Speaker 1: Live on Sky News This is Sharry.
Speaker 2: Good Evening massive show. Tonight, former Prime Minister Scott Morrison
Speaker 2: hits back against claims Peter Dutton is divisive and racist.
Speaker 2: In his exclusive interview, Morrison also says bringing in Hermas
Speaker 2: supporters would be like giving visas to Nazis?
Speaker 3: Would we allow you know, those who'd supported the stalin
Speaker 3: As purges and had sympathies with Nazism And people go,
Speaker 3: that's outrageous.
Speaker 1: You can't draw that parallel. I can.
Speaker 2: October seven and he doesn't hold back that sensational interview
Speaker 2: in a moment. Also tonight, joining me live in the
Speaker 2: studio is Hollywood star Nate Buzz. He's been shunned by
Speaker 2: actors from his own show because of his support for Israel.
Speaker 2: Those behind the sceneans coming up, plus fashion designer Mark
Speaker 2: Freeman will be here to speak about the campaign to
Speaker 2: find a cure for ovarian cancer and our favorite of
Speaker 2: Feisty Tuesday regulars Bronwan Bishop and calebont. But first Tonight,
Speaker 2: Treasurer Jim Chalmers has joined the Labour campaign in calling
Speaker 2: Peter Dutton divisive with invective that indicates a level of
Speaker 2: personal animosity. The Treasurer said Dutton was the most divisive
Speaker 2: political leader in living memory.
Speaker 4: He is the most divisive leader of a major political
Speaker 4: party in Australia's modern.
Speaker 5: History, and not by accident, but by a choice.
Speaker 4: He divides deliberately, almost.
Speaker 5: Pathologically, particularly and this is worse than disappointing, it's dangerous.
Speaker 6: Well.
Speaker 2: His comments are part of Labour's campaign to portray Dutton
Speaker 2: as divisive for expressing serious concern about the issuing of
Speaker 2: visitor visas to a terrorist controlled war zone. The Prime
Speaker 2: Minister Anthony Alberenzi backed in Charmer's attack on Dutton today.
Speaker 7: Preda Dutton has promoted division his entire political career. He
Speaker 7: always looks for what will divide Australians rather than what
Speaker 7: will bring Australians together.
Speaker 2: The Australian's Political editor, Simon Benson says that having lost
Speaker 2: control of the political agenda, Albanesi has leant back on
Speaker 2: the sid of personality politics that arose from the activist's
Speaker 2: handbook and how to win an argument after you've already
Speaker 2: lost it. Benson writes that when the substance of a
Speaker 2: debate isn't going your way, attack the opponent rather than
Speaker 2: the issue, but This is vintage Albanesi, he writes, and
Speaker 2: he used it to devastating effect against Scott Morrison. By
Speaker 2: the time Morrison caught on and tried to counter the
Speaker 2: damage was already done. Albanezy appears to be convinced that
Speaker 2: he can rerun the last election using the same tactical
Speaker 2: weapon against Dutton. And this is the very point I
Speaker 2: discussed in my interview with Scott Morrison today. Do you
Speaker 2: think the public will see through this or do you
Speaker 2: think this is quite an effective technique to paint him
Speaker 2: as divisive?
Speaker 1: Well, it's pretty effective in the past.
Speaker 3: I can say from personal experience that is usually at
Speaker 3: a mission that you can't hold the argument on the
Speaker 3: policy issue you.
Speaker 1: This happens a lot more than it used to.
Speaker 3: I don't think it's a good thing, and I get
Speaker 3: disappointed when I see those who can't match it on
Speaker 3: the policy.
Speaker 1: Argument just go the lazy route. And that's what it is.
Speaker 3: It's intellectually lazily, it's politically lazy.
Speaker 2: And my full exclusive interview coming up shortly. But as
Speaker 2: Scott Morrison points out, the tactic of personality politics is
Speaker 2: used when they can't respond to serious policy questions, When
Speaker 2: all else fails play the man and not the ball. Well,
Speaker 2: here was the Prime Minister well when he was Opposition
Speaker 2: leader attacking Scott Morrison personally ahead of the twenty twenty
Speaker 2: two election.
Speaker 7: That is his way, that's his character. Whenever Australia needs
Speaker 7: a solution, he offers only smirk and mirrors. The Prime
Speaker 7: Minister never bothers Toliver up to his job titles. Is
Speaker 7: there any issue in which Scott Morrison doesn't blame someone else?
Speaker 2: And Morrison argues this says more about labor than it
Speaker 2: does about him or Peter Dutton. As you heard he
Speaker 2: called it intellectually and politically lazy. Now Scott Morrison is
Speaker 2: the second former Prime minister to come out today to
Speaker 2: say how ludicrous it is that Gaza visas can be
Speaker 2: issued to Hermas support former Prime Minister John Howard Todd
Speaker 2: Greg Sheridan. Where you've got a body that's a declared
Speaker 2: terrorist organization, I don't think for a moment that someone
Speaker 2: who has declared support for that organization should come to Australia.
Speaker 2: The majority of Australians would feel that a lot of
Speaker 2: people want to come and live in Australia. And why not.
Speaker 2: You've won life's lottery if you come here, So why
Speaker 2: let these people in if they're spooking for a declared
Speaker 2: terrorist organization. Now, on the substance of this particular argument
Speaker 2: that guards and visas were issued without proper security vetting
Speaker 2: or in some cases any security vetting, Dutton is right
Speaker 2: and Australians are with him. It must have painted the
Speaker 2: Guardian to publish this story today, where their own poll
Speaker 2: found that more Australians agree with Dutton's visa pause for
Speaker 2: gardens that oppose it. The Guardian Essentral shows that forty
Speaker 2: four percent agree with Dutton's call for a pause, twenty
Speaker 2: six percent are undecided, and only thirty percent oppose it.
Speaker 2: The poll was conducted to the end of two weeks
Speaker 2: in Parliament spent debating the issue. In a sign of
Speaker 2: no confidence in the Prime minister, fifty two percent of
Speaker 2: voters said Australia was heading down the wrong track, and
Speaker 2: the Prime Minister's own approval rating has hit a new
Speaker 2: low of minus ten. Now, Peter Dutton, despite the attacks
Speaker 2: from Labor, he knows he's on strong ground fighting Labor
Speaker 2: on national security and the economy. The perception is cementing
Speaker 2: that Albineazy has mishandled both issues, and while Labour paints
Speaker 2: Dutton as divisive, it's becoming very clear to voters that
Speaker 2: they were misled into electing the most radical left prime
Speaker 2: minister disguised as a centrist. It's ironic that Labor accuses
Speaker 2: Dutton of being divisive because Alban Easy is literally dividing
Speaker 2: the country by failing to stand up to hatred, aggression
Speaker 2: and lawlessness. The country has never been more socially divided,
Speaker 2: Racism has never been more prolific, and it's all under
Speaker 2: his watch. Okay, that powerful Scott Morrison interview is coming
Speaker 2: up in a moment just after our political panel, and
Speaker 2: he doesn't miss. But let's bring in now former Speaker
Speaker 2: of the House Bronwin Bishop and Sky News host Caleb Bond.
