Speaker 1: Live on Sky News. This is Sharry Good Evening. I'm
Speaker 1: kylab Bond and Will Kingston. I'd say the kids love
Speaker 1: playing Minecraft on the computer, so maybe they enjoyed in
Speaker 1: the real minds. He's what's coming up tonight? Why the
Speaker 1: coalition breakup may end up being the best thing for
Speaker 1: both parties. I'll give you my thoughts in a moment.
Speaker 1: The Reserve Bank cuts rates again. But would it have
Speaker 1: happened if not for Trump's tariffs? I'll talk to experienced
Speaker 1: economist Warren Hogan, and questions mount about senior Democrats and
Speaker 1: what they knew about Joe Biden's health as he goes
Speaker 1: public with his cancer diagnosis. Well, what an extraordinary day
Speaker 1: in Australian political history. The Liberal and National Party coalition
Speaker 1: splitting for the first time in nearly forty years, and
Speaker 1: only the third time since they came together in nineteen
Speaker 1: forty nine. Now, those two other breaks and the coalition
Speaker 1: were in seventy two after Goff Whitlam beat Billy McMahon.
Speaker 1: They came back together before the seventy four election and
Speaker 1: for four months in nineteen eighty seven over the Joe
Speaker 1: for Canberra campaign. Now, in some ways this could be good,
Speaker 1: but obviously in the short term it weakened conservative politics
Speaker 1: in this country. You have the crazy situation of the
Speaker 1: Albanese government holding ninety four seats and the Liberal opposition
Speaker 1: now the official opposition, holding just twenty eight, even though
Speaker 1: the Liberals and Nationals will still largely work in tandem.
Speaker 1: Without a formal coalition, you have a huge government and
Speaker 1: a tiny opposition. It deprives the official Opposition of course,
Speaker 1: of experienced talent in the Nationals, and it means Lee
Speaker 1: Susan Lee will have to construct her shadow ministry entirely
Speaker 1: from the Liberal party room sorry, which is diminished now.
Speaker 1: Some of the details around how and why this happened
Speaker 1: are quite sensational. National's leader David Little Proud gave Susan
Speaker 1: Lee half an hour's notice that he was going to
Speaker 1: kill the coalition agreement. The major reason for that split
Speaker 1: was that the Nats wanted a guarantee on policy positions.
Speaker 1: The Australian reported today that the four policy demands confirmed
Speaker 1: by National MP senators and key officials at a meeting
Speaker 1: last Friday, focused on nuclear energy, forced a vestiture of
Speaker 1: supermarkets that recently announced twenty billion dollar Regional Future Fund
Speaker 1: and enforced universal service obligations, ensuring reliable mobile phone coverage
Speaker 1: in the regions. The problem with that is that Lee
Speaker 1: has been explicit in not yet committing to a policy agenda.
Speaker 2: The Nationals sought specific commitments on certain policies, and they've
Speaker 2: talked about that this morning. And our perspective is not
Speaker 2: about the individual policies themselves, but the approach that we
Speaker 2: said we would take to our party room about policies.
Speaker 2: Nothing adopted and nothing abandoned. So at this point in
Speaker 2: time I asked the Nationals to respect those party room processes.
Speaker 1: Lee proposed a little proud that they form a shadow
Speaker 1: cabinet of both Liberal and National members, as is the
Speaker 1: standard for the coalition. Then both parties should go away
Speaker 1: and sort out their respective policy positions and come back
Speaker 1: to discuss. Now. I can understand why the Nationals might
Speaker 1: be uncomfortable with that, because even though the Liberals and
Speaker 1: Nationals are allowed a conscience vote, members of the shadow
Speaker 1: cabinet a duty bound to support the coalition's policy and leadership.
Speaker 1: And if you don't yet have a cohesive policy plan,
Speaker 1: it's difficult to understand what you're signing up for. So
Speaker 1: the Nationals requested that any of their shadow cabinet members
Speaker 1: be given a free vote, which would allow them to
Speaker 1: oppose it zero for instance, even if the Liberals stayed
Speaker 1: with the policy. But that kind of situation simply isn't tenable.
Speaker 1: You can't have different members of cabinet singing from separate
Speaker 1: hymn books. Otherwise there isn't much point in cabinet. So
Speaker 1: to some degree they both been as unreasonable as each other,
Speaker 1: and it will in the short term at least be
Speaker 1: a free kick to the government.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 1: Both Lee and Little Proud were clear today that they
Speaker 1: are open to reforming the Coalition, and Little Proud more
Speaker 1: or less said he wants to. He described it as
Speaker 1: a breakup to have some time apart.
Speaker 3: What this is.
Speaker 4: About is about taking a deep breath to be able
Speaker 4: to say to the Australian people that this is a
Speaker 4: time of part for us to be better, to be better,
Speaker 4: to focus on them. Now we have a clear focus
Speaker 4: on the people we know we want to represent.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 4: I want to allow Susan the time for her leadership
Speaker 4: to shine, to be able to give her the opportunity
Speaker 4: to go and be able to demonstrate that, but to
Speaker 4: design that and be able to come back together. This
Speaker 4: is a healthy part of our democracy. Though that was
Speaker 4: too proud of.
Speaker 1: He even said Lee could be the next prime minister.
Speaker 4: The commitment both Susan and I made is that we
Speaker 4: will work together to give her the space. You got
Speaker 4: to understand, Susan has been given an enviewable position to
Speaker 4: actually try and restore AHI have faith in her. I
Speaker 4: actually think it is conceivable that she can win the.
Speaker 1: Next election, but the reality is she can't be prime
Speaker 1: minister without the Nationals. I mean, the Liberals aren't going
Speaker 1: to win another fifty seats in their own right, and
Speaker 1: in the modern world they probably never will. So here's
Speaker 1: why I think this could and it's a qualified could
Speaker 1: be a good thing in the long term. The Liberals
Speaker 1: and the Nationals need each other. If the Libs want
Speaker 1: to have a Liberal prime minister again, they'll need a
Speaker 1: coalition with the Nats. And if the Nationals want to
Speaker 1: exert rural and regional influence over national policy, they need
Speaker 1: to join with someone who could help form government. And
Speaker 1: at the moment it's only the Liberal Party to choose from.
Speaker 1: So really they'll have to come back together, as they
Speaker 1: have before on other occasions. Twice they've done this, but
Speaker 1: this is a shot across the bower message from the
Speaker 1: Nationals to say to the Liberals that they need to
Speaker 1: have a serious reckoning as a party, and in that
Speaker 1: assessment they are correct. As the lnp's Garth Hamilton wrote
Speaker 1: in The Australian yesterday, the best thing about Peter Dutton
Speaker 1: was that he brought peace and stability to our party.
