolved,
Speaker 10: but that mediation has not been successful. I know that
Speaker 10: Senator Reynolds simply wants Higgins and Shiraz to admit they
Speaker 10: were wrong and to apologize for what they've done. I
Speaker 10: have no idea about any monetary compensation that's being sought,
Speaker 10: but at this stage nothing, there's no resolution. So I
Speaker 10: think it'll go to trial and we'll have very much
Speaker 10: the same story that we had with the Lehman defamation case.
Speaker 10: It'll all come down, things will be dug deep down,
Speaker 10: and who knows what will come out of it at
Speaker 10: the end of the day. I don't think anyone will
Speaker 10: come out of an unscathed.
Speaker 1: I think you're one hundred percent right, and it's one
Speaker 1: hell of a story that just keeps on rolling off.
Speaker 1: Sam Macedoni, thanks much for you never stops giving well.
Speaker 1: Alice Springs residence at tonight, facing a second night under
Speaker 1: curfew following a dramatic surge in crime and violence, including
Speaker 1: a horrific brawl including four police officers on Saturday night.
Speaker 1: Let's head over there now, where a Senator Nampa jimper
Speaker 1: Price joins us. Senator, you of course have spoken out
Speaker 1: about the fact that this is not the be all
Speaker 1: and end all, this curfew. You need to work a
Speaker 1: lot harder on the route causes. But how is the
Speaker 1: feeling in the community over there at the moment.
Speaker 5: Well, it's the usual sort of you know, the community's
Speaker 5: sick to death of the crime that's been committed over
Speaker 5: and over again. You know, people from Alice Springs don't
Speaker 5: feel safe at night. When we go to bed at night,
Speaker 5: we listen for every sound. You know, could this be
Speaker 5: someone breaking into our high home. We know that our
Speaker 5: police force is under the pump, and there doesn't seem to.
Speaker 1: Be any real reprieve.
Speaker 5: Sure there's another curfew but it's not actually addressing the
Speaker 5: underlying problems that need to be dealt with within our community.
Speaker 1: Well, of course, the curfew will end tomorrow night. It
Speaker 1: will be the last of this seventy two hour lockdown,
Speaker 1: so you essentially go back into exactly the same position
Speaker 1: as you were before. I know, the Police Commissioner can
Speaker 1: then ask to extend it for potentially another seven days.
Speaker 1: But really it's not achieving much, No, it's not.
Speaker 5: And we're still even when the lockdown is lifted. I mean,
Speaker 5: we still have to make sure that we get all
Speaker 5: our shopping done before seven pm every night because the
Speaker 5: major supermarkets closed down because it's unsafe to shop after
Speaker 5: seven pm when they used to be open till about
Speaker 5: ten pm. And you know, our young people they don't
Speaker 5: have the sort of upbringing in this town now as
Speaker 5: certainly I did when I was younger. You could feel
Speaker 5: safe going with your friends to the cinema.
Speaker 1: It's school holidays.
Speaker 5: So other young people feel like they don't get the
Speaker 5: opportunity to just live freely in a community because of
Speaker 5: the behavior, the crime that's been committed by others.
Speaker 1: I know. Marian Scrimgore had spoken out in support of
Speaker 1: a curfew. But where's the Prime Minister Anthony Alberisi, Where's
Speaker 1: where's the Indigenous Affairs Minister Linda Bernie. They seem to
Speaker 1: be very quiet on this issue, but we're very vocal
Speaker 1: about the voice, but very quiet on this right now.
Speaker 5: Yeah, absolutely quiet. And they don't have a clue. They
Speaker 5: absolutely do not have a clue as to how to
Speaker 5: deal with these really difficult issues in places like Alice
Speaker 5: Springs and remote communities because they're utterly removed from the
Speaker 5: circumstances and they're not prepared to sit down and understand
Speaker 5: the reality of what goes on within our communities in
Speaker 5: out back Australia. And that's just that's the reality of it.
Speaker 5: The sooner we get rid of this government, the sooner
Speaker 5: we can actually start applying some serious measures going forward
Speaker 5: to alleviate some of these problems and to help our
Speaker 5: most marginalize in practical terms.