Speaker 2: Great to see you both. Look, I want to talk
Speaker 2: about this one billion dollar mine that Tanya Pliberset killed off.
Speaker 2: The Prime Minister seems to be engaging in an acrobatic
Speaker 2: twist to try spin his way out of Plebis's decision
Speaker 2: to kill off the gold mine. Here was Albin Easy today.
Speaker 7: Chris Mins would like it to go ahead. I'd like
Speaker 7: to go ahead too, to stop it. There are other
Speaker 7: options that the company put forward on the tailing step.
Speaker 2: Nothing to stop it. Only his own government and even
Speaker 2: the Chris Min's government is laying the blame squarely on
Speaker 2: Albanezi's team. New South Wales Natural Resources Minister Courtney Husos
Speaker 2: met with the mining company Regius Resources today and she
Speaker 2: confirmed that the state government had and I quote expected
Speaker 2: the project to go ahead and is disappointed at the
Speaker 2: federal government's decision to issue a Section ten declaration. Bronwin,
Speaker 2: what is it about albit easy that he tried to
Speaker 2: spin his way out of the actual fact that his
Speaker 2: own government has stopped this mind from going ahead at present?
Speaker 6: Of course he's not very bright. I mean, the bottom
Speaker 6: line is that this particular project had ticked every box
Speaker 6: that it needed to do. So it is wrong to
Speaker 6: my mind that the power lies with the single person,
Speaker 6: the Minister, to be able to deny that project going ahead.
Speaker 6: Now all that legislation, there's no head of power that
Speaker 6: allows the minister to do that in the Constitution and
Speaker 6: basically they will rely on the treaty making power and
Speaker 6: some connection to a treaty they've made somewhere along the line.
Speaker 6: It gives her the power to make a regulation to
Speaker 6: destroy it, and in my mind that should not be permitted.
Speaker 2: That is bad lawmaking.
Speaker 6: So I think there's some fundamental changes needs to be
Speaker 6: made to the principal legislation that she's overseeing for starters,
Speaker 6: and I think that she should be made to literally
Speaker 6: recant because this business of someone whispered something in my ear.
Speaker 6: And then Albani she says, oh, I'm not stopping the mind.
Speaker 6: He put the tailing down somewhere else. And she comes
Speaker 6: out and says, well, the person who whispered in my
Speaker 6: ear said that the spirits are now telling me.
Speaker 2: She's glad the mind is closing.
Speaker 6: I mean, the whole thing is an absolute nonsense and
Speaker 6: an insult to the average Australians intellect. But that law,
Speaker 6: that basic legislation needs changing and BLIBOCT has to be
Speaker 6: held up to account. She's tried to save her own
Speaker 6: seat from a incursion from the Greens.
Speaker 2: Say look at me, I stopped her mind.
Speaker 1: What do you do?
Speaker 2: Politics is behind so much of what we're seeing going on.
Speaker 2: But Caleb, I want to know, do you think there
Speaker 2: are other avenues now for Regius Resources to go ahead
Speaker 2: with this mine? And also what's your view on that
Speaker 2: level of spinnight. I just think it's breathtaking that the
Speaker 2: Prime Minister can stand up there in front of the
Speaker 2: media and give an answer that seems to indicate he
Speaker 2: had nothing to do with this, his own government had
Speaker 2: nothing to do with this.
Speaker 8: Well, the Prime Minister has now made it clear that
Speaker 8: there is an avenue for this mind to go ahead. Now,
Speaker 8: whether or not he's spoken to Tenure Blibersk before making
Speaker 8: that public announcement, I don't know. And to come out
Speaker 8: and say, look, you know I supported, I supported as
Speaker 8: though we're the decision of his government to block it.
Speaker 8: I'm surprised you didn't blame Peter Dutton. That's genuinely what
Speaker 8: they have done. We'll show you with everything else it
Speaker 8: has gone wrong within his government, particularly when it's come
Speaker 8: to borders and people being let out of immigration detention, etc.
Speaker 8: But for these decisions sorry, that was made by Tenia
Speaker 8: Plibersik at the last moment, was on the basis that
Speaker 8: there was an Aboriginal heritage problem and therefore the project
Speaker 8: could not go ahead. The Prime Minister now says, well,
Speaker 8: there are other places where that that damn can go.
Speaker 1: There is a solution to this problem.
Speaker 8: That being the case, why did Plibisek as the minister,
Speaker 8: not go to the developer and say, look, I have
Speaker 8: concerns about where you want to do this bit. Why
Speaker 8: don't we put it over here? Do you have alternatives?
Speaker 8: The Prime Minister says today that there are alternatives that
Speaker 8: Regis has put forward alternatives. Well, why was that not
Speaker 8: taken into account in the first place? He is walking
Speaker 8: backward one hundred miles an hour because he knows how
Speaker 8: bad it looks. And in the meantime Plibersek has refused
Speaker 8: to front up to the locals and explain her decision.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's a mess. You just get the very
Speaker 2: strong set that he doesn't know what each of his
Speaker 2: ministers are doing. He's not across the detail until it's
Speaker 2: too late. Suddenly there's a crisis, and then he says, oh,
Speaker 2: what's going on here, let's walk it back. But you
Speaker 2: really get the sense that, unlike other prime ministers, he's
Speaker 2: just not across the detail in each of the different
Speaker 2: ministerial portfolios. Now, I spoke last night about the right
Speaker 2: to disconnect laws that came into effect yesterday. I spoke
Speaker 2: about how they work against flexible working arrangements, particularly for parents. Now,
Speaker 2: our regular panelist Andrew Carswell has today written an article
Speaker 2: in The Nightly and he says the government says these
Speaker 2: laws are progressive, when in fact they are a throwback
Speaker 2: to the bygone era when mobile phones and email didn't exist,
Speaker 2: when we all punched our time cards into a physical machine.
Speaker 2: Mutual flexibility is progressive, not rigid rules around nine to
Speaker 2: five as wined by Dolly Parton, you know, forty four
Speaker 2: years ago, Brugnan. I'm not to ask you to sing
Speaker 2: that song. I love that song. I'm not working nine
Speaker 2: to five, but you know, surely flexible working arrangements are
Speaker 2: a two way street, and employers can't expect to have
Speaker 2: time off if they're not going to then respond later.