Speaker 1: The worst thing about Peter Dutton was that he brought
Speaker 1: peace and stability to our party. We needed to rid
Speaker 1: ourselves of some of that baggage. We needed to have
Speaker 1: a few internal policy fights to test our resolve. Thomas
Speaker 1: Jefferson believed every generation needs a new revolution, and I
Speaker 1: believe the new generation of Liberals needs that too, by
Speaker 1: having a break in their relationship, having time a part
Speaker 1: to be better. As Little Proud put it today. And
Speaker 1: let's be honest, many of us have done that in
Speaker 1: our romantic relationships and friendships before. The Nationals are trying
Speaker 1: to force those fights, particularly when it comes to net zero,
Speaker 1: and their aim in that regard is noble. The Nats
Speaker 1: haven't lost a Lower House seat at an election since
Speaker 1: two thousand and seven, so you can't argue that they
Speaker 1: don't have a blueprint for success. They also managed to
Speaker 1: turn Bendigo marginal, which has been held by Labor since
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety eight, with a nine point seven percent swing.
Speaker 1: The Nationals believe in something, they're clear about it, and
Speaker 1: electorally it's worked for them in rural and regional parts
Speaker 1: of Australia now. The last Liberal leader to deal with
Speaker 1: a coalition breakup, of course, was John Howard during his
Speaker 1: first shot at Prime minister.
Speaker 5: He said this today, I don't compare today's situation with
Speaker 5: nineteen eighty seven, although that was pretty painful.
Speaker 1: I am very sorry that this.
Speaker 5: Has happened, and I urged both parties to work over
Speaker 5: time to put the coalition back together again, because all
Speaker 5: the history of Australia suggests that the glory days of
Speaker 5: the Liberal Party and the National Party, the Old Country Party,
Speaker 5: are when they are working together in government. My experience
Speaker 5: as a Liberal leader and as a coalition and prime
Speaker 5: minister is that if you have a strong coalition and
Speaker 5: plenty of trust, you can resolve any policy different.
Speaker 1: And he's right. They do strengthen each other. They bring
Speaker 1: different perspectives from different parts of the country, and of
Speaker 1: course the broad Church that John how it always talked
Speaker 1: about served the party. Well, I'll repeat what I said
Speaker 1: on Thursday night. The Liberals need the Nationals now more
Speaker 1: than ever. Drop net zero, keep nuclear and build a
Speaker 1: genuine alternative for government. All right, let's stick with the
Speaker 1: coalitions divorce. I'm joined now by former Speaker of the
Speaker 1: House Bronwin Bishop and Liberal Senator Holly Hughes. Bronwin. In
Speaker 1: the long term, do you think this will all just
Speaker 1: work out? It's a little lover's tiff.
Speaker 6: It'll work out, And I'll tell you why. Because we
Speaker 6: have a compulsory preferential voting system. It means it's a
Speaker 6: two party system and the Liberals cannot win without the Nationals.
Speaker 6: Three times they could have, but saw the sense of
Speaker 6: not doing it because the next time round they would
Speaker 6: need it. So when we look at it called a
Speaker 6: spat or a disagreement. That's going on now Nashwater must
Speaker 6: have been like between Earl Page and Mensis at the
Speaker 6: end of the EAP days.
Speaker 7: I mean, those people knew how to draw blood.
Speaker 6: So I was actually in the Parliament in eighty seven,
Speaker 6: that's when I was sworn into the Senate, and I
Speaker 6: was there when the two parties separated it and I
Speaker 6: knew that'd come back together again because that is the history.
Speaker 6: We got compulsory voting in nineteen eighteen, and we got
Speaker 6: or rather we got provisional voting in nineteen eighteen and
Speaker 6: compulsory in twenty three. So it's been there for a
Speaker 6: long time and that's our system. Nigel Farage couldn't happen
Speaker 6: here because of.
Speaker 1: Our voting system exactly because they were past.
Speaker 6: They were come back together out of sheer survival.
Speaker 1: Obviously, for a couple more months you will sit in the.
Speaker 7: Senate as not counting down, so you won't.
Speaker 1: Have to deal with any of this, and you may
Speaker 1: will be glad of that.
Speaker 7: I think I've dodged a bullet.
Speaker 1: But a what do you think the Nationals are playing
Speaker 1: at here? And be will it affect the Libs?
Speaker 7: Some bit perplexed by the timing.
Speaker 8: I have to be honest, Susan Lee was elected a
Speaker 8: week ago, where three weeks out from the last election.
Speaker 7: Where three years from the next election.
Speaker 8: And there's been a lot of commentary, a lot of
Speaker 8: commentary from people who have never been in.
Speaker 7: The party room.
Speaker 8: And the reality is when you go into the party
Speaker 8: room after an election of particularly an election defeat, everything
Speaker 8: is on the table, everything is still there, but it
Speaker 8: is up for review. So it would absolutely have been
Speaker 8: unacceptable for Susan or in fact anyone else had they
Speaker 8: been later of the Liberal Party to go into the
Speaker 8: Nationals and said, yep, okay, we're going to agree to
Speaker 8: put these four policies, the agenda items absolutely in stone
Speaker 8: so that they cannot be changed. It is the Liberal
Speaker 8: Party processes that need to be respected and one of
Speaker 8: the things, and to Garth Hamilton's point in what he said,
Speaker 8: and I said it in an interview earlier today, Peter
Speaker 8: dudn't run a really unified team. But perhaps that was
Speaker 8: actually a bit of a mistake. One of the reasons
Speaker 8: so many of us will call flat footage during the
Speaker 8: election that the policy work hadn't been done was because
Speaker 8: it hadn't gone.
Speaker 7: Through the party room processes.
Speaker 8: It's really important and this is a matter for the
Speaker 8: next party room that they do fight it out. It
Speaker 8: is going to be messy, but it's three years till
Speaker 8: the next election, and if they really want to go
Speaker 8: to the next election as a unified team all singing
Speaker 8: from the same song sheet, knowing what they're standing for,
Speaker 8: and it's it's this isn't a question either of liberal values.
Speaker 8: You know, I've heard a few other commentators say that
Speaker 8: are what they stand for. Liberal values haven't changed, but
Speaker 8: it's the policies, and policies move with the time and
Speaker 8: move with the community as they go.
Speaker 7: So it's not about changing our values.
Speaker 8: Our values are still very much there, but it's making
Speaker 8: sure that the policy that the party room puts forward
Speaker 8: lines up. The other thing I just want to touch
Speaker 8: on that was really important was around the cabinet solidarity.
Speaker 8: Matt Canavan, to his credit, when we went into opposition,
Speaker 8: decided not to take on a shadow portfolio, so he
Speaker 8: was free to sit in the bleachers and throw the
Speaker 8: jaffers as you wanted, when he wanted, as he is
Speaker 8: in the coalition, you're allowed to from the back bench.