Speaker 1: And you know it frustrates me, and I know it
Speaker 1: frustrates you as well, Senator, But to watch people talk
Speaker 1: so much, and by people, I mean those like the
Speaker 1: Prime Minister and Bernie, to talk so much about how
Speaker 1: they care about Indigenous affairs and they want the best
Speaker 1: for indigenous people and the rubber hits the road and
Speaker 1: they really do nothing about it. And then you have
Speaker 1: people like you and me who others you know, spuriously
Speaker 1: claim to be racist in some way sitting here saying no,
Speaker 1: hang on, like these are the lives of children initially
Speaker 1: and then adults who get ruined by a lack of
Speaker 1: intervention and a lack of help and no jobs and
Speaker 1: not going to school, etc. And we're trying to say
Speaker 1: is that if you really want to help people, you've
Speaker 1: got to help them from the start, and you get
Speaker 1: shouted down for doing it.
Speaker 5: That's exactly right. I mean, this labor government, the alban
Speaker 5: Ezy government, the territory government, want to maintain Aboriginal people
Speaker 5: on welfare, on dependent on governments instead of allowing them
Speaker 5: to stand on their own two feet and creating real
Speaker 5: jobs out on communities, not a jobs program, but actually
Speaker 5: opening up for economic development opportunities in remote communities so
Speaker 5: that there's not this double standard going on. You know,
Speaker 5: if life got better out of communities, we wouldn't have
Speaker 5: the influx of people in our towns, you know.
Speaker 1: Using the services.
Speaker 5: And you know what, the territory is a haven for
Speaker 5: service providers as well. They siphon off the government just
Speaker 5: as much as everyone else. This whole structure needs to
Speaker 5: be changed, and the alban Ezy government is certainly not
Speaker 5: prepared to listen or make those changes. They continue down
Speaker 5: the same old, same old.
Speaker 1: Well, it's forty odd billion dollars a year, isn't it.
Speaker 1: We spend on what I call the indigenous industry and
Speaker 1: what do we get for it? Very little? Now. I
Speaker 1: mentioned Linda Bernie before she was asked by the ABC
Speaker 1: this morning if she believed that the Coalition would support
Speaker 1: a Truth and Justice commission. Here's what she had to say.
Speaker 7: Well, the Opposition has played an absolute spoiler's role in
Speaker 7: my view in a visional affairs. I mean it was
Speaker 7: traditionally bipartisan issue for many years across the Parliament. I
Speaker 7: don't feel like it is now. I feel very very
Speaker 7: sorry about that.
Speaker 1: A spoiler's role, Senator.
Speaker 5: Look, yeah, absolutely, I'm quite happy to spoil the program
Speaker 5: of the elites and to actually prioritize our most marginalized.
Speaker 5: If in fact, a Truth and Justice commission actually ensured
Speaker 5: that anal kid in a remote community avoided sexual abuse,
Speaker 5: domestic violence, got an education, finished high school well, then absolutely,
Speaker 5: I'll be all for it. But the truth is a
Speaker 5: Truth and Justice Commission is just about creating yet another
Speaker 5: blot of bureaucracy and paying people six figure salaries who
Speaker 5: live in places far, far away from remote communities. So
Speaker 5: I'm sorry, Linda Bernie if that upsets Labor. If I'm
Speaker 5: a spoiler, so be it. I'm a spoiler. I'm not
Speaker 5: interested in that. I'm interested in common sense, practical policies
Speaker 5: that are going to focus and prioritize our most marginalized.
Speaker 1: Here here, Senator Nampachin Purprice or should I call you
Speaker 1: the spoiler? Thank you for your time. Well, coming up,
Speaker 1: another foreign criminal has been freed under Labour's n z
Speaker 1: Yq ruling. We'll get into that. And we just played
Speaker 1: host to the Chinese premiere. But now the federal government
Speaker 1: says CCP backed hackers have been targeting Australia. Why are
Speaker 1: we sidling up to them? That more with my panel
Speaker 1: up next, welcome back Caleb bond in for Shari this week. Well,
Speaker 1: news tonight that another foreign criminal has been freed under
Speaker 1: Labour's in zed Yq ruling. Iraq born failely Curred had
Speaker 1: his bridging visa canceled after an alleged relationship with a
Speaker 1: thirteen year old, which he was never convicted for, but
Speaker 1: he was later sent to immigration detention where he was
Speaker 1: convicted with assault after an incident that occurred at the facility.