Speaker 6: Flexibility and agreement between employer and employee was the fundamental
Speaker 6: principle that all the reforms about industrial relations were done
Speaker 6: under the hard government that brought in flexibility, that allowed
Speaker 6: particularly women to have ours that could suit them. They
Speaker 6: come to an agreement, and this concept of nine to
Speaker 6: five is just antiquated. It belongs in the public service.
Speaker 6: Where my memory serves me, I think it was actually
Speaker 6: nine to nine minutes to five. It was very precise,
Speaker 6: so it is it's an idea that came out of
Speaker 6: the European Union. This government hasn't gotten original thoughtness. It
Speaker 6: picks it up from somebody else and it was suddenly
Speaker 6: picked up and added in to that last tranch that
Speaker 6: Burke falls through, and it came into effect on the
Speaker 6: twenty sixth of August. There are seven pages, as Andrew
Speaker 6: Carswell pointed out, about what is the definition of a
Speaker 6: reasonable or unreasonable attempt to contact.
Speaker 2: Using for bus.
Speaker 6: So we will have no idea what it means until
Speaker 6: there's a body of case law.
Speaker 2: I mean, what are you going to do? Oh, let
Speaker 2: me look read through those seven pages to find out
Speaker 2: if I can send this email with a question, because
Speaker 2: that's five minutes past six. Kale can't.
Speaker 6: But you can't. You won't get an answer by reading
Speaker 6: the seven pages. You have to have the Fair Work
Speaker 6: Commission interpret the seven pages in order to know that
Speaker 6: this is what they will decide is a reasonable thing
Speaker 6: to do. So there are going to be people who
Speaker 6: are going to be in no man's land for a
Speaker 6: long time.
Speaker 2: Now. I have a lot of friends who are similar
Speaker 2: age to me, who have children in a lot of
Speaker 2: different professions and they work, they go do school pickup,
Speaker 2: and then they log back on at night when their
Speaker 2: kids are asleep. Especially lawyers people like that, and they
Speaker 2: do a lot of work at night. This works against
Speaker 2: that these laws are aggressive.
Speaker 8: Well, it's essentially a solution in search of a problem, right.
Speaker 8: I mean this for the vast majority of people is
Speaker 8: not a problem. And if your boss is contacting you
Speaker 8: incessantly outside of work hours, we have a great job
Speaker 8: market at the moment. You can pack up and go elsewhere.
Speaker 8: Boss who operates like that will not keep staff and
Speaker 8: will not remain in business. It is as simple as that.
Speaker 8: If you want to work in a job where you're
Speaker 8: not going to be contacted outside of your normal working hours,
Speaker 8: will get.
Speaker 2: A different job.
Speaker 8: I mean, you and I have worked in journalism, our
Speaker 8: entire working lives broad when in politics, right, and their
Speaker 8: jobs where you're going to be contacted at all hours.
Speaker 8: I know that the chief of staff might call me
Speaker 8: at eight pm and ask me a question on deadline
Speaker 8: before the paper goes out.
Speaker 2: Well, that's just part of the deal.
Speaker 8: That's what was on cadet wages for him AND's sake.
Speaker 2: That's not even after hours for you now after hours,
Speaker 2: right in the morning.
Speaker 6: After you if you're a trade union leader, you can
Speaker 6: bring up any time.
Speaker 2: Is there a carvat?
Speaker 6: Oh yeah, they will be able to bring up and
Speaker 6: say you get out there and on stroke of course.
Speaker 2: All right, brom and Bishop Calebon, thank you both so
Speaker 2: much now. Anthony Alberanezi pledged a new tone in politics
Speaker 2: when he became Prime minister, yet his government has launched
Speaker 2: a series of personal attacks against Peter Dutton, with a
Speaker 2: treasurer last night accusing him of being the most divisive
Speaker 2: political leader in modern history. I sat down with former
Speaker 2: Prime Minister Scott Morrison today. He says Labour's using the
Speaker 2: same tactics against Dutton that they did against him in
Speaker 2: the lead up to the last election. Morrison wasn't keen
Speaker 2: to speak about domestic policy, but he did give very
Speaker 2: strong views on the Palestinian visa saga that's dominated Canbra.
Speaker 2: I also asked him about Donald Trump, Kamala, Harris, Orcus
Speaker 2: and Moore. Scott Morrison, great to see you again.
Speaker 1: Hi, Charry.
Speaker 2: The Teals have accused Peter Dutton of racism for saying
Speaker 2: that we should stop or at least pause the intake
Speaker 2: of Palestinians coming from a terrorist controlled region in Gaza.
Speaker 2: Is this racism?
Speaker 3: Of course not, and it's an absurd and lazy and appalling.
Speaker 1: Slur that they have made.
Speaker 3: I mean, Peter and I both dealt with this during
Speaker 3: the course of the previous government. If someone doesn't agree
Speaker 3: with your border protection and immigration policies, they just call
Speaker 3: you a racist and unable to address what are the
Speaker 3: substantive policy issues that are occurring. You know, when you're
Speaker 3: an immigration minister, you wear those security responsibilities very heavily
Speaker 3: and you consider carefully what the implications might be for
Speaker 3: the decisions that you take. You seek to balance your
Speaker 3: program in a way that can commitigate risks, and to
Speaker 3: be blind to risks, as some of Peter's critics seem
Speaker 3: happy to be, I think is foolish and dangerous. I
Speaker 3: think Peter has spoken out in the national interest, in
Speaker 3: the national security interest. It's not a one size fits
Speaker 3: all policy. You need to be cognizant of blatant risks
Speaker 3: that are there, and you need to adjust your policy,
Speaker 3: as we did when we're in government successfully.
Speaker 1: Where the need arises. It's a very dangerous world.
Speaker 3: It can't be you can't run an immigration policy on
Speaker 3: the vibe.
Speaker 1: You've got to do it on the basis.
Speaker 3: Of considered national interests and security interests considerations.
Speaker 1: I mean today it is.
Speaker 3: Three years since the evacuation of Carble. We believed we
Speaker 3: were going to have to evacuate some nine hundred people
Speaker 3: and over the course of ten days it proved to
Speaker 3: be four thousand. It was one of the biggest challenges
Speaker 3: we faced at that time. But even then we had
Speaker 3: immigration officers on the tarmac there in Carble being very
Speaker 3: mindful of who we were letting on the plane, and.
