Speaker 1: Live on Sky News.
Speaker 2: This is Sharry Good Evening tonight. The total overreaction to
Speaker 2: Donald Trump's tariffs that will have barely an impact in Australia.
Speaker 2: Matt Canavan, Adam Crichton and Basil Zemplus will be here
Speaker 2: to discuss this is The coalition says we should look
Speaker 2: at lifting the ban on American beef.
Speaker 3: But at the end of the day, I mean we
Speaker 3: should always be looking at our bios security protocols and
Speaker 3: making sure they're fit for purpose.
Speaker 2: Something we should consider what.
Speaker 3: We should always be considering those protocols and we should
Speaker 3: be asking our customers to consider them.
Speaker 2: My exclusive interview with the Shadow treasurer Angus Taylor coming
Speaker 2: up also in the show, where charity takes legal action
Speaker 2: against the Albanezy government over a planned wind farm and
Speaker 2: the double standards of the teals exposed. That's all coming up,
Speaker 2: but first tonight, let's cut the spin of Albaneze's confected
Speaker 2: outrage over Donald Trump's trade tariffs and look at what's
Speaker 2: actually going on here. There are three questions we're going
Speaker 2: to talk about tonight. Why is Trump doing this, what
Speaker 2: will the impact be? And should alban Easy have been
Speaker 2: so angry Now, this is one of the most significant
Speaker 2: moves that Trump has made as president, and we need
Speaker 2: to understand his motivation before we can debate the tariffs
Speaker 2: and the impact that they'll have in the shot and
Speaker 2: long term, both in America and on globalization. Today the
Speaker 2: President held a press conference in the Rose Garden, where
Speaker 2: he claimed the day was historic.
Speaker 4: My fellow Americans, this is liberation Day waiting for a
Speaker 4: long time. April second, twenty twenty five will forever be
Speaker 4: remembered as the day American industry was reborn, the day
Speaker 4: America's destiny was reclaimed, and the day that we began
Speaker 4: to make America wealthy again.
Speaker 2: This was a day a long time in the making.
Speaker 2: In fact, Trump has been campaigning on a fairer trading
Speaker 2: environment for Americans since nineteen eighty eight. He's been consistent
Speaker 2: about this policy, yep, for thirty seven years. Here he
Speaker 2: is in an interview with Oprah speaking about evening up
Speaker 2: the playing field.
Speaker 5: I'd make our allies forgetting about the enemies, the enemies
Speaker 5: you can't talk to so easily. I'd make our allies
Speaker 5: pay their fair share. We're a debtor nation. Something's going
Speaker 5: to happen over the next number of years with this country,
Speaker 5: because you can't keep going on losing two hundred billion.
Speaker 5: And yet we let Japan come in and dump everything
Speaker 5: right into our markets and everything. It's not free trade.
Speaker 5: If you ever go to Japan right now and try
Speaker 5: to sell something, forget about it. Open, just forget about it.
Speaker 5: It's almost impossible. Kuwait they live like kings. The poorest
Speaker 5: person in Kuwait they live like kings. And yet they're
Speaker 5: not paying We make it possible for them to sell
Speaker 5: their oil. Why aren't paying us twenty five percent of
Speaker 5: what they're making. It's a joke.
Speaker 2: Fascinating interview. And of course Trump also campaigned on this
Speaker 2: during the presidential election, and he's one of the only
Speaker 2: politicians who actually does wood he pledges. You can compare
Speaker 2: that to Albanize's own broken promises. Now. In his novel
Speaker 2: He'll Billy Elegy jd Vance Now, the Vice President wrote
Speaker 2: about his hometown in Ohio, and he wrote that today
Speaker 2: downtown Middletown is little more than a relic of American
Speaker 2: industrial glory. His novel, of course, was a worldwide sensation
Speaker 2: because it captured the picture of local jobs disappearing, unemployment, skyrocketing, poverty,
Speaker 2: consuming communities and at all being replaced by cheap imported
Speaker 2: goods to the financial benefit of foreign nations. Now, Trump
Speaker 2: pledged to return manufacturing to America to make his treat
Speaker 2: greater again. This is partly why he appealed so strongly
Speaker 2: to white working class voters, and it is the sentiment
Speaker 2: behind his Liberation Day tariffs.
Speaker 4: Today, this will be indeed the Golden Age of America.
Speaker 4: It's coming back.
Speaker 2: In a dramatic touch. Trump even drew the comparison with
Speaker 2: America's Declaration of Independence, written of course by Thomas Jefferson
Speaker 2: and the founding fathers.