Speaker 1: Now we learn a judge ordered that the man be
Speaker 1: released into the community because quote continuing detention of the
Speaker 1: applicant is within the constitutionally permitted period of executive detention
Speaker 1: identified in in zed YQ. Well to discuss this and
Speaker 1: much more as our panel tonight, former Speaker of the House,
Speaker 1: from a bishop who joins me here on the desk,
Speaker 1: and from Melbourne the pr Council Managing Director Christy McSweeney.
Speaker 1: Good to have you both here, Bronwin. Just another person
Speaker 1: who's been released thanks to the decision of the High
Speaker 1: Court Aughton. Of course, we were told that the government
Speaker 1: was rushing to get some legislation together that would mean
Speaker 1: that any person that they thought was dangerous would be
Speaker 1: red attained. Exactly how many of them have been retained? Ronwin?
Speaker 11: That's a very good question, isn't it. The fact of
Speaker 11: the matter is that mister Charles is opposed to the
Speaker 11: very thrust of what the policy should be. We remember
Speaker 11: that he acted for the people in the Tampa. He
Speaker 11: likes open borders, he likes not locking up people who
Speaker 11: are bad for the people of Australia. So we have
Speaker 11: this consistent problem of always being behind the eight ball.
Speaker 11: So I have no confidence at all that there'll be
Speaker 11: any successful relocking up of the people who need to
Speaker 11: be so, I mean, I keep seeing that vision of
Speaker 11: the face of that elderly woman bashed by someone who
Speaker 11: should have been locked up.
Speaker 1: Correct, correct, And this is the reality of it. Leged,
Speaker 1: we should say, allegedly back, but this is the reality
Speaker 1: of it. Christian. And you know, we all remember that
Speaker 1: period where these people kept being let out and there
Speaker 1: was a headline on the front of the Australian every
Speaker 1: single day, And just when you thought it couldn't get
Speaker 1: worse for Andrew Giles, it just did get that little
Speaker 1: bit worse. And it's rearing its ugly head again. I mean,
Speaker 1: at a time where this federal government is steering down
Speaker 1: the barrel of an interest rate rise, which is the
Speaker 1: last thing they need if they're thinking about an election,
Speaker 1: they just have this one come back to bite them
Speaker 1: on the button.
Speaker 12: Well in politics were used the term barnacles, and you
Speaker 12: want to clear your barnacles before.
Speaker 1: You go into an election.
Speaker 12: Most now the government hasn't cleared this one. So if
Speaker 12: they want to go into election mode this year, which
Speaker 12: we know that banking the cash, the pm is asked
Speaker 12: the Cabinet to reinvest the savings into the government budget
Speaker 12: kitty of budget measures that haven't yet been rolled out
Speaker 12: but approved but not implemented. So they are banking.
Speaker 1: The cash for a blitz.
Speaker 12: But based on the strategy around the immigration debarcle that
Speaker 12: has dragged on far too long, they haven't cleared it.
Speaker 12: There is still significant dissent in the public's mind around
Speaker 12: it that minister remains in place, and of course there
Speaker 12: is some entanglement around what the minister was doing under
Speaker 12: instruction from the Prime Minister, around the Attorney General's role
Speaker 12: in perhaps not receiving or not reading properly or not
Speaker 12: thinking it warranted further investigation, the advice from the Australian
Speaker 12: Government solicitor around what the High Court is likely to do.
Speaker 12: So he's taken his eye of the ball, and of
Speaker 12: course is Clara O'Neil. There is a third minister, so
Speaker 12: that's a lot of barnacles to clear if you want
Speaker 12: to go forward at try and campaign or folk campaign
Speaker 12: even towards a poll.
Speaker 1: Well, look, if having brain fartz was an Olympic sport,
Speaker 1: I think Andrew Jarles would be a gold medal winner
Speaker 1: at Paris in a couple of weeks. Now, while we're
Speaker 1: on the government labor has been strongly criticized today for
Speaker 1: of course it's in action on the antisemitism crisis that
Speaker 1: plagued dow nation since October the seventh. So speaking at
Speaker 1: Sydney's Jewish Museum, the Prime Minister, as I talked about
Speaker 1: at the top of the show, named Jewish lawyer and
Speaker 1: businesswoman Jillian Siegel as Australia's first anti Semitism Envoy.
Speaker 2: We have seen since October seventh last year a significant
Speaker 2: rise in anti Semitism in Australia and that is why
Speaker 2: the Government has made the decision to appoint a Special
Speaker 2: Envoy on anti Semitism.