Speaker 8: But solidarity of a cabinet is really important. And the
Speaker 8: requests that they could not agree with cabinet colleagues still
Speaker 8: hold the positions, still have the staff and the extra pay,
Speaker 8: but then go out and throw their own bombs is
Speaker 8: in my view, completely unacceptable and untenable.
Speaker 6: It's a good try, let's be honest.
Speaker 7: Yeah, it's a try very Marrian.
Speaker 1: Let and that was that would never ever fly.
Speaker 6: And the other point that you made wholly about no discussion,
Speaker 6: no animosity, no challenges in the party whom It's true,
Speaker 6: and that's exactly what happened under John Houston when I
Speaker 6: was there too, he too had a steady ship, but
Speaker 6: no disagreements going. You need disagreements, absolutely, You've got to
Speaker 6: be able to have Vista band. You know. I have
Speaker 6: a lot of respect for Peter Dutton. I think he's
Speaker 6: given great contribution to the country. But I've never been
Speaker 6: in the worst campaign. I think the Houston campaign was
Speaker 6: pretty bad, but this one was pretty.
Speaker 9: Just very quickly.
Speaker 1: The Unity ticket continues quickly before we moved on, Holly,
Speaker 1: how much do you think just into price, just into
Speaker 1: an empertyper price, joining your party room may have effected.
Speaker 8: Look, it was mentioned today. I think it's definitely an
Speaker 8: underlying issue. I have heard from National Party colleagues and
Speaker 8: their fury is palpable, absolutely palpable, and particularly in the
Speaker 8: center where they have now lost party status in the Senate.
Speaker 8: I think it is a myth for anyone to think
Speaker 8: that somehow Angus Taylor and Enterprise would have kept the
Speaker 8: coalition together. I think that would have been a bomb
Speaker 8: that would have blown it up, maybe irrevtly because they
Speaker 8: are there is a lot of anger there, but that
Speaker 8: it is very welcome in our party.
Speaker 7: Of that justificate, there is a lot of anger in
Speaker 7: the National Party.
Speaker 6: She was elected from the Country Liberal Party, yes, and
Speaker 6: there's a bit of a hipocracy in there. The LNP
Speaker 6: is technically part of the Liberal Parties, but by convention
Speaker 6: members can elect to sit in the National Party Room
Speaker 6: and despite the fact they're really under the Liberal Party banner,
Speaker 6: so it's no different from the country.
Speaker 7: I've been a party president. You know how all of
Speaker 7: this works, I do think.
Speaker 6: And I personally have negotiated and all of those I
Speaker 6: have personally negotiated those agreements and the party agreement and
Speaker 6: where the funding goes and so on. And I know
Speaker 6: I said had to drivee a very hard bargain. I
Speaker 6: think I probably did.
Speaker 1: So we'll get further into all of this stuff a
Speaker 1: little later with Michael McCormick moving on to some other
Speaker 1: news today. Labour's under pressure to end at six point
Speaker 1: eight billion dollar power bill rebates, so I'll come back
Speaker 1: to why in a moment. But the Treasurer, for his part,
Speaker 1: won't rule out extending them.
Speaker 10: We've budgeted for it to end at the end of
Speaker 10: this year, that's clear in the budget papers. But what
Speaker 10: we do each budget in this room next door is
Speaker 10: we sit down with the Expenditure Review Committee and we
Speaker 10: work out whether we can afford to provide more assistance
Speaker 10: and if so, what form that, what assistance would take.
Speaker 10: That will be our approach.
Speaker 1: Now that's call to end them is coming from the
Speaker 1: Prime Minister's Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, which is the fancy
Speaker 1: term for his welfare working group. They say it should
Speaker 1: instead be spent on solar panels and batteries for low
Speaker 1: income households. So you know, they're not exactly saying we
Speaker 1: should save some money here, but they do have a
Speaker 1: point in the fact that the rebates need to end
Speaker 1: because they do not fix the actual problem, which is
Speaker 1: of course the cost the energy. The rebate simply changes
Speaker 1: what it says on the bill. It doesn't change anything
Speaker 1: in reality in terms of what it costs to get
Speaker 1: it to.
Speaker 6: But once they embarked on renewables, only their policy and
Speaker 6: rebuild it rewiring the nation astronomical costs. The single most
Speaker 6: expensive power you can have in the world. That's what
Speaker 6: they're giving us. They promised two hundred and seventy five
Speaker 6: dollars of production. No, they can't deliver it, but with
Speaker 6: a three hundred dollars rebate, they're bringing it down. They're
Speaker 6: reducing their inflationary pressure, which is what they've done with
Speaker 6: it is their bank to make the first cut, nicely
Speaker 6: timed for the election, of course, so why wouldn't they
Speaker 6: give it up.
Speaker 1: Well, it's a good point. Obviously it did worked electorally,
Speaker 1: but I mean, you know, we just wanted add two
Speaker 1: hundred and seventy five dollars. Are I think that's what
Speaker 1: we were promised, wasn't it.
Speaker 8: Well, I think the unicorn farmers that they've got on
Speaker 8: some of these economic advisory you know, solar panels and batteries,
Speaker 8: when a lot of people in low income housing are
Speaker 8: actually in apartments so don't have the options to solar panels.
Speaker 8: You know, these people actually need to out. I did
Speaker 8: notice the Brotherhood of Saint Lawrence. They had a representative
Speaker 8: on there and he was talking about at least making
Speaker 8: some of these rebates means tested rather than just universal,
Speaker 8: which makes it like you to do it.
Speaker 7: No, you've got to understand. I know we don't have time.
Speaker 6: There's another very special side to the way that rebate
Speaker 6: is paid. It's actually paid to the power the energy
Speaker 6: Power Company exactly so, and if you're going to start
Speaker 6: being says you can't do that.
Speaker 8: Can't do that, and so I have the so called
Speaker 8: inflationary introduction because it's not coming.
Speaker 9: Off the ban.
Speaker 1: And that's the point. It's not a rebate to you.
Speaker 1: We're not stand out to the power company. Thousands of
Speaker 1: firefighters and farmers protested outside Melbourne's Parliament House this morning against,
Speaker 1: of course, the Allen Government's Emergency Services leavy, which is
Speaker 1: part of today's state budget. I mean, farmers will copy
Speaker 1: insane one hundred and fifty percent tax hike. But of
Speaker 1: course many of these farmers are the volunteer firefighters who
Speaker 1: will supposedly benefit from this increased tax. So they're now
Speaker 1: cutting crook. They're saying they won't put their uniforms on anymore.
Speaker 1: There's been vision going around to people burning their uniforms.
Speaker 1: They're turning their pages off and saying, we'll bugger you.
Speaker 1: Why would we help out if you're going to charge
Speaker 1: us to do the work that you won't pay someone
Speaker 1: to do. Victorian oppositionally to brad Batten said they would
Speaker 1: repeal this if they win in government.