Speaker 4: This is one of the most important days, in my opinion,
Speaker 4: in American history. It's our declaration of economic independence. For years,
Speaker 4: hard working American citizens were forced to sit on the
Speaker 4: sidelines as other nations got rich and powerful, much of
Speaker 4: it at our expense.
Speaker 2: So the idea behind tariffs on important goods to America
Speaker 2: is to encourage factories to create products in America and
Speaker 2: of course create jobs. Trump spoke of supercharging America's domestic
Speaker 2: industrial base, and he says more production at home will
Speaker 2: ultimately mean lower prices for consumers. Trump invited up to
Speaker 2: the Rose Garden press conference, a worker who spoke about
Speaker 2: the sentiment behind JD. Vunce's best selling novel.
Speaker 6: I have watched my entire life, I have watched plant
Speaker 6: after plant after plant in Detroit and in the Metro
Speaker 6: Detroit area close. There are now plants sitting idle. There
Speaker 6: are now plants that are underutilized. And Donald Trump's policies
Speaker 6: are going to bring product back into those underutilized plants.
Speaker 6: There's going to be new investment, there's going to be
Speaker 6: new plants built, and in six months or a year,
Speaker 6: we're going to begin to see the benefits.
Speaker 2: And the move to return to local manufacturing is popular
Speaker 2: in the Ross Belt states with working Americans, the blue
Speaker 2: collar class, and Trump, as I said, campaigned on this
Speaker 2: very issue of import tariffs, so it shouldn't come as
Speaker 2: a surprise to anyone. Now, we do need to look
Speaker 2: at how they worked out the reciprocal tariffs, so they're called,
Speaker 2: were calculated by adding the foreign nation's tariffs plus the
Speaker 2: value of any trade barriers that America says they have
Speaker 2: in place, and then Trump charged them half that amount. So,
Speaker 2: for example, Trump says China slaps tariffs of around sixty
Speaker 2: seven percent on American imports. So he's put tariffs of
Speaker 2: thirty four percent on Chinese inports. Now, the tariffs don't
Speaker 2: take effect until April the ninth, and the President has
Speaker 2: signaled he's open to negotiations and these will unfold in
Speaker 2: the coming days. But he did have a firm.
Speaker 4: Message likewise to all of the foreign presidents, prime ministers, kings, queens,
Speaker 4: ambassadors and everyone else who will soon be willing to
Speaker 4: ask for exemptions from these tariffs. I say, terminate your
Speaker 4: own tariffs, drop your barriers, don't manipulate your currencies.
Speaker 2: Now, as I mentioned, Trump claims the tariffs are reciprocal,
Speaker 2: but we've already seen in Australia as one of them countries,
Speaker 2: squabbling about the calculations. Well, they can do this during
Speaker 2: the negotiations. Now, this is a very dramatic measure that
Speaker 2: Trump has taken to force the revitalization of their manufacturing industry.
Speaker 2: We know the pandemic highlighted the problems with relying, particularly
Speaker 2: on Chinese markets. It was a wake up call that
Speaker 2: were overly reliant on foreign imports and supply chains. But
Speaker 2: thinking behind this is to yes, of course, raise revenue,
Speaker 2: reduce America's debt, but also to increase America's self reliance
Speaker 2: and independence rather than relying on foreign countries for critical goods,
Speaker 2: particularly an enemy that's growing more hostile like China. Again,
Speaker 2: you can disagree or agree with the tariffs, but it's
Speaker 2: critical to understand first where this movement is coming from
Speaker 2: and why it's so popular, at least in part in
Speaker 2: the US. So that's why Trump is implementing these trade tariffs. Now,
Speaker 2: the second question is Albanesi's response like this warranted.
Speaker 7: But the Australian people have every right to view this
Speaker 7: action by the Trump administration as undermining our free and
Speaker 7: fair trading relationship and counter to the shared values that
Speaker 7: have always been at the heart of our two nations
Speaker 7: long standing friendship. This will have consequences for how Australians
Speaker 7: see this relationship.