Speaker 2: We don't have that presence in Gaza. Well Tony Burker
Speaker 2: said in Parliament there are no face to face interviews occurring.
Speaker 3: It was one of the really challenging issues when it
Speaker 3: came to getting Afghan interpreters and others out of Afghanistan, because.
Speaker 1: You still had to follow the process and we.
Speaker 3: Were seeking to do that now on those last days,
Speaker 3: obviously we operated in a more accelerated environment, but I
Speaker 3: can assure you we were still seeking to apply all
Speaker 3: the checks we possibly could in such an urgent circumstance
Speaker 3: and without.
Speaker 2: That level of security. Vettic face to face interviews and
Speaker 2: the FARO background checks. Should people from a terrorist controlled
Speaker 2: warzone be coming to Australia on visas right now, you
Speaker 2: have to have.
Speaker 3: The checks and processes, of course, I mean that is
Speaker 3: a necessary step, even if someone is I mean, you'll
Speaker 3: often have the case when someone is already here for
Speaker 3: other reasons and has come under a legitimate visa and
Speaker 3: cannot return to their home country. Now they will often
Speaker 3: be put on bridging visas or things of that nature
Speaker 3: while their humanitarian visa application is considered. But that's a
Speaker 3: proper process. Now, true, that can take some time. But
Speaker 3: in terms of allowing many others to come, particularly on
Speaker 3: visitor visas in those circumstances, particularly from a country that
Speaker 3: you'd have to I should say, from a place that
Speaker 3: you'd have to consider high risk. I mean, this is
Speaker 3: a part of the world where if I'm ass were
Speaker 3: to have elections in Gaza tomorrow, they probably get ninety
Speaker 3: percent of the vote. Now, some could argue why they
Speaker 3: might get that support, but Hermas is a terrorist organization.
Speaker 3: But more than that, it is a terrorist organization committed
Speaker 3: to anti Semitism, which involves the destruction annihilation of the
Speaker 3: Jewish people. Any view or support for such an organization.
Speaker 1: I could not think of something more at odds with
Speaker 1: passing a character test to leave it an Australian in Australia.
Speaker 2: And yet the ASIER Director General, Mike Burgess has said
Speaker 2: that rhetorical support for HERMAS wouldn't preclude someone from being
Speaker 2: issued with an Australian visa, and the Prime Minister in
Speaker 2: Question Time on Thursday, in response to two questions from
Speaker 2: Julian Lisa, wouldn't say that if someone was a HERMAS supporter,
Speaker 2: they couldn't come here. This was inexplicable.
Speaker 1: I found this.
Speaker 3: I did find it inexplicable, to be honest, and Mike
Speaker 3: Burgess is an outstanding public servant. And I worked with
Speaker 3: Mike over a long period of time in many different roles.
Speaker 3: And whether he use a different form of words today
Speaker 3: as opposed to then, only he can say. And I
Speaker 3: find that completely inconsistent with what I would hear regularly
Speaker 3: from him over a long.
Speaker 1: Period of time.
Speaker 3: And I don't think at all that Mike Burgess would
Speaker 3: be an apologist for Hamas or anything alike.
Speaker 2: It, for a second, indicate it's Australian government policy that's
Speaker 2: changed and he's just following their policy.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's that.
Speaker 3: But what I think in circumstances like that is you
Speaker 3: can't leave an air gap. I mean an air gap
Speaker 3: got opened up over this, and you can't have that
Speaker 3: in place. The idea that any sympathy with hamas rhetorical
Speaker 3: or otherwise somehow could be overlooked and you could get
Speaker 3: a lead pass.
Speaker 1: To live long term in Australia. I can't imagine that.
Speaker 3: And I can't imagine anyone with the responsibility for letting
Speaker 3: people in a country as a minister rubber stamping that if.
Speaker 2: You were Prime minister, you would not be allowing into
Speaker 2: Australia anyone who's supported him US.
Speaker 3: It's like asking, would we allow, you know, those who'd
Speaker 3: supported the stalin As purges and or had sympathies with Nazism,
Speaker 3: And people go, that's outrageous. You can't draw that parallel.
Speaker 3: I can October seven. I contraw it exactly in a
Speaker 3: big thick line. And that's what we're talking about here.
Speaker 3: October seven gets just lost in this debate. The single
Speaker 3: greatest act of genocide and against the.
Speaker 1: Jewish people in a day since the Holocaust.
Speaker 2: We spoke before about accusations that Peter Dutton was racist.
Speaker 2: He's also being painted a divisive by the Prime Minister,
Speaker 2: the treasurer. You know, the Labor Party came after you
Speaker 2: as the man ahead of the last election. They're now
Speaker 2: doing the same thing with Peter Dutton, painting him as divisive,
Speaker 2: not calling out, you know, not rejecting the suggestion from
Speaker 2: the till that he's racist. Do you think the public
Speaker 2: will see through this or do you think this is
Speaker 2: quite an effective technique to paint him as divisive?
Speaker 3: Well, it's pretty effective in the past, I could say
Speaker 3: from personal experience, and I think regrettably it's part of
Speaker 3: what modern politics in a sort of social media digital
Speaker 3: age is not just here in Australia, but you see
Speaker 3: all around the world.
Speaker 1: You see it in the United States.
Speaker 3: There was the ability to get away with saying things
Speaker 3: that are paintly untrue, the ability for these things now
Speaker 3: to catch hold and establish a legitimacy through momentum. I
Speaker 3: think people those involved in the sort of campaigning and communication.
Speaker 1: Side of politics are very alive to that, and it's.
Speaker 3: Become a feature of campaigns which I don't think is
Speaker 3: necessarily a very good one, and I think it's a
Speaker 3: very corrosive one.
Speaker 2: But instead of arguing the guys a visa issue, they're
Speaker 2: saying done in your device, And that is usually.
Speaker 3: At a mission that you can't hold the argument on
Speaker 3: the policy issue. That's what I always found, particularly on immigration.
Speaker 3: I mean I was called a racist more than once.
Speaker 3: I was asked once how do I justify not being
Speaker 3: a racist by a journalist? Once they apologize, But so
Speaker 3: you know, this happens a lot more than it used to.
Speaker 3: I don't think it's a good thing. And you know,
Speaker 3: I know Peter, I know him well. I know that
Speaker 3: he knows how to show compassion, and I know he
Speaker 3: knows when you've got to.
Speaker 1: Stand your ground.
Speaker 3: And I get disappointed when I see those who can't
Speaker 3: match it on the policy argument just go the lazy
Speaker 3: And that's what it is. It's intellectually lazily, it's politically lazy,
Speaker 3: rather than deal with the number of the issue. But
Speaker 3: that's why you could never trust government to people who
Speaker 3: engage in such stuff.