Speaker 6: I will make the commitment to you that if we
Speaker 6: are elected on November next year.
Speaker 11: The Victorian Liberals will scrap that tax and land that money.
Speaker 12: Back to Victoria.
Speaker 1: Now, look, if you're a landowner in Victoria, Bronwin, you
Speaker 1: are essentially an enemy of the state because what they've
Speaker 1: done to land tax down there is ridiculous. But this
Speaker 1: is effectively just another land tax based Still, we'll just
Speaker 1: get some more money out of you. And funnily enough,
Speaker 1: the money they're going to pull in from this is
Speaker 1: very similar to the surplus today. They said they would post.
Speaker 6: Funny about that, isn't it. But this is what socialists do.
Speaker 6: We often hear the expression that they tax and spend.
Speaker 6: Uh ah, they spend a tax because they hand out
Speaker 6: the money. What they want to do is make people
Speaker 6: dependent on the government. And if they rip it off
Speaker 6: a particular group of people, they don't care about that.
Speaker 6: They simply want more and more people to be depended
Speaker 6: on them so they can keep their nice little spot
Speaker 6: of power. So I don't think that's going to work.
Speaker 6: This time, well, it kind of at least we've got
Speaker 6: an opposition.
Speaker 1: Now, Well, that's.
Speaker 8: Said that elections have consequences, and this has been the
Speaker 8: consequence of consistently electing a labor government in Victoria has
Speaker 8: been this astronomical growth in state debt that they're now
Speaker 8: trying to get on top of. It's also the reason
Speaker 8: why strong oppositions are important. And hopefully with brad Batten
Speaker 8: and some of the other more fringe issues they were
Speaker 8: concerned with more recently behind them, and the Liberal Party
Speaker 8: in Victoria can get its act together to actually put
Speaker 8: up an opposition.
Speaker 7: Because elections have consequences.
Speaker 8: And when you elect people who have no economic understanding
Speaker 8: and they just keep spending and keep spending and keep spending,
Speaker 8: they are going to come for it at some stage.
Speaker 7: And this is what they're saying in Victoria. And we
Speaker 7: could stay nationally sooner than we all think.
Speaker 1: You'd like to think so. And of course, you know,
Speaker 1: as I said when she became the Premiere of Victoria
Speaker 1: to sin Heer Allen, ain't no Daniel Andrews. And it's
Speaker 1: very difficult to hold together what Andrews put together if
Speaker 1: you're not Andrews himself. Now Labour's supertext is so unpopular
Speaker 1: even Tier independent Manique Ryan has criticized what she called
Speaker 1: the poorly considered an harmful and unfair policy. She said
Speaker 1: the government's plan to increase tax on high balances shouldn't
Speaker 1: include taxation of unrealized games, just common sense stuff and
Speaker 1: it must be indexed if it does happen. I know
Speaker 1: Kate Cheney in Wa has come out against it too. Now,
Speaker 1: of course some bronwin that the Teals might realize that
Speaker 1: they have people in their seats who may will fall
Speaker 1: into the category, so they know what side their breed
Speaker 1: is battered on. But what they say is correct. I
Speaker 1: mean the idea that the concept of taxing unrealized capital
Speaker 1: gains from Biden.
Speaker 7: It is it is workamala.
Speaker 1: It is insane because once you say you can tax
Speaker 1: someone on a profit that they haven't cashed in their
Speaker 1: super where does it go next?
Speaker 9: Well, it's called theft. Actually all taxation is theft.
Speaker 7: Well, no, some.
Speaker 6: Taxation is quite legitimate, but this is theft. And they
Speaker 6: regard the Labor Party regards that four trillion dollars of
Speaker 6: superannuation money is their money, not the foregone wages that
Speaker 6: the people who earned it. It belongs to individuals. It's
Speaker 6: not a corporate ownership or a collective ownership. It's an
Speaker 6: individual ownership. But they don't acknowledge that and this principle.
Speaker 6: If they get it up, what should spread. And that's
Speaker 6: the really evil nature of it. But if a few
Speaker 6: interesting enough in the campaigning that I did during the campaign,
Speaker 6: that's what I talked about the evilness of this tax
Speaker 6: and the people that would really hit other millennials.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so the time they get up here, two year
Speaker 1: old today on an average wage for the rest of them,
Speaker 1: and yet.
Speaker 6: The snake charmer, the treasurer has the audacity to say, oh, well,
Speaker 6: in the US ahead, some government might choose to index it.
Speaker 9: What happens.
Speaker 1: And it's you could just index it yourself. We only
Speaker 1: got twenty seconds.
Speaker 9: Hold, But this is something.
Speaker 8: Because they're going to get a small reduction on the heck,
Speaker 8: stead are going to pay that and more into the future,
Speaker 8: whether it's their superannuation, capital gains on their parents' family home,
Speaker 8: the banker. Mum and dad just got a whole lot
Speaker 8: more if these guys get their way, and it's going
Speaker 8: to be not our generation. Well, actually, you are still
Speaker 8: a child Caleb, just.
Speaker 1: You make us Caroline, Caroline, thanks, you are going I know,
Speaker 1: and the coalition should be able to soft coalition anymore.
Speaker 1: Federal Party should be going hard on this as your policy. Anyway.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, we've run out of time. Bronwin Holy thank
Speaker 1: you so much for joining me now. The Prime Minister
Speaker 1: was cheering for more than just the coalition breaking up. Today,
Speaker 1: the Reserve Bank, of course, handed down its decision to
Speaker 1: cut the official cash rate by twenty five basis points
Speaker 1: that takes it to three point eight five percent. Governor
Speaker 1: Michelle Bullock said it wasn't an easy decision with so
Speaker 1: many unpredictable factors like trade wars flying around.
Speaker 13: The key point about the situation wherein is it's not
Speaker 13: just uncertain, it's actually unpredictable. I'm not putting a strong
Speaker 13: possibility on a really, really bad outcome, but I think
Speaker 13: we have to be alert that there might be.
Speaker 1: I'm joined now by a Judo Bank chief economist, Warren Hogan. Warren,
Speaker 1: if we didn't have the Trump tariffs, would we have
Speaker 1: had this rate cut? Do you think?
Speaker 14: Look, I think the global scene has certainly made it
Speaker 14: a lot easier for the board today. You look back
Speaker 14: at the last rate cut and the guidance they gave
Speaker 14: then the way the domestic economy has played out, if anything,
Speaker 14: it's probably a little strong, a little bit more employment,
Speaker 14: and it would have made it a more lineball decision
Speaker 14: for sure. But it's quite clear from both the statement
Speaker 14: on monetary policy, their forecasts, and then the commentary from
Speaker 14: the governor that they are very worried about something going
Speaker 14: wrong in the global economy and getting caught with an
Speaker 14: interest rate that's above what they think is neutral or
Speaker 14: still in a restrictive setting.