Speaker 2: In my view, he took this too personally. It was
Speaker 2: over the top, and it showed a failure to understand
Speaker 2: the political movement behind Trump in America. And it was
Speaker 2: also curious when the whole point of the American movement
Speaker 2: is very similar to the motivation behind Albanese's own Future
Speaker 2: Made in Australia program, except Trump isn't throwing money at
Speaker 2: green hydrogen programs. Now, it's also important to note that
Speaker 2: Australia has had a five percent customs duty or import
Speaker 2: tax for years, for decades, So Albanezi is beyond furious
Speaker 2: about a ten percent import tax when we have literally
Speaker 2: had a five percent tax on every imported product that
Speaker 2: wasn't subject to a free trade agreement for decades. On
Speaker 2: top of this, we do, have, of course, our ten
Speaker 2: percent Goods and Services tax that's applied to all imported goods.
Speaker 2: So you could argue that imported products have had a
Speaker 2: fifteen percent tax on them. America's ten percent tariff is
Speaker 2: quite comparable. Now. Secondly, alban Easy claims of America that
Speaker 2: this isn't what friends do.
Speaker 7: The administration's tariffs have no basis in logic, and they
Speaker 7: go against the basis of our two nations partnership. This
Speaker 7: is not the act of a friend, all right.
Speaker 2: Well, if he wants to speak about the act of
Speaker 2: a friend, do friends call the immediate past presidents of
Speaker 2: our closest allies village idiots and say they're scared of
Speaker 2: what they're going to do, Because that's how Albinizi and
Speaker 2: rud have treated their so called friend in Trump.
Speaker 1: We have an alliance with the US.
Speaker 7: We're going to deal with him, but that doesn't mean
Speaker 7: that you're uncritical about it.
Speaker 1: He scared it.
Speaker 8: Out of me, as the United States in the last
Speaker 8: four years has been run by a village idiot.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the Prime Minister's right, that's not what friends do.
Speaker 2: They don't insult the residence of our closest ally now.
Speaker 2: Albanisi was also very worried today about Australian beef.
Speaker 1: Books.
Speaker 7: Our understanding is that there is a I heard President
Speaker 7: Trump's comments that were made. Our understanding at this point
Speaker 7: is that that is a ten percent tariff across the board.
Speaker 7: On the first question, yes, we have received confirmation that
Speaker 7: what we thought was the case, that it's just a
Speaker 7: ten percent tariff. Similarly, the comparers. I just spoke with
Speaker 7: the head of the National Farmer's Federation about fifteen minutes
Speaker 7: ago as well and confirmed that with him. I've also
Speaker 7: spoken to beef producers and confirmed it with them.
Speaker 2: And he announced a fifteen million dollar subsidy for the
Speaker 2: beef industry. But alber Ezy was pretty angry and concerned
Speaker 2: about the prospect of an American ban on Australian beef.
Speaker 2: But he does realize that Australia bans American beef entirely
Speaker 2: bans it. As Trump pointed out today.
Speaker 4: They won't take any of our beef. They don't want
Speaker 4: it because they don't want it to affect their farmers.
Speaker 4: And you know what, I don't blame them, but we're
Speaker 4: doing the same thing.
Speaker 2: Now. The ban, as you probably know, was introduced because
Speaker 2: of biosecurity concerns owing to mad cow disease. But now
Speaker 2: the US has basically eliminated this, and yet the ban remains. Now.
Speaker 2: Of course I can understand Ossie beef farmers feeling anxious tonight,
Speaker 2: but Australian beef could actually come out of this equation
Speaker 2: in a better position than it is now. And I'll
Speaker 2: explain why. Canada and Mexico supply around twenty four percent
Speaker 2: of US beef imports, the same as Australia does, yet
Speaker 2: their tariffs are higher. Canada and Mexico both subject to
Speaker 2: around twenty five percent tariffs announced by Trump, higher than
Speaker 2: the ten percent on Australia. Now, American produced beef will
Speaker 2: be cheaper, but they don't have the capacity to increase
Speaker 2: their production, at least not in the short term. That'll
Speaker 2: take years. So in terms of the competition to fill
Speaker 2: the American need for beef, Well, Australia's beef will be
Speaker 2: cheaper than the higher tariffs and Canadian and Mexican beef,
Speaker 2: so this could, depending on how it plays out, even
Speaker 2: be of benefit to Australia. We could even see our
Speaker 2: beef xpots increase. But it's also strange Albanese's angry response
Speaker 2: to a ten percent tariff from the US compared to
Speaker 2: when China entirely banned our beef, wine and balley. He's
Speaker 2: giving money to the beef industry, but there were no subsidies,
Speaker 2: for example, to the Australian wine industry, which was hurt
Speaker 2: very badly. Even DEAC made it by the Chinese ban.