Speaker 1: And of course, as I said earlier, Sharry revealed on
Speaker 1: this program back in April that this was going to happen.
Speaker 1: And the idea is that the envoy will report directly
Speaker 1: to the PM, not just to the Multicultural Affairs Minister,
Speaker 1: which is mister Giles, who were just talking about Bronwin.
Speaker 1: But in the back of my head, I just wonder,
Speaker 1: what is this actually going to achieve? So you allowed
Speaker 1: anti Semitism to go more or less unchecked for nine months.
Speaker 1: Now you say you're going to have a special envoy.
Speaker 1: Is it more or less just a cloak for the
Speaker 1: Prime Minister to say that he's doing something without really
Speaker 1: doing anything.
Speaker 11: Well, I think the timing is interesting because he has
Speaker 11: been made to look an absolute fool by the Muslim
Speaker 11: vote organization and Senator Payman, who has really played a
Speaker 11: pivotal role in letting this organization build up. So he
Speaker 11: has been made to look an absolute fool, and he
Speaker 11: realizes that he has alienated the Jewish voters who he
Speaker 11: had And I think the timing is such that he
Speaker 11: thinks that this is one a distraction. Let's say the
Speaker 11: appointment of the person he's chosen. She's an excellent choice
Speaker 11: and if a job can be done, I'm sure she
Speaker 11: will do it, but there are no guidelines really about
Speaker 11: how it will work. What is the job? I would
Speaker 11: have thought the first job she would have had was
Speaker 11: to go to Sydney University and stop that ridiculous deal
Speaker 11: that has been struck between the university's vice chancellor or
Speaker 11: rather yes, the vice chancellor and this organization, which is
Speaker 11: an organization that really should be declared a terrorist organization
Speaker 11: as well, because the people who identify with those people
Speaker 11: now have access to information which they ought not to have,
Speaker 11: information about defense contracts and so on. I would have
Speaker 11: thought the first place to go in there was to
Speaker 11: go in there and repeat all that and say if
Speaker 11: you want funding for the work you're doing, here is
Speaker 11: in the university. This goes so, but there's none of that.
Speaker 11: So I just think that the tagline that he put,
Speaker 11: and of course there'll be in Islamophobia envoys world, just
Speaker 11: shows that he has no judgment at all and no courage.
Speaker 11: He has no courage to stand up to them and
Speaker 11: say this behavior is not there.
Speaker 1: That and that islamophobia voice just the little salvo to
Speaker 1: those those Western Sydney.
Speaker 11: Appeasement doesn't work. I know, I know he looks at
Speaker 11: the results in the UK. He is running scared. He's
Speaker 11: the one with Khobe.
Speaker 1: One hundred percent. Not only weeks after Anthony Albanezi welcomed
Speaker 1: Chinese Premier Lijiang to the country, the federal government is
Speaker 1: accused of Chinese government backed cyber group of hacking both
Speaker 1: public and private networks in Australia that date back years
Speaker 1: and are still ongoing. This group is apparently called APT
Speaker 1: forty and it's been working on behalf of China's Ministry
Speaker 1: of State Security. But of course, Christy, you know, just
Speaker 1: a couple of weeks ago, was all hunky dory happy,
Speaker 1: We're getting a few pandas you know, the Prime Minister
Speaker 1: goes over to China. He's a handsome boy, and meanwhile
Speaker 1: they are trying to steal every bit of information they
Speaker 1: can from us.
Speaker 12: Well, what do we say about deploymacy with China when
Speaker 12: you need to keep hold of seats in Western Australia
Speaker 12: where China happens to be the reason where everybody has
Speaker 12: a job in the mining industry, and it happens to
Speaker 12: be the reason for the buoyancy of the Western Australian
Speaker 12: labor government. So there's a consciousness around that. Again, I
Speaker 12: always look to the politics on a domestic level, which
Speaker 12: I'm sure the government does too, but that's part of
Speaker 12: their consciousness. And interestingly, though I will commend the Australian
Speaker 12: Signals Director it has actually done a really good job
Speaker 12: of this because for the first time ever, the intelligence
Speaker 12: gathering around this issue has been in conjunction with South
Speaker 12: Korea and Japan, so two partners within our actual region,
Speaker 12: and that hasn't happened before. So obviously we've partnered with
Speaker 12: the United States. But this is actually a really good
Speaker 12: thing that this has been uncovered. But of course the
Speaker 12: government doesn't mention the elephant in the room in their response.