Speaker 1: So on that basis, should we expect further well.
Speaker 14: I think that's the guidance that they've given. I think
Speaker 14: the governors made it pretty soft guidance in the sense
Speaker 14: that they're forecasting inflation pretty much from now being close
Speaker 14: to target, and they're factoring in the market expectation for
Speaker 14: the cash rate to come at least three more times,
Speaker 14: and they're sort of giving some credence to that. So
Speaker 14: I think in the back of their mind they think,
Speaker 14: if all goes well, they can cut at least one
Speaker 14: more time, if not two. And of course the Governor's
Speaker 14: clear message is if things go badly wrong in the
Speaker 14: global economy, they will be cutting more than that, and
Speaker 14: the market will continue to price that as a risk.
Speaker 1: Well, exactly how hard and fast would they cut, because,
Speaker 1: of course the risk is last time we ended up
Speaker 1: in a global problem, which of course was COVID, we
Speaker 1: cut really hard and then ended up with large inflation.
Speaker 3: Well, that's it.
Speaker 14: We are in a very different inflationary setting to anything
Speaker 14: we've seen in the last twenty years.
Speaker 3: We're really having to go back to the.
Speaker 14: Nineteen eighties and nineteen to seventies to be in that
Speaker 14: kind of world where if you get this wrong, you're
Speaker 14: going to get a pretty severe inflation consequence. So look,
Speaker 14: I think they're going to be limited in how much
Speaker 14: they can cut unless it is a very dire situation.
Speaker 14: And when I mean dire, I mean we are going
Speaker 14: to have to be seeing people losing their jobs in
Speaker 14: unemployment going up, which at this stage there's no sign
Speaker 14: of that. In fact, everything has settled down it remarkably
Speaker 14: well in the last three weeks. And of course we
Speaker 14: still do have this inflation, and we have an economy
Speaker 14: producing jobs or beeat a lot of them in public sector,
Speaker 14: but that is income out there. So I think for
Speaker 14: the time being, the best way to think about interest
Speaker 14: rates is they can come down a little bit more,
Speaker 14: but the Reserve Bank's ready to move more aggressively if
Speaker 14: things go wrong.
Speaker 1: I'm sure of youers at home happy to hear that.
Speaker 1: Warren Hogan, thank you so much for your time. Still
Speaker 1: to come. Trump's announced that Ukraine and Russia are ready
Speaker 1: to negotiate a cease fire deal. But did putin get
Speaker 1: the MIMO Malcolm Davis coming up soon and first we'll
Speaker 1: get some insider information as to why the Nationals broke
Speaker 1: up with the Liberals and what it could take to
Speaker 1: win them back. Michael McCormick will fill us in on
Speaker 1: what's happened from his perspective soon. All right, let's return
Speaker 1: to the biggest breakup in Australia at the moment, the
Speaker 1: coalition breakup. Of course, we've me now hopefully to provide
Speaker 1: some insider information is National ZMP Michael McCormick. Michael, thank
Speaker 1: you for joining me. I explained to the top of
Speaker 1: the show that I think this could ultimately the best
Speaker 1: be the best thing for the coalition. Did you back
Speaker 1: this split?
Speaker 11: Well, I'm a coalitionist first and foremost, and the situation
Speaker 11: is that Party Ram has taken a decision based on
Speaker 11: what we believe is the right path for us and
Speaker 11: the Liberals to take. We put several propositions to the
Speaker 11: Liberal Party, Universal Service Obligation so more mobile coverage, more
Speaker 11: towers to vestiture hows, cheaper groceries, nuclear, more affordable reliable energy,
Speaker 11: and the Regional Australia Future Fund, which meant more infrastructure
Speaker 11: for country areas. But the Liberal Party, through Susan Lee,
Speaker 11: didn't want to sign off on those immediately. They were
Speaker 11: dying the ditch issues for the Nationals and so we've
Speaker 11: decided to take this break, hopefully only temporary, but we'll
Speaker 11: work through it. I know that David Little Prowd went
Speaker 11: to the Liberals in good faith, and I know that
Speaker 11: Susan Lee as.
Speaker 12: Well also listened.
Speaker 3: In fact, we haven't.
Speaker 12: Been able to break an arrangement and agreement this time.
Speaker 11: Doesn't mean to say that we can't get back together
Speaker 11: and continue the coalition in the future.
Speaker 1: I mean you call it a break. But if these
Speaker 1: are die in the ditch issues and the Liberal Party
Speaker 1: doesn't come to the table, does the break become a
Speaker 1: full blown break up?
Speaker 11: Well, time will tell, but I'd like to think that
Speaker 11: we can get back together. John Howard always said that
Speaker 11: the Australian nation is best serve and we've got a coalition.
Speaker 12: Liberal and Nationals in government united together.
Speaker 11: We've very much taken that sort of conciliatory and pragmatic
Speaker 11: approach to the Liberal Party. Just remembering we won all
Speaker 11: of our fifteen Lower House seats in the recent election.
Speaker 11: We transitioned three seats parks Line and indeed Hinkler in Queensland,
Speaker 11: and we retained the other twelve seats which were incumbents
Speaker 11: we're running in the Liberal Party did not do so well,
Speaker 11: and we've now for four for under four leaders, six
Speaker 11: elections in a row, retained each and every one of
Speaker 11: our House and representative seats.
Speaker 12: So other parties could learn a thing or three from the.
Speaker 11: Nationals and the way we represent our people, the way
Speaker 11: we turn up, the way we take the people's voices
Speaker 11: to Canberra, and we at the moment we will be
Speaker 11: taking a bit of a temporary break and we'll see
Speaker 11: what happens.
Speaker 1: I don't disagree with those points. I suppose the other
Speaker 1: thing though, is putting aside the policy requests that were
Speaker 1: put to the Liberal Party, the idea of not habit
Speaker 1: having cabinet solidarity. Do you think that was reasonable?
Speaker 11: Well, I've crossed the floor, across the floor and moved
Speaker 11: to disallowance on the Murray Darling basin, and I know
Speaker 11: how you get sent to Coventry for doing that. In
Speaker 11: a shadow cabinet or a cabinet, you've got to maintain
Speaker 11: that impromata of the rumor. I understand that, but on
Speaker 11: some of these issues. Will remember the wheat arrangement where
Speaker 11: the Australi and wheat marketing was ripped asunder when the
Speaker 11: Liberals sided with Labor the Liberals in opposition back in
Speaker 11: two thousand and eight. I believe it was you know,
Speaker 11: the the Nationals were given the right to veto that,
Speaker 11: and I think it was the wrong move to make
Speaker 11: at the time, and we're still seeing the effects of that.
Speaker 11: But look, if you cross the floor or if you
Speaker 11: don't agree with Labor Party policy, you get expelled from
Speaker 11: the party.