Speaker 2: And also, if Albanesi is so worried about the cost
Speaker 2: on business, then why doesn't he remove the two point
Speaker 2: three billion dollar climate stranglehold he's putting on businesses here
Speaker 2: in Australia. The ten percent tariff equivalent to our GSD
Speaker 2: pales in significance to the billions of dollars Albanzi is
Speaker 2: strangling businesses with in the name of climate compliance. Now
Speaker 2: to the last question, well, what impact will these tariffs
Speaker 2: actually have? Well, that depends on whether countries retaliate and
Speaker 2: global trade protectionism returns. In America, prices are expected to
Speaker 2: rise in the short term until cheaper local products are
Speaker 2: produced again. That might take some time, although already we've
Speaker 2: seen the companies and Trump spoke about this today, companies
Speaker 2: including Apple, Hyandai, Johnson and Johnson, and Eli Lilly are
Speaker 2: planning to expand their operations in America in response to
Speaker 2: the tariffs. Now Goldman Sachs has reportedly estimated that prices
Speaker 2: could rise by half a percent to one percent in
Speaker 2: the States. In terms of the global picture, the Wall
Speaker 2: Street Journal's editorial predicts that if countries try to negotiate
Speaker 2: with the US to reduce tariffs, the damage could be
Speaker 2: mild up, but if the response is widespread retaliation, the
Speaker 2: result could be shrinking well trade and slower growth, recession
Speaker 2: or worse. And it says there could also be erosion
Speaker 2: of US competitiveness, harmed to American exports, reduced American influence
Speaker 2: on the global stage. And they say it could provide
Speaker 2: a major opportunity for China to caught our traditional allies
Speaker 2: like South Korea, Japan and even Europe. Now Sky's Business
Speaker 2: editor ross Green would also highlighted some of the concerns
Speaker 2: around the potential impact of rising in flat and he
Speaker 2: said even that could then lead to possible interest rate rises.
Speaker 9: Perhaps Australia will be impacted by more goods coming in
Speaker 9: from places like Cambodi, Vietnam and China, and we've got
Speaker 9: to be very careful in this country that we don't
Speaker 9: certainly find dump goods also affecting Australian jobs and Australian manufacturers.
Speaker 2: Not all experts, though, agree global geopolitics experts Stephen Kotkin,
Speaker 2: a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University,
Speaker 2: challenged the view that Trump's posturing and the rebalancing that
Speaker 2: he's set in motion signals that the US is retreating
Speaker 2: from the world. He says, this is not about America
Speaker 2: giving up its role in the world. All of that
Speaker 2: is social media rubbish. This is about a rebalancing of
Speaker 2: the costs and benefits, and it's happening, and it's mess
Speaker 2: and Trum's version of it is going to maybe even
Speaker 2: fail to produce a new equilibrium, but it's going to
Speaker 2: break the current equilibrium that needed to be broken. So yes,
Speaker 2: there are concerns about where this will all settle, and
Speaker 2: the markets of course will be rocky in the meantime.
Speaker 2: But as with anything to do with Trump, the reaction
Speaker 2: today has been over the top and disproportionate. Okay, for
Speaker 2: further analysis, let's bring in National Senator Matt Canavan and
Speaker 2: leader of the WA opposition Basil Zemplus. Great to see you, guys. Matt.
Speaker 2: There's been a very patronizing attitude towards these tariffs. But
Speaker 2: this is what Trump campaigned on. It's what he said
Speaker 2: he was going to do. It's why Americans, particularly in
Speaker 2: the working class states, voted for it.
Speaker 10: Well, Charry, I wish Donald Trump and the US administration
Speaker 10: were to putting these tariffs on Australia, but I didn't
Speaker 10: get a vote on the US presidency. He's been elected,
Speaker 10: as you say, he was elected on that platform. What
Speaker 10: we need to do is respond in the way we
Speaker 10: best can to protect to Austraya's interest what we should do,
Speaker 10: and it's been instructive this week that finally I see
Speaker 10: the Prime ministers say that in his response to Donald
Speaker 10: Trump's tariffs, he's going to put Australia first. Well, why
Speaker 10: hasn't he been putting Australia first the whole time. What
Speaker 10: is why has it taken Donald Trump for him to
Speaker 10: say something like that and encourage people to buy Australian
Speaker 10: made products. I actually think I have this sort of
Speaker 10: sort of sneaking suspicion that Anthony Alberanez he actually was
Speaker 10: relishing this outcome. He seemed almost giddy this morning. I
Speaker 10: don't think he's put up much of a fight here
Speaker 10: to try to stop these tariffs coming in. He's actually
Speaker 10: most welcome this because it gives him something to campaign
Speaker 10: on and apparently look tough, et cetera. But he's not
Speaker 10: being tough. He's not being putting Australia first, because, as
Speaker 10: you've just said in your editorial, he's smashing the Australian
Speaker 10: people with higher energy prices, higher grocery prices. I mean,
Speaker 10: if we're going to have this sort of reaction from
Speaker 10: the Prime Minister for a ten percent tariff on some
Speaker 10: of our exports to US, which just five percent of
Speaker 10: our exports, if it's going to generate a cent tariff's
Speaker 10: condgenerate that sort of outrage. Why isn't the Prime Minister
Speaker 10: as outraged as the thirty percent increase in grocery prices
Speaker 10: that Australian families have had to suffer under his leadership.