Speaker 12: And another thing today is they didn't mention the C
Speaker 12: word China either, announcing measures to help Pacific nations restore
Speaker 12: and recalibrate their financial services and their banking system. So
Speaker 12: everybody was very hesitant not to mention China in that
Speaker 12: framework either. So I'd love to say diplomatic language, because
Speaker 12: it really is diplomatic, but there's a lack of the
Speaker 12: politics being talked about with a couple of things this week.
Speaker 1: Well, you call it the elephant in the room, we
Speaker 1: may well call it the panda in the room given
Speaker 1: the circumstances. Christy Bronwin, thank you so much for joining
Speaker 1: me tonight. Well, coming up, hows the AFL's medical model
Speaker 1: has made way for one of its biggest drug scandals.
Speaker 1: Yet we'll get into that after this with former top
Speaker 1: cop kel Glare. He'll get into the explosive story. Don't
Speaker 1: go away now. Two weeks ago, when I was here
Speaker 1: filling in for Andrew Bolt, I talked about a report
Speaker 1: from Sport Integrity Australia which said that professional sport was
Speaker 1: at risk of being corrupted by criminal gangs that could
Speaker 1: blackmail players by hanging their drug use over their heads. Now,
Speaker 1: that investigation was triggered after we found out that the
Speaker 1: AFL had been running what it calls a medical model,
Speaker 1: whereby some players can be tested for illicit drugs before
Speaker 1: a game by their team doctor and instead of it
Speaker 1: counting against them, the AFL is meant to have a
Speaker 1: three strikes policy, it gets swept under the rug and
Speaker 1: that player perhaps mysteriously doesn't play on the weekend, which
Speaker 1: of course means they won't being contravention of any rules,
Speaker 1: that is anti doping rules, and we never hear about
Speaker 1: it because of course there must be patient doctor confidentiality.
Speaker 1: The point is, though, that drug use is clearly rife
Speaker 1: in the AFL and probably in many other forms of
Speaker 1: professional sport, and an example of exactly what the SIA
Speaker 1: warned about was detailed by Mick Warner in The Herald
Speaker 1: Sun today. He wrote that criminals sent the parents of
Speaker 1: a drug addicted player a photo of them that's the
Speaker 1: crims with their son, and that they threatened his safety
Speaker 1: unless his parents immediately paid his drug debts. Independent MP
Speaker 1: Andrew Wilkie, who blew the whistle on all of this
Speaker 1: off the books drug testing stuff a few months ago,
Speaker 1: said the kind of drug use being described by the
Speaker 1: families isn't occasional recreational drug use. We are being told
Speaker 1: of players using the medical model to continue taking illicit
Speaker 1: drugs for multiple years. Rather than helping players get off drugs,
Speaker 1: the medical model has enabled players to continue taking drugs
Speaker 1: in secret. Joining me now is former Victorian Police Commissioner
Speaker 1: Kell Glaire Kel. You have spoken out against this quote
Speaker 1: unquote medical model before. We are now seeing the real
Speaker 1: consequences of this, which is that a it encourages players
Speaker 1: to take drugs and that that threatens the impunity of
Speaker 1: the game. Because of course, once you start saying well
Speaker 1: we've got something over you, this can be used for
Speaker 1: all sorts of criminal purposes. I don't know. You tell
Speaker 1: a player that if they don't do something, well, they're
Speaker 1: going to be in big trouble, and then you go
Speaker 1: and bet on the result of the game based on
Speaker 1: what you told them to do. This is very dangerous,
Speaker 1: It certainly is.
Speaker 3: It opens up all kinds of criminality and the act
Speaker 3: of taking elicit drugs in itself as criminal. So those
Speaker 3: are players who are using drugs and know as that's
Speaker 3: thee as recreational drugs, the drugs are all as simpil
Speaker 3: as that as a crime to take them. They're facilitating
Speaker 3: criminal actions by using these illicit drugs. There have to
Speaker 3: be consequences for that kind of behavior, and the idea
Speaker 3: of off the books testing is anathema. Two are really
Speaker 3: having a sport that's clean and enjoyed by people because
Speaker 3: it is clean.