Speaker 12: At least that's not the case in the Nationals already
Speaker 12: do the Liberals.
Speaker 11: You can have different policy positions, but as a minister
Speaker 11: or a shadow minister, you are expected to essentially go
Speaker 11: with what the majority in the room goes.
Speaker 1: Just very quickly before we go. Michael, in the event
Speaker 1: that you don't get back together, how will we ever
Speaker 1: end up with a conservative government in this country again?
Speaker 12: Look, we will end up with a conservative government again.
Speaker 11: There's this labor government through the unrealized capital gains, through
Speaker 11: what they've done with the cost of living, through ignoring
Speaker 11: the needs of regional Australia where we grow all our
Speaker 11: food and fiber and all the resources of mine to
Speaker 11: help keep the lights on.
Speaker 12: They will be so bad over the next three is.
Speaker 11: If you thought they were bad in the first three
Speaker 11: years the first term, you ain't seen nothing yet. And
Speaker 11: I think what's best for Australia will be that the
Speaker 11: Liberals and Nationals we'll get together.
Speaker 12: We'll reach an agreement eventually.
Speaker 11: And we'll get back together and hopefully in twenty twenty
Speaker 11: eight we can show that we are a credible opposition
Speaker 11: and we can return to government.
Speaker 1: Well, as I said earlier, I think if it pulls
Speaker 1: the Liberal Party that isn't in the right direction, it
Speaker 1: will have been worth it. Michael McCormick, thank you for
Speaker 1: your time. So we heard what Michael thought there and
Speaker 1: his reasons for the Nationals leaving the Liberals, but joining
Speaker 1: me on the desk now the Daily Telegraph, James willis,
Speaker 1: what do you make of what Michael says there? That
Speaker 1: you know this is a grab bag of policies that
Speaker 1: the Liberal Party have to accede too. There's no ifs
Speaker 1: or butts about it. The Liberal Party would say to that, well,
Speaker 1: we have seen very clearly that everything is on the
Speaker 1: table and we are going to review absolutely everything. We
Speaker 1: haven't had time to come to that position yet.
Speaker 15: Well, calib I think Michael's middle answer, and he's not
Speaker 15: the first National MP to make this point.
Speaker 9: In the last few.
Speaker 15: Days or since the election whitewash. The National Party vote
Speaker 15: and the number of seats that they have won has
Speaker 15: held up at the last three or four elections. So
Speaker 15: if you strip this back and you took away some
Speaker 15: of the political rumor in innuendo and the future of
Speaker 15: a Conservative government. If you had two companies that were
Speaker 15: involved in a long time agreement and they suffered a
Speaker 15: disaster like this and one company was to blame, the
Speaker 15: other company would be doing everything possible for its own
Speaker 15: shareholders to move away from that company and focus on
Speaker 15: the issues that matter. And I think the Nationals, despite
Speaker 15: being small and never being able to hold power themselves.
Speaker 15: I don't think there's any doubt that the majority of
Speaker 15: them stand for the same stuff. They stick up for
Speaker 15: the Bush. They believe in nuclear power, they're going to
Speaker 15: push forward with that, whereas the Liberal Party at this
Speaker 15: point in time have got to sort their own backyard
Speaker 15: out before they even look at taking you on labor.
Speaker 15: And the big issue with the Liberal Party is whether
Speaker 15: we go in the moderate direction, whether we try.
Speaker 9: And figure out with this broad churches.
Speaker 15: But clearly in the lead up to the poll there
Speaker 15: were moderates that weren't happy with the direction Peter Dutton
Speaker 15: was taking. I get the feeling that's why he kept
Speaker 15: the party room sometimes out of some of these policy issues,
Speaker 15: because you had a divided party there.
Speaker 9: You can't say the same for the Nationals.
Speaker 15: So at this point in time, I think it's in
Speaker 15: the National's best interest to run their own race.
Speaker 9: Keep nuclear on the agenda.
Speaker 15: The other two policies you mentioned the sound like common
Speaker 15: sense to me when you talk about national communications coverage
Speaker 15: for telephone towers and all that sort of thing, cheaper groceries.
Speaker 9: Look, let the Liberal already sorted out.
Speaker 15: The Nationals can run their own race and let's see
Speaker 15: what happens and they will get back together. But for
Speaker 15: now I think that's a good call.
Speaker 1: It's hard to see a world in which they don't
Speaker 1: get back together, because of course the Liberals will want
Speaker 1: to form government again one day and the Nationals want
Speaker 1: to get in on the game, so as if they're
Speaker 1: not going to get back together. But the game they
Speaker 1: are playing here is to drag the liberal in the
Speaker 1: Liberal Party in the direction they want them to go,
Speaker 1: so potentially to drop knits zero and to definitely back
Speaker 1: in nuclear because these are serious differences that you create
Speaker 1: with the Labor government, and that was one of the
Speaker 1: major problems with Peter Dutton and the opposition he led
Speaker 1: is that you know, particularly through the campaign, I mean,
Speaker 1: Labor put their hand ups, will spend eight billion dollars
Speaker 1: over here, and then Peter Dutton put his air apples,
Speaker 1: it will step to spend eight billion over here. The
Speaker 1: differences were not stack So why would you go with
Speaker 1: just a slightly different looking version of what you've already got?
Speaker 1: And many would say, including within the Liberal Party, that
Speaker 1: you know the Teals are doing all right, come to
Speaker 1: that in a minute. So we've got to go more
Speaker 1: in that teal direction. If you go in that teal direction,
Speaker 1: look at the seats the Liberal Party lost at this
Speaker 1: election out of suburban seats. You're not going to win
Speaker 1: the outer suburbs back by going tea.
Speaker 15: Well, that's right, and there were some Liberals today making
Speaker 15: the point to our Canbra correspondents, Oh, we might do
Speaker 15: better in the teal seats if we don't have the
Speaker 15: Nationals involved, just sort of you know, spitballing. I mean,
Speaker 15: if anyone seriously thinks that that should be the priority.
Speaker 15: Six or seven seats and one hundred and fifty seed
Speaker 15: parliament is madness. If the Liberal Party is faired income
Speaker 15: and they believe, and they figure out what they can
Speaker 15: stand for with the Nationals help, they can win government
Speaker 15: back without some of these teal seats which might have
Speaker 15: flipped forever. On the other point you made, I think
Speaker 15: it's refreshing and for people that voted for the Nationals
Speaker 15: or people that are watching us in the bush. For
Speaker 15: a long time, the Nationals were accused under separate leaders
Speaker 15: of just falling over to the Liberal leader of the day.
Speaker 15: So if they're going to use this as a bit
Speaker 15: of a power struggle to take back some control refreshing take.
Speaker 15: I think David Little Proud has handled this well well
Speaker 15: and it's shown that the decision to back him in
Speaker 15: his leader was the right one. Matt Canavan's backed him
Speaker 15: in today as well, So we'll have to wait and see.