Speaker 10: Why hasn't he focused on that? Why is he focused
Speaker 10: on the self imposed tariffs that his government is placing
Speaker 10: on our energy system, in our grocery supermarkets, through our
Speaker 10: transport businesses as well, that are adding costs onto everybody.
Speaker 1: I wish he was so angry.
Speaker 10: About the damage he's doing to the Australian economy compared
Speaker 10: to only being angry about the responses he doesn't like
Speaker 10: being made by Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: Yeah, such a good point, Basil. What's your view on
Speaker 2: the tariffs but also how this played out today? Do
Speaker 2: you agree with me that there was this overreaction to
Speaker 2: what is quite is going to impact Australia really in
Speaker 2: quite a minimal way.
Speaker 1: Well that could be the case.
Speaker 11: In fact, you could argue, and we won't know the
Speaker 11: full effects until we get going through the process, but
Speaker 11: you could argue that in fact Australian beef producers may
Speaker 11: in fact end up being better off. Donald Trump is
Speaker 11: playing to his base and by appearing to try and
Speaker 11: stand up to Donald Trump. Although pretty mildly I agree
Speaker 11: with Matt, the Prime Minister is playing to his bass
Speaker 11: who you would naturally accept, not Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: People.
Speaker 11: That sort of makes sense, But I can't help watching
Speaker 11: this think if Anthony Albanezi was serious, and we know
Speaker 11: Donald Trump is a relationship guy, if he's trying to
Speaker 11: make this election somehow a referendum on who's going to
Speaker 11: deal better with Donald Trump and his tariffs, I think
Speaker 11: he's playing into Peter Dutton's hands. Peter Dutton will get
Speaker 11: on a plane, he'll get over there and he'll get
Speaker 11: on well with Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: And it feels to.
Speaker 11: Me that relationships could have averted this tariff imposition that's
Speaker 11: come on to Australia. And that's not a trump card.
Speaker 11: Pardon the pun that Albaneze has played. And I've got
Speaker 11: to say also the rud stuff now really coming back
Speaker 11: to buy it. It was always going to it really
Speaker 11: is now no absolutely well.
Speaker 2: One thing that could make a difference in the negotiations
Speaker 2: to have this ten percent lifted if it's worth it
Speaker 2: is potentially removing those biosecurity protocols around American beef. It
Speaker 2: is something that Angus Taylor says we should consider. I
Speaker 2: asked him about this in a pre recorded interview. Have
Speaker 2: a quick look but at.
Speaker 3: The end of the day, I mean we should always
Speaker 3: be looking at our biosecurity protocols and making sure they're
Speaker 3: fit for purpose.
Speaker 2: Something we should consider what.
Speaker 3: We should always be considering those protocols, and we should
Speaker 3: be asking our customers to consider them.
Speaker 2: Matt, what do you think about this? I mean, mad
Speaker 2: cow disease is extremely rare now in the United States.
Speaker 2: As Andrew Bolt said earlier, people aren't getting sick in
Speaker 2: America from eating beef, so why is it banned?
Speaker 10: Look, Shari, you might expect me, as a Nationals Party politician,
Speaker 10: to take a slightly different perspective on this. We're very
Speaker 10: lucky to have a very strong biosecurity system and the
Speaker 10: costs of having mad cow disease come to this country
Speaker 10: would be in the tens of billions. I think it's
Speaker 10: been measured at about forty billion dollar impact on Australia huge.