Speaker 2: Just to ask you about the United States election. A
Speaker 2: little over a month ago, after the near miss the
Speaker 2: assassination attempt of Donald Trump, it seemed like a certainty
Speaker 2: that he would be the next president. Many commentators thought
Speaker 2: he would win an a landslide. We've seen since then,
Speaker 2: this transformation of Kamala Harris, no substantive interviews, She wasn't
Speaker 2: subject to any interrogation during what would normally be primary debates,
Speaker 2: No serious media interviews to date. Do you think this
Speaker 2: is a concern? Do you think we need to see
Speaker 2: what the alternative president is like, what she stands for,
Speaker 2: what her policies are.
Speaker 1: Well think Americans do. They're the ones making the decision.
Speaker 3: I mean, we've had the show business side of this
Speaker 3: campaign up until now. They both had their conventions and
Speaker 3: they were larger than life affairs. We had the initial debate,
Speaker 3: which had its quite extraordinary follow on, and up until then,
Speaker 3: I think we'd seen this, and we had the indictment
Speaker 3: and prosecution of Donald Trump, and that's what I saw
Speaker 3: him when he was still in court.
Speaker 1: At that time, the.
Speaker 3: Issues were very much focused around borders, the economy, and
Speaker 3: President Trump had a pretty strong lead going into that debate.
Speaker 3: It wasn't after that debate, he already had a pretty
Speaker 3: good one going into it. Since that time, it was
Speaker 3: fairly obvious that if they were to change, well, it
Speaker 3: could lead to any number of outcomes, and it's led
Speaker 3: to a positive outcome for the Democrats.
Speaker 1: But there's still a long way to go in this race.
Speaker 3: And anyone who was confidently saying one way that the
Speaker 3: other at the moment how this is going to end,
Speaker 3: I think is either listening to their heart more than
Speaker 3: their head, or is try to assert some sort of
Speaker 3: bold confidence. I think it's too close to call now.
Speaker 3: I wouldn't have said that prior to the debate or
Speaker 3: around the time of the debate. I think President Trump
Speaker 3: was in a pretty commanding position.
Speaker 1: But you would hope, and I have a lot.
Speaker 3: Of faith in the American democracy that by the time
Speaker 3: people come around to vote, everybody will do their job.
Speaker 3: That includes media in terms of calling for the questions
Speaker 3: to be answered. I recall back in the twenty nineteen
Speaker 3: election it was John o'lee who asked some pretty pointed
Speaker 3: questions of the then opposition leader, which had a pretty
Speaker 3: big impact. I think at that time that's the job
Speaker 3: of journalists and media in any campaign, not to take sides,
Speaker 3: but to grill those who seek the highest office, and
Speaker 3: particularly in the United States.
Speaker 2: Now, Prime Minister Anthony Alberizi rarely mentions China when he's
Speaker 2: speaking about ORCUS. I interviewed US Congressman Michael McColl recently
Speaker 2: and he said that ORCUS was the single greatest deterrent
Speaker 2: for China. It was the grouping that they were most
Speaker 2: terrified of. What's your view about the importance of ORCUS
Speaker 2: in our region when we are seeing and increasingly aggressive China.
Speaker 3: Well, I think our American friends are right about this,
Speaker 3: and it was certainly our view when we're in government
Speaker 3: as well. I think that has been one of the
Speaker 3: early successes of August is that it has said in
Speaker 3: a very clear way that the working of allies, allies
Speaker 3: and partners is one of the greatest terrants that we
Speaker 3: have against aggression, against these types of assertions that we
Speaker 3: saw from the communist government in China in our region,
Speaker 3: and a UCUS was designed to deter not just that
Speaker 3: type of threat, but authoritarian threats wherever we may encounter them.
Speaker 3: And to have the three most trusted allies and partners
Speaker 3: of all in the world. I would argue coming to
Speaker 3: together in this way, but it just doesn't do that.
Speaker 3: It also then provides a platform for those most trusted
Speaker 3: of partners to engage with other like minded in our region,
Speaker 3: whether that be Japan or Career in particular, but many
Speaker 3: others across the Indo Pacific, and we've seen that and
Speaker 3: as a.
Speaker 1: Result, we have seen that deterrent.
Speaker 3: Exercised in our region for a very positive purpose.
Speaker 2: Are you concerned that Kirs Starmer has ordered a review
Speaker 2: into Orcus in the UK?
Speaker 3: Well, Sir Steve and Lovego was there in the room
Speaker 3: when we put the deal together. He was the National
Speaker 3: Security Advisor, my good friend Boris Johnson at the time.
Speaker 3: We were all up there in Carver's.
Speaker 1: Bay when we had both Joe Biden Joe Biden was
Speaker 1: there of course, and.
Speaker 3: Jake Sullivan and we're all there together with Michelle Chan
Speaker 3: from Australia and Jimmy Kiplocks from my team, and this
Speaker 3: is the group that formed AUCAS. And so Steve has
Speaker 3: i think an outstanding understanding of what this is all about,
Speaker 3: what it's designed to do, why they're the three partners
Speaker 3: that are in the room, has very good appreciation of
Speaker 3: the two pillar nature of UGUS, because if this was
Speaker 3: just a deal about submarines, then that's all it had
Speaker 3: to be.
Speaker 1: But it was far more than that.
Speaker 3: Sometimes you hear, oh, it's just a technology sharing partnership. No,
Speaker 3: this is a transformational partnership between the most trusted partners
Speaker 3: of any in the world that is designed to deter
Speaker 3: authoritarian aggression by developing capabilities that can give effect to
Speaker 3: that and build platforms for others to engage in for
Speaker 3: the same purpose.
Speaker 2: Scott Morrison, thank you so much, really appreciate your time.
Speaker 1: Noares, thank you good talking.
Speaker 2: And the extended half an hour interview with Scott Morrison
Speaker 2: will be online later tonight. He also spoke about the
Speaker 2: withdrawal from Afghanistan and whether he thinks Donald Trump as
Speaker 2: president would support ORCA That full online will be That
Speaker 2: full interview will be online at skynews dot com dot au.
Speaker 2: Now still to come. Hollywood actor Nate Buzz live in studio.