Speaker 15: But for the meantime, I think the Nats go okay,
Speaker 15: we've got our House and order, we've got our policies.
Speaker 15: We're going to focus on these. The Libs can figure
Speaker 15: out what they stand for. They're a long way behind.
Speaker 15: We do need them one day, but you want them
Speaker 15: when they're in a position to win back government, not
Speaker 15: at the moment they are a rabbel.
Speaker 1: Very quickly before we go. Bradfield forty votes in it.
Speaker 1: Of course in City could fall to the Tea Nicolette Buller.
Speaker 1: This will be an interesting fart on the recap well,
Speaker 1: and it's.
Speaker 15: Another Liberal blow because Bradfield has always been held by
Speaker 15: the Liberal Party, Paul Fletcher's longtime seat. The preferences and
Speaker 15: I found this interesting. But every seat is going through
Speaker 15: the final preference count this week. If it's under one
Speaker 15: hundred votes, which it's likely to be, then there will
Speaker 15: be an automatic recount and we won't know the result
Speaker 15: for weeks, but at this stage nicolete Bowell is in
Speaker 15: the lead.
Speaker 1: James willis, thank you so much for nicking, ma'am. Coming
Speaker 1: up after the break, be hasu kis Darma betrayed his
Speaker 1: voters by doing an economic deal with Europe and what
Speaker 1: will that mean for reform UK of course garning to
Speaker 1: take over from the Tories. Brendan O'Neill will join me
Speaker 1: later to discuss that. Plus is the end of the
Speaker 1: Ukraine Russia war near? Well? Trump seems to think so.
Speaker 1: Malcolm Davis will weigh in after this break. Thank you
Speaker 1: for bearing with us through some technical difficulties. I didn't
Speaker 1: actually go all staticy in real life, but personally I
Speaker 1: think it's the best I've looked on TV in a
Speaker 1: long time. It really smooths out all those cranks and crevices. Now,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump has confirmed that Russia and Ukraine will start
Speaker 1: peace negotiations. At a press conference, he said there was
Speaker 1: a long way to go still.
Speaker 9: Big egos involved.
Speaker 7: I'd tell you big egos involved.
Speaker 8: But I think something's going to happen, and if it doesn't,
Speaker 8: I just back away and they're going to have to
Speaker 8: keep going.
Speaker 1: This was Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 16: We have agreed with the President of the United States
Speaker 16: that Russia will propose and is ready to work with
Speaker 16: the Ukrainian side on a memorandum on a possible future
Speaker 16: peace of court, defining a number of positions such as,
Speaker 16: for example, the principles of settlements, the timing of a
Speaker 16: possible peace agreement.
Speaker 1: Australian Strategic Policy Institute senior analyst Malcolm Davis joins me, Now, Malcolm,
Speaker 1: is this a breakthrough or not.
Speaker 3: It's definitely not a breakthrough. Okay.
Speaker 17: What we have seen here is Putin exploiting Trump, playing
Speaker 17: Trump for a full and basically delaying once again, any
Speaker 17: serious effort towards peace.
Speaker 3: So he can continue the war. So there's no breakthrough here.
Speaker 1: How long does this go on for? Right, Because they've
Speaker 1: been going backwards and thoughts backwards and forts nothing is changing.
Speaker 1: Trump says we have a breakthrough. Putin then sort of
Speaker 1: walks away and goes, ah, well, you know, we'll have
Speaker 1: some peace talks, but not really, they're not actually getting anywhere.
Speaker 1: Does anything ever change?
Speaker 17: Look, I think Putin's strategy is to essentially outlast Trump's
Speaker 17: patience and resolve so that in the end goes tired
Speaker 17: of it all and just walks away from negotiations, basically
Speaker 17: walks away from supporting Ukraine, and that leaves Russia an
Speaker 17: advantageous position on the battlefield that they then allow themselves
Speaker 17: to make significant advances and ultimately achieve victory on the
Speaker 17: battlefield Trump. So Putin sorry thinks that he can actually
Speaker 17: win militarily, but he's counting on Trump and the Trump
Speaker 17: administration to lose interest and give up on supporting Ukraine.
Speaker 17: That's critical for Putin's theory of victory, and I think
Speaker 17: if we want to stop the Russians from achieving that outcome,
Speaker 17: then the US and as allies have to continue to
Speaker 17: stick with Ukraine and continue to support them at all costs.
Speaker 1: Trump obviously has staked a lot, and he was very
Speaker 1: clear when he was running for president's second time around
Speaker 1: it he wanted to achieve international peace and he made
Speaker 1: promises about getting things done within twenty four hours. We
Speaker 1: know that hasn't happened, and we know it hasn't been
Speaker 1: achieved in Israel yet either, but he staked a lot
Speaker 1: on this. So do you think he would actually walk away?
Speaker 3: I think eventually he would.
Speaker 17: There are forces within the Trump administration that don't want
Speaker 17: to support Ukraine, and certainly some of the language that
Speaker 17: Trump has used does raise questions about his genuine.
Speaker 3: Willingness to support Ukraine.
Speaker 17: At the end of the day, I think what Trump
Speaker 17: sees in this situation is transactional opportunities to do a
Speaker 17: deal with Putin that maybe disadvantages Ukraine and disadvantages Europe,
Speaker 17: but benefits the United States and benefits Russia. And I
Speaker 17: think that has to be the big concern because Ukraine
Speaker 17: is merely the opening act for a wider war between
Speaker 17: Russia and Europe that is brewing in the background and
Speaker 17: potentially some years off. And I think Putin's long term
Speaker 17: aim is not just about Ukraine. It's about dictating the
Speaker 17: terms of NATO's capitulation to Russia. And that Trump is
Speaker 17: playing into Putin's trap here by essentially being ready to
Speaker 17: walk away from the crisis rather than sticking by Ukraine
Speaker 17: and sticking with Europe and supporting them to deter Russia
Speaker 17: from engaging in future aggression.
Speaker 1: Well, Putin talks about in order to end all of this,
Speaker 1: they have to eliminate the quote unquote root causes of
Speaker 1: the war and create a memorandum of a possible future
Speaker 1: peace agreement, which is all a bit wishy wash. It
Speaker 1: doesn't exactly fill you with hope. But when he says,
Speaker 1: you know, eliminate the root causes, well, what are the
Speaker 1: root causes that he sees?