Speaker 10: We'd have massive coals, these movements of cattle restricted. It
Speaker 10: would be horrible for our nation, so we want to
Speaker 10: keep it out now. In terms of the US, you're
Speaker 10: right to say that since the US did have a
Speaker 10: case in twenty two thousand and three or some case
Speaker 10: twos and three they have got rid of it largely
Speaker 10: in their own country. But the problem is the US
Speaker 10: has not been able to assure us that the beef
Speaker 10: that we would or could import from the US could
Speaker 10: not contain Mexican or Brazilian beef where there is mad
Speaker 10: cow disease. Now it's not actually exactly true to say
Speaker 10: that we ban American beef. We do allow American beef
Speaker 10: to come into Australia if it can show that it
Speaker 10: is actually American beef. Unfortunately, the United States does not
Speaker 10: have the kind of supply chain assurance that we do
Speaker 10: in this nation, so they can't give us a guarantee
Speaker 10: that what's in the box has actually come from a
Speaker 10: Texas farm or a Californian farm, and not a farm
Speaker 10: from south of the border. I support our biosecurity system.
Speaker 10: I think our provisions here are rules here, are very reasonable.
Speaker 10: We are happy to work for the US if they
Speaker 10: can apply some kind of supply chain insurance that we
Speaker 10: have in this country.
Speaker 1: If they can do that, we're happy to talk. If
Speaker 1: they can't.
Speaker 10: Look, we've got to put our biosecurity first.
Speaker 2: Okay, interesting look making news today, as well as the
Speaker 2: fact that the Prime Minister had a bit of a
Speaker 2: tumble at a mining conference here.
Speaker 1: He was photos with everyone.
Speaker 2: Okay, perhaps since when ALBINIZI starts falling up the stairs
Speaker 2: like Joe Biden did that, we have.
Speaker 12: To worry, Basil.
Speaker 2: He actually tried to hold onto the leg of one
Speaker 2: of the union members that was there, but look he
Speaker 2: was quick to recover and turn this into a joke.
Speaker 2: I guess these things happen and then they suddenly become
Speaker 2: a story when you're in the middle of a campaign.
Speaker 1: They do. I don't love that stuff.
Speaker 11: I mean, I think they're cheap shots all round, and
Speaker 11: not anyone in particular that's taking them. But obviously they
Speaker 11: become a story for the evening news.
Speaker 1: We get it.
Speaker 11: I don't think Australians generally love.
Speaker 1: That sort of stuff.
Speaker 11: Everybody's going to stumble or tumble at times, and I
Speaker 11: think a little bit of discretion and a little bit
Speaker 11: of fair play for everybody. Nonetheless grabbing onto the leg
Speaker 11: of a union official. Maybe it is representative of other
Speaker 11: things that are at play at the moment, and unfortunately
Speaker 11: these incidents always open themselves up through those sorts of lines.
Speaker 2: Indeed, they do, all right, Matt Canavan, Basil Zempler is
Speaker 2: great to see you as always on a Thursday. Okay,
Speaker 2: let's get some more analysis about Trump's tariffs, and I'm
Speaker 2: joined now by IPA senior fellow and chief economist Adam Crichton. Adam,
Speaker 2: thanks for your time. Look what's your take on these tariffs?
Speaker 2: Are they reciprocal at least with Australia and do you
Speaker 2: think are they're a bad idea?
Speaker 13: Well, just a few points there, Sharry, your editorial I
Speaker 13: think was very right. The Prime Minister's rhetoric is so
Speaker 13: over the top here. The implication is that the US
Speaker 13: has somehow put new taxes on Australians, but no Australian
Speaker 13: will be sending a single cent to the US treasury
Speaker 13: as a result of these tariffs. They are taxes on Americans,
Speaker 13: specifically American importers, and they will ultimately increase the prices
Speaker 13: of goods and services for Americans. So it's a quasi
Speaker 13: consumption tax, and I would argue that this is therefore
Speaker 13: a matter for the United States. In fact, as you
Speaker 13: also said, Australia ended up with the lowest rate of
Speaker 13: all applying to the imports from Australia, only ten percent.
Speaker 13: I think Japan got twenty percent, the European Union twenty
Speaker 13: four percent, so we've actually done pretty well out of
Speaker 13: this new policy of the United States. The second point
Speaker 13: is the fiscal situation in the US. There are two
Speaker 13: trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see,
Speaker 13: and these tariffs will raise about seven hundred billion dollars. Now,
Speaker 13: if the US government is not going to cut spending
Speaker 13: by two trillion dollars, and I don't think it will,
Speaker 13: then this is practically the only alternative alternative that it has.