Speaker 2: He's been shunned by fellow actors and had hundreds of
Speaker 2: death threats, but he won't stop speaking out and the
Speaker 2: powerful campaign shedding light and the deadliest cancer that's often
Speaker 2: caught too late. Fashion designer Mark Freeman will speak about
Speaker 2: this after this quick break. Welcome back. Well, if you've
Speaker 2: been scrolling through social media lately, you might have noticed
Speaker 2: people in white or red T shirts with the text
Speaker 2: ovaries talk about them. This powerful collection is part of
Speaker 2: a campaign led by Australian designers Kimilla Freeman Topper and
Speaker 2: Mark Freeman. They're the duo behind fashion label Camilla and Mark.
Speaker 2: Have a look at their campaign.
Speaker 7: The reality is I'm going to die of this disease
Speaker 7: way before my time.
Speaker 9: So I went and removed my ovaries and float pinto
Speaker 9: to prevent ovarian cancer. Four years later, I get a
Speaker 9: stage four ovarian cancer.
Speaker 2: I remember asking my surge and will it effect remain
Speaker 2: beating lives?
Speaker 9: You can have it being caught back being sims.
Speaker 2: Our life is so beautiful, our family is so beautiful.
Speaker 10: I love for it to this so beautiful that it's
Speaker 10: such a loss.
Speaker 1: It's such a huge loss.
Speaker 2: And you can have a look at those full emotional
Speaker 2: stories on the Camilla and Mark Instagram page. Now that
Speaker 2: emotional campaign is aiming to shed light on the amazing
Speaker 2: feat the research by the University of New South Wales
Speaker 2: Guynecological Cancer Research Group. It's recently reached a major milestone
Speaker 2: in their goal to develop an early detection test for
Speaker 2: ovarian cancer. This is a heartbreaking but important cause and
Speaker 2: I'm pleased to say I'm out by Mark Freeman. Thank
Speaker 2: you so much for your time. Thanks Now, the stories
Speaker 2: and those videos are just so emotional, so gut wrenching
Speaker 2: mothers and young women fighting for their lives, fighting to
Speaker 2: survive this ovarian cancer. Why is the detection so difficult?
Speaker 2: You know, it's often found when it's just too late
Speaker 2: for women to live.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Unfortunately, ovarian cancer is most often found in stage
Speaker 4: three or four and at that time it's very hard
Speaker 4: to do anything about. So, you know, after doing a
Speaker 4: lot of research and wanting to get behind it, we've
Speaker 4: found that early detection is the place that we think
Speaker 4: is most important and that the reality is if you
Speaker 4: can get it early, if you can find it in
Speaker 4: stage one, the chances and the life expectancy now shoots
Speaker 4: up to ninety percent, similar to breast cancer. Say, so,
Speaker 4: that's why it's so important.
Speaker 2: And there has been some groundbreaking research from Australia on
Speaker 2: this front. Can you tell us a bit about that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so amazing scientists at the University of New South
Speaker 4: Wales have found a three signature a test which is
Speaker 4: basically using DNA biomarkers which detects traces of cancer early.
Speaker 4: So it's now about doing more testing on this and
Speaker 4: it's amazing.
Speaker 2: World first, a blood test effectively.
Speaker 4: At the moment, it's detecting DNA biomarkers. The dream is
Speaker 4: for it to be more sensitive and for it to
Speaker 4: become a blood test which you'd get at your GP,
Speaker 4: so regular blood tests would therefore be able to detect
Speaker 4: a varying cancer early.
Speaker 2: And so that's the goal of That is the goal
Speaker 2: research that you're fundraising for correct And how far off
Speaker 2: do you think that is?
Speaker 4: So we've been supporting this important course for the last
Speaker 4: four years. When we originally sat down with a scientist,
Speaker 4: we set about a plan to accelerate this. This is
Speaker 4: that's barely changed in thirty years. So thirty years, the
Speaker 4: statistics have barely changed in thirty years. So we set
Speaker 4: about a goal of trying to get this to clinical
Speaker 4: trials within six years. We're four years through this process
Speaker 4: and another two years to go, and we're on track
Speaker 4: with this great new finding.
Speaker 2: That's amazing. Look, if it's not too hard for you
Speaker 2: to speak about, can you share why this particular cause
Speaker 2: is so personal to you and your sister?
Speaker 4: Yeah, So, unfortunately our mother passed away when my sister
Speaker 4: and I was thirteen, and my sister was eleven. She
Speaker 4: was forty two years of age, and that was over
Speaker 4: thirty years ago, and like I said earlier, the statistics
Speaker 4: have barely changed in that time. So now that we've
Speaker 4: you know, our business is established, and we wanted to
Speaker 4: use our platform for something good, for really trying to
Speaker 4: change the outcomes in science.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So if people are watching this and they want
Speaker 2: to help, what's the best way to donate?
Speaker 4: So we've designed merchandise which you can buy camillamark dot com.
Speaker 2: Those are the t shirts that the celebrities are wearing online.
Speaker 4: That's right with the catchphrase overy talk about them. It's
Speaker 4: about creating a conversation so people both educate themselves on
Speaker 4: this cancer and one hundred percent of proceeds go directly
Speaker 4: to medical research or alternatively you can make a donation.
Speaker 2: Well, congratulations on this powerful campaign. It's going to make
Speaker 2: a difference absolutely in the lives of women and mothers.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much for joining us, Thanks for having
Speaker 2: me on. And that was Mark Freeman. Now still to come,
Speaker 2: Hollywood star Nate Barz is live in studio to discuss
Speaker 2: the backlash he's received just for standing up for Israel.
Speaker 2: Plus the spotlight is on free speech, as Facebook admits
Speaker 2: it's censored users and another high profile independent has thrown
Speaker 2: their support behind Trump's race to the White House. I'll
Speaker 2: bring you that with Adam Crichton later on the show
Speaker 2: Welcome Back Well. Schools should clearly be a safe zone
Speaker 2: from racism and division, Yet the new Southwal's Education Department
Speaker 2: is on the brink of caving into the Greens. They
Speaker 2: agreed today the Education Department that is to review a
Speaker 2: directive advising public schools on whether to stay neutral on
Speaker 2: the Israel Garza War. This shocking capitulation comes after New
Speaker 2: Southell's Greens MP Abigail Boyd said students want to show
Speaker 2: their support for Palestine. Have a look.
Speaker 10: Palestinian students have not been allowed to wear their cafe
Speaker 10: at school, that they haven't been able to have a
Speaker 10: Palestinian flag on their bags. We're not neutral on most crimes,
Speaker 10: why would we be neutral on war?
Speaker 8: Well?
Speaker 2: To discuss this and more, let's bring in now Hollywood
Speaker 2: actor Nate Buzz. Great to see you again, Nate, Thanks
Speaker 2: for having me. What do you think about this? The
Speaker 2: new Southwal's Education Department potentially or they've agreed to review
Speaker 2: whether schools have to stay neutral on the war.