Speaker 1: Will Kell, obviously a former police commissioner, you are well
Speaker 1: aware of the damage that illicit drugs do. You used
Speaker 1: to see it every day as a rank and file
Speaker 1: police officer, and then obviously running the show. To see
Speaker 1: a major sporting league in this country essentially encouraging illicit
Speaker 1: drug use must be galling.
Speaker 4: Oh.
Speaker 3: I'm absolutely shocked that a body like the AFL could
Speaker 3: in any way countenance not exposing this as you are
Speaker 3: dealing with it. Those players who are using ill asit
Speaker 3: drugs need help, they need the opportunity to get off drugs.
Speaker 3: But I certainly shouldn't be playing football and having their
Speaker 3: conduct covered up during that time that they're getting help
Speaker 3: and being able to get straightened out and killed of
Speaker 3: their drug addiction. It is just not the way to
Speaker 3: even think about approaching the issue.
Speaker 1: What really worries me about it as well, beyond just
Speaker 1: the damage that it obviously causes to these particular players,
Speaker 1: is a You've got young players coming through who walk
Speaker 1: into a club for the first time and they get
Speaker 1: exposed to this kind of culture and they feel like
Speaker 1: they have to participate in it, so they sort of
Speaker 1: unwittingly get drawn into drugs when all they really wanted
Speaker 1: to do was play football at a high level. But
Speaker 1: it's also the kids watching at home who are watching
Speaker 1: these people who they see as role models, and essentially
Speaker 1: their role models are out taking drugs potentially every second weekend,
Speaker 1: and that is condone owned by the league. If you're
Speaker 1: a young kid, or even just a young man or
Speaker 1: woman for that matter, and that's the culture that you're
Speaker 1: seeing in something that you really respect and look up to.
Speaker 1: It sends a message to the broader public that illicit
Speaker 1: drugs are okay.
Speaker 3: It's totally the wrong message. What they should be doing
Speaker 3: is getting out and speaking to young people about the
Speaker 3: dangers of illicit drug use and doing their best because
Speaker 3: they are role models to turn illicit drug use away
Speaker 3: and keep people away from that kind of thing, because
Speaker 3: it always leads to disaster in the end. It is
Speaker 3: something that's a scourge on the whole of society, and
Speaker 3: these players have an opportunity to do some good things
Speaker 3: to prevent kids going down the wrong path. They have
Speaker 3: a responsibility, in my view, to accept that role and
Speaker 3: to do the best, to do the best they can
Speaker 3: to make sure that the use of illicit drugs diminishes
Speaker 3: rather than increases.
Speaker 1: Well, I think it's probably more than a responsibility. It's
Speaker 1: an obligation, isn't it. I Mean, what we're essentially talking
Speaker 1: about is the AFL and probably other sporting leagues covering
Speaker 1: up criminality. Now, I know that is not in and
Speaker 1: of itself illegal to tell players to go and take
Speaker 1: a drug test so that they avoid having to take
Speaker 1: one on the field, where of course they would be
Speaker 1: found in contravention of world anti doping rules. But they
Speaker 1: are covering up criminality and that's one of the biggest
Speaker 1: organizations in the country doing that.
Speaker 3: That's exactly right. They're facilitating, as I've said, they're facilitating
Speaker 3: the use of lisit drugs by covering up. I think
Speaker 3: I should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. I think they
Speaker 3: need to have a re examination of their policy and
Speaker 3: to change it to show that they are really as
Speaker 3: a music coloqual it's a fair egham about tackling this
Speaker 3: use of illicit drugs and they're prepared to do something
Speaker 3: about it. If that means that you are star players.
Speaker 3: If they're using a list of drugs, don't get the
Speaker 3: play over it. Certainly they shouldn't be allowed to play
Speaker 3: while they're using and they, you know, as I keep saying,
Speaker 3: have to suffer consequences for their illegal conduct.
Speaker 11: Yep.
Speaker 1: And you know that's what the three strike policy was
Speaker 1: meant to be about. But they created the three strike
Speaker 1: policy and then found a way to get around the
Speaker 1: three strike policy. And if we see any more formal
Speaker 1: blackmail come through, and we've had an example of it here,
Speaker 1: if it gets to the point where it is influencing
Speaker 1: the outcomes of games, then the AFL will have a
Speaker 1: lot more on its hands than it really wants to
Speaker 1: deal with. Kell Gleare, thank you so much for your.