Speaker 13: And just very quickly, finally, on all the doom and
Speaker 13: gloom forecasts, the stock market in Australia only fell by
Speaker 13: one percent today, which was a pretty small move. So
Speaker 13: certainly investors do not see these tariffs as the end
Speaker 13: of the economic world.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the stock market's one thing, and that's going to
Speaker 2: move around. But what about the concerns that some have,
Speaker 2: and including the Wall Street Journal mentioned this about how
Speaker 2: it could potentially the tariffs be inflationary. What's your view
Speaker 2: on that.
Speaker 1: Well, look, they could be.
Speaker 13: I mean the first round of tariffs, certainly they were
Speaker 13: much smaller in twenty eighteen from the first Trump presidency
Speaker 13: on China, but there wasn't such a huge impact on
Speaker 13: inflation back then, And I'd just be very wary of
Speaker 13: the economic consensus because certainly we've seen in the last
Speaker 13: ten years you know that the consensus of economists tends
Speaker 13: to get the big things wrong. So I would be
Speaker 13: reluctant to say that this is going to be hugely inflationary.
Speaker 13: We haven't seen huge changes in the ten year US
Speaker 13: bond yield, which suggests to me that the forecast for
Speaker 13: inflation haven't really changed a great deal. You know, these
Speaker 13: are basic. This is basically a huge quasi consumption tax
Speaker 13: on Americans from my point of view, So there will
Speaker 13: be an increase in price, but some of the burden,
Speaker 13: of course, will be born by the exporters from other countries.
Speaker 13: We just we don't know as yet kind of how
Speaker 13: the burden will actually fall.
Speaker 2: I want to ask you about a couple of other topics,
Speaker 2: but very quickly. While this has been Trump's policy for
Speaker 2: a long time, the current US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant,
Speaker 2: he is considered to be pretty smart. He knows what
Speaker 2: he's doing. Would you agree with that, Oh.
Speaker 13: Certainly, yes, he's a multi billionaire. I think he's largely
Speaker 13: so made, almost entirely self made, very smart man and
Speaker 13: very highly respected in markets.
Speaker 1: I would say so he.
Speaker 2: Would know what he's doing here. I mean he's implementing.
Speaker 13: This, yes, yes, well, obviously he's implementing Donald Trump's policies.
Speaker 13: We don't know his private views necessarily, but he's certainly.
Speaker 13: He certainly puts himself out there as a very articulate spokesman.
Speaker 2: All right, just want to get your view. And a
Speaker 2: couple of other topics that have been big news today. Firstly,
Speaker 2: the issue of the Teals and their hypocrisy. It's front
Speaker 2: and center. They've been accused of double standards for refusing
Speaker 2: to comment on that inappropriate joke by the Bradfield Teal
Speaker 2: candidate Nicolette Bowl at the hair salon. The Liberals have
Speaker 2: put together an ad to highlight the point. If we
Speaker 2: have that, let's play it. As your member four keon,
Speaker 2: I will act with integrity and honesty.
Speaker 1: It's the question of do you practice what you preach?
Speaker 14: Teal MP already made headlines earlier this week accused of
Speaker 14: shouting at children in a quarrel with Liberal volunteers.
Speaker 3: Ryan's husband tearing down one of your liberal rivals campaign signs.
Speaker 6: There you go, Monique Ryan, there you go, Community values.
Speaker 7: It's been a really good day for integrity and transparency
Speaker 7: in Australia Parliament today.
Speaker 2: Adam, this is double standards, isn't it. Why can't they
Speaker 2: comment on their own inappropriate comment?
Speaker 13: Well, look, I think they're trying to play a small
Speaker 13: target strategy, like many politicians are in this election. I
Speaker 13: think I think it's fair to say overall the brand
Speaker 13: of the Teals has not done so well in the
Speaker 13: first week or so of the campaign. They haven't been
Speaker 13: falling off stages yet, but certainly you know, the hair
Speaker 13: salon joke, the core Flutes drama. It's not been a
Speaker 13: good first week for them.
Speaker 2: No, absolutely not. And the biggest revelation for me this
Speaker 2: week was when Ray Hardley told me that men don't
Speaker 2: get their hair washed in hair salons. I literally had
Speaker 2: no idea about that. I can't imagine a man leaving
Speaker 2: a hairdressing salon without getting their hair washed. Okay, well
Speaker 2: maybe you Adam, finally got to cover this story. Hamas
Speaker 2: has has admitted that seventy two percent of Palestinian deaths
Speaker 2: were combat aged men, so terrorists, and they've revised down
Speaker 2: their figures. This is quite extraordinary and we haven't really
Speaker 2: seen this broadly covered well.