Speaker 11: I think what we have to remind ourselves of is
Speaker 11: when people have been wearing the kafirs and when they've
Speaker 11: been waiving the Palestinian flag for the last ten months
Speaker 11: around Australia, it's been directly connected to violent chants and threats,
Speaker 11: and so I just don't think it's a fitting place
Speaker 11: to bring this into schools where young minds can be
Speaker 11: influenced to think a certain way, when what's happening in
Speaker 11: Israel and Gaza is far more complicated than just a
Speaker 11: nationality or an ethnicity.
Speaker 2: I mean, we talk about the indoctrination of children, that's
Speaker 2: what is going on in Gaza with young Palestinian children.
Speaker 2: That we don't want that in Australia at all. I
Speaker 2: mean at a time when the Prime Minister is looking
Speaker 2: at bringing in thousands, he's issued three thousand visas to Gazans,
Speaker 2: and the people there have been indoctrinated, They've been brought
Speaker 2: up to hate Israel and hate Jews. Do you think
Speaker 2: it would be worrying to bring people here without adequate
Speaker 2: security vetting?
Speaker 11: Well, I think what it reveals is, you know, the
Speaker 11: current Stinian movement, its use of radicalization, with the youth
Speaker 11: which happens in Gaza. The IDF have come across countless
Speaker 11: examples where a young generation of people in Gaza in
Speaker 11: the West Bank are being taught to not only hate Israel,
Speaker 11: but also to become martyrs for a cause of gi Hyde.
Speaker 11: And so the same people who were funneling this to
Speaker 11: the youth in the Middle East are now trying to
Speaker 11: do this in Australia. That's concerning, that's alarming because what
Speaker 11: they're creating is a radicalization problem. Now, look, we saw
Speaker 11: Taylor Swift have to cancel two concerts in Vienna because
Speaker 11: of radical plans from young men who wanted to commit
Speaker 11: violent crimes because they felt they were doing something for
Speaker 11: a Palestini movement. We saw people having their throat slit
Speaker 11: in Germany again by being influenced by the radicalization of
Speaker 11: this Free Palestine movement. So the fruits of this movement
Speaker 11: is showing to be around the world, very very violent,
Speaker 11: and Australia is going to have to accept the fact
Speaker 11: that if something like that happens, those who have been
Speaker 11: allowing this to go on are going to be directly responsible.
Speaker 11: Blood It's going to be on the hands because they're
Speaker 11: allowing this sort of speech and this movement to live,
Speaker 11: to breathe, and to be affecting young minds all over Australia.
Speaker 2: Look, when October seven broke out, you were splitting your
Speaker 2: time between Australia and Hollywood. You then felt very strongly
Speaker 2: about the issue of anti Semitism and Israel as well.
Speaker 2: And you've now living quite a lot of spending quite
Speaker 2: a lot of time in Israel. You know from your
Speaker 2: time there, do you think that a lot of the
Speaker 2: Palestinians do support Hamas?
Speaker 11: Yes, without a doubt. Unfortunately, that's the reality on the ground.
Speaker 11: If there was a vote to take place in Gaza
Speaker 11: or the West Bank tomorrow, Hamas would win unanimously. You know,
Speaker 11: I think the greatest problem that I'm seeing is most
Speaker 11: people who are weighing in on this conversation have never
Speaker 11: been to Israel, have never fully understand the conflict that
Speaker 11: has been unfolding for seventy six plus years. And so
Speaker 11: you know, my time, my experience. I mean, I've got
Speaker 11: two examples. I've been chatting to a lot of Gazans
Speaker 11: in Gaza right now, trying to build some sort of
Speaker 11: relationship and conversation with them. I'm looking for people who
Speaker 11: may feel that Hermas has led them down a destructive road.
Speaker 11: Every single conversation I'm having with young Gazans is that
Speaker 11: they're fully in support of not only what Hamas is doing,
Speaker 11: but what they did on October seventh. Now, most Australians,
Speaker 11: I think you and I would agree if we showed
Speaker 11: them the raw footage and showed them the facts of
Speaker 11: what Hamas did in eight hours in Israel, killing twelve
Speaker 11: hundred innocent Israelis. I'm talking people in their family home, women,
Speaker 11: children being murdered, you know, young people at a music festival.
Speaker 11: Most Australians will say this is not acceptable and I
Speaker 11: can't get behind this. And what they need to realize
Speaker 11: is that most people support in the Palestinian movement are
Speaker 11: fully in support of not only Hamas but the events
Speaker 11: of October seventh. Now here's where the hypocrisy starts. You'll
Speaker 11: see a lot of pro Palestinian supporters referring to the
Speaker 11: current Prime Minister of Israel, Netanyahu as a Hitler type,
Speaker 11: and they'll even call Israel's military operation similar to what
Speaker 11: the Nazis were doing to the Jews in the nineteen
Speaker 11: thirties and the nineteen forties, and yet in the same
Speaker 11: breath they celebrate and glorify what Hitler did to the Jews.
Speaker 11: So their own message is full of him.
Speaker 1: Very confused.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Now, because of your advocacy for Israel and the
Speaker 2: Jewish people, you've received horrific death threats, hundreds of death threats,
Speaker 2: massive cost to you personally for your security. And also
Speaker 2: two actors from your own from one of your own
Speaker 2: shows in Hollywood have shunned you. Can you tell us
Speaker 2: about this?
Speaker 11: Yeah, So, one of the main actors on the TV
Speaker 11: show that I worked in refuses to be in photos
Speaker 11: with me because of my stands for Israel. Now, look,
Speaker 11: I'm not upset with him, because he's just being fed
Speaker 11: the Palestinian narrative over and over again, and he's looking
Speaker 11: out for his career. But you know, the threats is
Speaker 11: a great example of what's really at the heart of
Speaker 11: this movement. You know, it's a sad reality when you
Speaker 11: take a stance and the people that for the Palestinian
Speaker 11: movement feel that their only option is to use violence.
Speaker 11: And so you know, I was in Berlin shooting a
Speaker 11: sunglass campaign and I had many pro Palestinian supporters trying
Speaker 11: to track me down so they could harm me in
Speaker 11: some way. You know, and people often say to me,
Speaker 11: why do you do this name, Why do you put
Speaker 11: yourself at risk if the result is going to be
Speaker 11: potential violence from those who support the Palestinian movement. But
Speaker 11: the fact that people are trying to threaten me for
Speaker 11: standing with Israel and trying to remove my voice with
Speaker 11: violence is further proof why it's so important that we
Speaker 11: actually stand up and stand with the Israelis as they
Speaker 11: continue to deal with this violence, not only from Hamas,
Speaker 11: but also from Hesbla in the north, who has been
Speaker 11: using provocation over and over again since the seventh of October.