Speaker 3: Time, my pleasure.
Speaker 1: Now, look, I have to issue a correction. I've had
Speaker 1: an email very recently telling me that I've been saying
Speaker 1: envoy all night and that in fact it's actually envoy.
Speaker 1: My apologies. I'm sure Kill Richards will have something to
Speaker 1: say about that as well. After the break, the desperate
Speaker 1: attempts from bumbling Joe Biden to stay in the race,
Speaker 1: and why the White House refuses to explain the President's
Speaker 1: humorous visits to the doctor don't go away. Well, the
Speaker 1: fate of the US president has been on the line
Speaker 1: since the world witnessed that shocking performance in the first
Speaker 1: presidential debate. But we know, despite even Democrats urging him
Speaker 1: to withdraw from the race, the demented Biden, well he
Speaker 1: just won't back down.
Speaker 10: I'm going to show frustrated by the leap now I'm
Speaker 10: not talking about you guys, but by the elite and
Speaker 10: the party.
Speaker 6: Who they know so much more.
Speaker 4: But then, in these days, I don't think I should lot.
Speaker 13: Some run against me.
Speaker 4: And now the president challenge man the convention.
Speaker 1: Oh, he's getting angry. And the President then took the
Speaker 1: time to write a letter to his fellow Democrats saying,
Speaker 1: I am firmly committed to staying in this race. I
Speaker 1: wouldn't be running again if I did not absolutely believe
Speaker 1: I was the best person to beat Donald Trump in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five. But I suppose that is what a
Speaker 1: demented person would say. Isn't it joining me now to discuss,
Speaker 1: as The Australian's Washington correspondent Adam crighton, how on earth
Speaker 1: can Biden continue to justify that he is the man
Speaker 1: for the job.
Speaker 8: Well, clearly he's extremely determined, and he's doubled down massively,
Speaker 8: to the point that if he does ever step down,
Speaker 8: he's going to look rather silly. But I suppose a
Speaker 8: political cynic would say that he has to say this
Speaker 8: the whole time because he can't say anything else until
Speaker 8: he finally makes the decision to leave, which I think
Speaker 8: is still what's most likely to happen. I think there's
Speaker 8: too many people have come out now and said bad
Speaker 8: things about him on his own side, that it's just
Speaker 8: giving so much fodder to the Republicans for their campaign.
Speaker 1: Oh one hundred percent. And I mean Trump's saying now
Speaker 1: that it's Biden's ego that's getting in the way here,
Speaker 1: it's the only reason that he won't drop out. What
Speaker 1: do you make of that?
Speaker 8: Well, I think that's fair. I mean, before he ran
Speaker 8: in twenty twenty, I think Biden gave a speech saying
Speaker 8: that he'd be the bridge to the future, basically implying
Speaker 8: he'd only do one term. But he's hanging on for
Speaker 8: a second term. And plus he's already big vice president
Speaker 8: fate is so I think the greedy accusation.
Speaker 1: Is you know, is true.
Speaker 12: It's fair.
Speaker 8: But look, there's there's four months ago. The betting markets,
Speaker 8: by the way, are just terrible for him right now,
Speaker 8: sixteen percent chance of winning in November compared to Trump's
Speaker 8: fifty five percent. So things have certainly turned around.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I should have put some more money
Speaker 1: on before they debate on Trump by me for that matter.
Speaker 1: But when you talk about and look, I don't want
Speaker 1: to suggest that I have looked at his medical records,
Speaker 1: because of course I haven't. But look, I think we
Speaker 1: all know that there is some kind of diagnosis going
Speaker 1: on there with Joe Biden. And of course when you
Speaker 1: try to deal with people who have dementia or Alzheimer's
Speaker 1: and you try to tell them that no, that that's wrong,
Speaker 1: you can't do that anymore. That's not quite how it
Speaker 1: used to be. They don't take very well to it.
Speaker 1: And that's exactly what we're say being from Baden right now.
Speaker 8: Yes, look, that's certainly true. And sometimes it manifests itself
Speaker 8: in yelling suddenly. And actually that's that's what the President
Speaker 8: did in that Morning Joe clip that you just played earlier.
Speaker 8: I mean, he periodically yelled. I mean the host was surprised.
Speaker 8: And he's done that before in speeches, he suddenly yells.