Speaker 17: From Putin's perspective the elimination of Ukraine as a sovereign
Speaker 17: nation state. Essentially, what he wants is to destroy Ukraine
Speaker 17: as a sovereign nation state, remove the Ukrainian government, impose
Speaker 17: a Russian public government on the Ukrainian people, and enslave
Speaker 17: the Ukrainian people under Russian occupation. That's his definition of
Speaker 17: eliminating the root causes of the problem, because really Putin
Speaker 17: has created the problem here. Putin invaded Ukraine first in
Speaker 17: twenty fourteen when he sees Crimea with the Little Green Men,
Speaker 17: and then in twenty twenty two with the main invasion
Speaker 17: that is still underway today. What he wants to do
Speaker 17: initially is capture those four territories that he partially controls
Speaker 17: at the moment, but capture the men entirety, and then
Speaker 17: expand his control across Ukraine itself to ultimately take Kiev.
Speaker 17: And I think that there's no intention whatsoever on Putin's
Speaker 17: part to seek a justin fair peace.
Speaker 1: You talk about Putin feeling like he could win this
Speaker 1: war militarily. Obviously, to this point that hasn't been possible
Speaker 1: because Ukraine has been continually armed to fight them off.
Speaker 9: But we know.
Speaker 1: About the relationship, the building relationship between China and Russia.
Speaker 1: How real is the concern that China could get involved
Speaker 1: in conflict.
Speaker 17: Well, look, there's already been some suggestion that there are
Speaker 17: Chinese troops involved in the fighting as volunteers, and maybe
Speaker 17: the PLA has actually dispatched observers to the rare areas
Speaker 17: to watch how the Russians carry out operations and learn
Speaker 17: from that. I think the Chinese government has already involved
Speaker 17: to a degree in terms of supplying militarily relevant technologies
Speaker 17: to Russia that allow them to develop new military capabilities.
Speaker 17: At a strategic level, China is also assisting Russia to
Speaker 17: circumvent sanctions imposed by the West. It's one of the
Speaker 17: reasons why the sanctions that have been laid against Russia
Speaker 17: haven't been that effective. That's allowed Russia to reorient its
Speaker 17: economy into a wartime mode and thus, as a result,
Speaker 17: being a much better position to sustain the Ukraine.
Speaker 3: War effort and build up for a wider war against NATO.
Speaker 17: So I do think that China is involved in this
Speaker 17: across different levels, but in terms of an actual direct
Speaker 17: combat role on a large scale, I think we're probably
Speaker 17: not there yet.
Speaker 1: I want to return to the news yesterday that the
Speaker 1: European Union and our keen to strike a new defense
Speaker 1: deal with Australia. Obviously, Anthony ALBINIZI going over to meet
Speaker 1: the Pope, has had these discussions with Ursula von de
Speaker 1: Lay and she seems keen to do something. They've done
Speaker 1: a few deals like this of late. What would you
Speaker 1: be expecting of us?
Speaker 17: Look, I think that this is a mutually beneficial opportunity.
Speaker 17: From Europe's perspective. They want to maintain influence in the
Speaker 17: Indo Pacific because they don't just face an aggressive expansion
Speaker 17: as Russia. They also face a rising China that is
Speaker 17: backing Russia but also seeking to impose its own interests
Speaker 17: on European security, and so having allies and partners in
Speaker 17: the Indo Pacific makes eminent sense for Brussels in the
Speaker 17: sense that they can then have greater ability to work
Speaker 17: with the likes of Australia or New Zealand or Japan
Speaker 17: or other to actually deter and counter China and prevent
Speaker 17: them from imposing its will on Europe. And certainly from
Speaker 17: our perspective, we could gain a lot by having a
Speaker 17: stronger relationship with Europe as well in terms of defense,
Speaker 17: industry cooperation and capability development.
Speaker 1: Well, I was going to say just quickly, Michael, I mean,
Speaker 1: we need it as much as they do, right because
Speaker 1: we can't counter China in the Pacific on our own either.
Speaker 3: We can't.
Speaker 17: I mean, obviously, we still have a vital and important
Speaker 17: strategic alliance with the United States. I don't see that
Speaker 17: going away, irrespective of concerns about President Trump. But in
Speaker 17: this strategic environment of essentially being in a pre war period,
Speaker 17: you can never have too many friends, and so I
Speaker 17: think it makes sense for us to pursue this closer
Speaker 17: defense relationship with Europe as well as strengthening our relationship
Speaker 17: with the United States.
Speaker 1: Malcolm Davis, thank you so much for your time. As always. Now, look,
Speaker 1: obviously we spent a lot of time talking about what's
Speaker 1: happening in Australian politics, and there's certainly been plenty to
Speaker 1: talk about today. But let's have a look over the
Speaker 1: ditch for a moment. There's a documentary being released in
Speaker 1: the US next month called Prime Minister. It's about Cinder
Speaker 1: Ardune's time as peame of New Zealand and it's largely
Speaker 1: based on videos her husband took while she was in
Speaker 1: the job. Now it premiated at the Sundance Film Festival
Speaker 1: in January, it's about to be released publicly. Take a
Speaker 1: look at some of the trailer.
Speaker 6: I was fourteen years old when someone first used the term.
Speaker 7: Imposter syndrome, and it was just like something clipped. It
Speaker 7: just had a bit of a fear that I shouldn't
Speaker 7: be there.
Speaker 18: It's hard to switch on the news some days and
Speaker 18: just think the world is a dumpster fire.
Speaker 7: How do we shine a light on the humanity?
Speaker 9: I know it's simbair.
Speaker 18: You can be anxious, sensitive kind, you can be a mother,
Speaker 18: a nerd, a crier, you can be all pass and
Speaker 18: literally just like me.
Speaker 1: Oh, isn't it just so touching? And you can see
Speaker 1: that the Sydney Film Festival coming up too. I really
Speaker 1: don't understand the international fating of Ardun, particularly given her
Speaker 1: approval rating was twenty nine percent after five years as PM.
Speaker 1: She wasn't the Messiah at home like she seemed to
Speaker 1: be overseas now. This thing has a rating of ninety
Speaker 1: four percent on Rotten Tomatoes from film critics. I don't
Speaker 1: know about you. It seems pretty insufferable to me. But
Speaker 1: something a bit better from Kiwee politics though. He's Deputy
Speaker 1: Prime Minister Winston Peters taking on a heckler this morning.
Speaker 3: Why don't you nap off? Look at you?
Speaker 1: Years old now wants to see you.
Speaker 3: You look, you look mate?
Speaker 1: Jong getting out of here, get out good last and
Speaker 1: don't bloody get last leave? You're married?
Speaker 7: You many Yeah, you're feeling Marina well that men here
Speaker 7: if you want to okay, thanks guys.
Speaker 3: Ah do you swear as well?
Speaker 1: Mate? I mean, why can't we get a bit more
Speaker 1: of that? Winston Peters is eighty, as it's noted in
Speaker 1: that video, and he's still got plenty of fire in
Speaker 1: the belly. I know someone who wouldn't take a heckler
Speaker 1: lying down, someone who does have a lot of fire
Speaker 1: in the belly, and that is, of course, Paul Murray.
Speaker 1: Here is