Speaker 11: I mean, to this date, they've shot eight thousand rockets
Speaker 11: towards northern Israel.
Speaker 1: Eight thousand.
Speaker 11: I mean, what nation would deal with this? You know,
Speaker 11: what would Albanese do if the Australian people were being
Speaker 11: bombarded with rocket attacks from our neighbors.
Speaker 2: Well, he criticizes Israel all the time for how it's
Speaker 2: fighting the war.
Speaker 11: Look, Albanize has never been in a situation where he's
Speaker 11: had to protect the well being in the safety of Australians.
Speaker 11: You know, maybe his biggest concern is which sporting event
Speaker 11: he'll attend on a Friday night. You know, Benjamin et Yahoo,
Speaker 11: whether you like him or not, is in one of
Speaker 11: the most difficult positions right now because he not only
Speaker 11: has threats from the North, he doesn't have threats just
Speaker 11: from Gaza, but he also has the Islamic regime threatening
Speaker 11: the entire nation of Israel every single day, and sundly,
Speaker 11: yeah here on and sadly. You know, the world wants
Speaker 11: to give them nuclear capabilities. I mean, this is a
Speaker 11: very very dangerous time for the Middle East. More than that,
Speaker 11: this is going to affect the world. You know, what
Speaker 11: happens in Israel is flowing over into the world. You
Speaker 11: can see that in the protests.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly, every I mean antisemitism and lawlessness and aggression
Speaker 2: in every major city. Nate Buzz, you have been one
Speaker 2: of the most powerful defenders of the Jewish community, particularly
Speaker 2: in the past ten months. So thank you so much
Speaker 2: for your strong voice. And for anyone who doesn't know you, well,
Speaker 2: you've got what three and a half million followers on Instagram,
Speaker 2: so everyone can follow your interviews and conversations there. Thank
Speaker 2: you so much, Thank you so much. Now up next,
Speaker 2: shocking allegations from the CEO of Meta himself about an
Speaker 2: attempt to censor Facebook users. Class a former Democrat follows
Speaker 2: in the footsteps of RFK Junior and endorses Trump. That's up, Net,
Speaker 2: All right, let's go live to the US now, and
Speaker 2: let's bring in the Australians. Washington correspondent Adam Crichton, Adam,
Speaker 2: great to see you. Look. Can you tell us about
Speaker 2: this extraordinary letter that Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote today
Speaker 2: to the House Judiciary Committee and the admissions he made
Speaker 2: in it.
Speaker 5: Yes, certainly, Cherry look at was an extraordinary letter. Very
Speaker 5: basically said that the US goverment repeatedly pressured Facebook and
Speaker 5: I used that phrase on purpose, repeatedly pressured the company
Speaker 5: to take down various statements about lockdowns, about vaccines, about
Speaker 5: the whole COVID episode, which in hindsight turned out.
Speaker 1: To be very true.
Speaker 5: And he said that he regretted that very very much,
Speaker 5: and he shouldn't have done it, and they won't do
Speaker 5: it again. He secondly also said that the Hunter Biden
Speaker 5: lapstop story, which I'm sure your viewers are very familiar with,
Speaker 5: was actually correct. Of course, it was not Russian disinformation,
Speaker 5: and it was a mistake of Facebook to take it down.
Speaker 5: So look, it was a fairly lengthy letter and it
Speaker 5: kind of came out of nowhere. No one was really
Speaker 5: expecting it. Two years ago or so, he did make
Speaker 5: some public comments in a podcast where he said some
Speaker 5: of the things they took down are wrong, but he
Speaker 5: never before has said that the US Goverment repeatedly pressured
Speaker 5: the company to do so, and of course that is
Speaker 5: a First Amendment violation in the United States with potentialifications.
Speaker 5: It's quite a shame that this information has comes now
Speaker 5: because there was a Supreme Court case that was thrown
Speaker 5: out in June which really could have used this new
Speaker 5: piece of information.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's interesting. I've seen speculation that perhaps there might
Speaker 2: be a whistleblower coming out or something that has led
Speaker 2: to this letter. I guess we'll have to wait and see,
Speaker 2: but definitely a win for free speech. Let's have a
Speaker 2: look at another long term Democrat who's now cross sides
Speaker 2: to endorse Donald Trump at Tulsey. Do you pronounce the
Speaker 2: surname Gabbard. You'll have to tell me. Adam served as
Speaker 2: a Democratic congresswoman from gathered from Hawaii for eight years.
Speaker 2: She's praising Trump for his foreign policy. Tell us about
Speaker 2: this endorsement.
Speaker 5: Yeah, look, it's a pretty extraordinary transition for her. I mean,
Speaker 5: she ran for president for the Democrats in twenty twenties.
Speaker 5: She was on the st at the same stage as
Speaker 5: Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, of course, and now you knows,
Speaker 5: you know, she's given this a full throated endorsement for
Speaker 5: Donald Trump. It's not so much of a surprise. She
Speaker 5: did leave the Democrat Party in twenty twenty two. She
Speaker 5: called them a group of warmongers. She was extremely critical,
Speaker 5: So I guess there's no surprise in that sense. But
Speaker 5: it could boost Trump's campaign to some extendent. Of course,
Speaker 5: coming just a few days after Robert F. Kennedy, who
Speaker 5: also a former Democrat, has endorsed Trump. Look remains to
Speaker 5: be seeing what this does to the polls. I mean,
Speaker 5: certainly it's embarrassing, I suppose for Democrats that those two
Speaker 5: individuals have done this. But still it's the case that
Speaker 5: Kamala Harris is leading Trump forty seven percent to about
Speaker 5: forty four percent in most national polls in the US.
Speaker 2: Do you think very quickly do you think that their
Speaker 2: first debate could shift this significantly.
Speaker 1: Yes, Look I think it could.
Speaker 5: I think it's going to be, you know, probably the
Speaker 5: most important one and a half hours of television for
Speaker 5: many years, probably across the world. I think it's going
Speaker 5: to be extremely crucial. Look, there's there's you know, there's
Speaker 5: there's some speculation now that it might be moved because
Speaker 5: there's an argument between the two camps. So whether the
Speaker 5: my crophones are going to be muted or not.
Speaker 2: I see she's making all sorts of microphones muted, all
Speaker 2: sorts of demands and wants to be able to bring
Speaker 2: notes in as well. Adam Crichton, we're out of time,
Speaker 2: thanks for joining us. And right now here's Paul Murray.