Speaker 8: But it's just been a terrible few days for him,
Speaker 8: you know, on this so called reassurance tour that he's
Speaker 8: trying to do. I mean, he said on the fourth
Speaker 8: of July that he was the first black woman in
Speaker 8: the White House. I mean, that's that wasn't great. And
Speaker 8: then and then he you know, he said ho ho
Speaker 8: ho as if he was Santa Claus on the fourth
Speaker 8: of July to the audience. So these aren't great signs
Speaker 8: of reassurance.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but Adam, you can't say that he's not a
Speaker 1: black woman, he might well identify as a black woman.
Speaker 1: You can't come under this program. Be so big, ato, Adam.
Speaker 1: I won't stand for it. While we're talking about medical diagnoses,
Speaker 1: a Parkinson's expert was recorded as visiting the White House
Speaker 1: last week, which, as you can imagine, raised a few eyebrows.
Speaker 1: But White House pre Secretary caring John Pierre, she was
Speaker 1: quick to shut down any speculation.
Speaker 13: So I am telling you that he has seen or
Speaker 13: a neurelogists three times while he has been in this presidency.
Speaker 13: That's what I'm saying. I also said to you, for
Speaker 13: security reasons, we cannot share names. We cannot share names.
Speaker 1: Oh that wasn't just look nothing to worry about, was it? No?
Speaker 8: She was rather angry. But as it turned out that
Speaker 8: doctor himself, I think that clarified that he wasn't seeing
Speaker 8: Biden in particular in all of those visits. That White
Speaker 8: House has a very large staff, something like more than
Speaker 8: a thousand and so sometimes doctors are seeing other stuff.
Speaker 8: But I think the broader point is that now the
Speaker 8: media has changed its tune on Biden, these sorts of
Speaker 8: stories are going to drop all the time, and it's
Speaker 8: just going to undermine his standing, you know, basically every
Speaker 8: week in the lead up to the election. So that's
Speaker 8: why I think ultimately he's going to have to stand aside.
Speaker 8: It's just going to get worse and worse. And of course,
Speaker 8: you know, for Trump it's just been fantastic because he's
Speaker 8: a basically had a almost two weeks off playing golf
Speaker 8: and just watching the Democrats attack themselves each other.
Speaker 1: And that's all he could have asked for, really, you know,
Speaker 1: to be honest, and Trump just had to rock up
Speaker 1: to that debate, and given that the mics were off
Speaker 1: in particular, all he had to do was rock up
Speaker 1: and look sober and alive, and well, that's all he
Speaker 1: really had to do in the end. Speaking of Trump,
Speaker 1: he set to announce his VP candidate next week. The
Speaker 1: front runners are apparently North Dakota Governor Doug Bergham and
Speaker 1: Senator JD. Vance. So what do you think who's most
Speaker 1: likely to make the cart.
Speaker 8: Look, it's a good question. I think it's fifty to fifty.
Speaker 8: I couldn't you know, choose. I think you know, they're
Speaker 8: quite different. I mean Vance is thirty nine, for instance,
Speaker 8: and Burgham was sixty seven. I think so quite a
Speaker 8: large age gap. Of course, Burgham's a billionaire as well,
Speaker 8: whereas Vance is a young politician. Look, their politics are
Speaker 8: broadly similar, so I think maybe that he might pick Dvance.
Speaker 8: If you're going to to pick between those two, I'd
Speaker 8: say he'll pick Vance because it's going to set Vans up.
Speaker 8: He'll be rather admires apparently Trump. It'll set him up
Speaker 8: to run in twenty twenty eight when he'll be in
Speaker 8: his mid forties, and presume you a lot more experienced.
Speaker 8: So I think that's who i'd pick. But you know Trump,
Speaker 8: you can never really predict.
Speaker 1: So indeed, you've only got ten seconds, Adam. Should it
Speaker 1: have been a woman or should have been a woman?
Speaker 8: Well, look, I think it probably should have been, and
Speaker 8: I'm a little bit surprised that it seems like it
Speaker 8: won't be because I think he might have got a
Speaker 8: few more votes from being a woman. But look, you know,
Speaker 8: we can't really fault Trump. I mean, he's come back massively,
Speaker 8: so he must know what he's doing.
Speaker 1: Indeed, Adam Crichton, thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 1: That's it from me. I'll be back tomorrow at eight pm.
Speaker 1: Now Paul Murray Live with the Great James Morrow,