Speaker 13: Certainly, that doesn't shock me at all. I mean, the
Speaker 13: first casualty of war is truth, and there's always an
Speaker 13: incentive for governments to exaggerate or to change figures to
Speaker 13: help their cause. And it would not shock me at
Speaker 13: all with the case of a mass here that they've
Speaker 13: been exaggerating the death figures to generate an emotional response
Speaker 13: around the world. So look, if there's any silver lining
Speaker 13: to this ongoing tragedy in the Middle East, at least
Speaker 13: they're trying to put out the correct figures, I guess,
Speaker 13: but they should have done that in the first place.
Speaker 13: But I think I think the broader lesson is don't
Speaker 13: seize on the casualty and the death figures of various
Speaker 13: governments in war time because they probably don't even know
Speaker 13: what they are themselves. But there's always an incentive to
Speaker 13: exaggerate for their own purposes.
Speaker 2: Or inflating death figures. I mean, we always knew that
Speaker 2: was the case, and now the proof starting to emerge.
Speaker 2: Adam Crichton, thank you very much for your time. Now
Speaker 2: still to calm the Albanezy government facing a battle between
Speaker 2: a wind farm and saving the koalas. I have that
Speaker 2: fascinating story in a moment, Plus, Angus Taylor tells me
Speaker 2: Australia is bound on American beef could be reconsidered. That's
Speaker 2: all coming up, welcome back. Or Albanizi and Tanya Plubisek
Speaker 2: have a new legal headache to contend with in their
Speaker 2: race to renewables. A Queensland environment charity has started legal
Speaker 2: action against the government as well as and Andrew Forrest
Speaker 2: backed renewable energy company. This is over concerns about a
Speaker 2: planned wind farm near a heritage protected wilderness, which it
Speaker 2: said will cause too much environmental damage. Joining us to
Speaker 2: discuss his associate editor and chief writer Theustralian, Christine Midup. Christine,
Speaker 2: this is a fascinating story. Can you tell us about
Speaker 2: this legal fight and what's behind it.
Speaker 15: Yes, So, this is a wind farm planned to be.
Speaker 14: Built just near the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area up
Speaker 14: in far North Queensland. It borders a National park and
Speaker 14: a state forest and it's quite environmentally rich area. So
Speaker 14: where the wind farm is going there's something like twenty
Speaker 14: two vulnerable or threatened species that live in that area.
Speaker 14: So This little group called Rainforest Reserves is a small
Speaker 14: charity in North Queensland. They do things like run at
Speaker 14: Cassowary Sanctuary, they plant trees, they buy up rainforest.
Speaker 15: But they've become increasingly concerned.
Speaker 14: About the damage to the environment from different renewal projects,
Speaker 14: particularly wind farms going down the sort of Great Dividing
Speaker 14: Range up in North Queensland and Central Queensland. So they
Speaker 14: decided they would take this case to court. It's actually
Speaker 14: being heard in the Federal Court at the moment. It's
Speaker 14: a difficult case this little charity. They don't have a
Speaker 14: lot of money. They've got about one hundred.
Speaker 15: And fifty members.
Speaker 14: They're up against the Federal government and all of their resources,
Speaker 14: and also against wind Lab, which is an Andrew Forrest
Speaker 14: back company.
Speaker 2: So there's been a lot of concerns in local communities
Speaker 2: about when farms like this one. And you've characterized this
Speaker 2: in your article in The Australian as the ultimate David
Speaker 2: and Goliath battle, as you say, it was in the
Speaker 2: Federal Court today. What's your feel on how this is
Speaker 2: going to go and whether the charity will have the
Speaker 2: finances to continue this battle.
Speaker 14: Well, it's a difficult case. And their lawyers will accept that.
Speaker 14: It's a difficult case because they can't just bring on
Speaker 14: a case that says this is going to cause so
Speaker 14: much damage.
Speaker 15: I mean, we're talking about six hundred hectares of habitat.
Speaker 14: That supports Koala's vulnerable wallabies, lots of birds and bat species.
Speaker 15: So they can't just argue about the damage. They have
Speaker 15: to pick out a judicial argument.
Speaker 14: And so this is turning on very sort of technical
Speaker 14: approval conditions as part of this sort of overall decision.
Speaker 14: So it's not an easy case to bring. It's an
Speaker 14: uphill battle. I mean, I think they've really got it
Speaker 14: ahead of them, but I think what they really wanted
Speaker 14: to do as well, is, you know, they wanted to
Speaker 14: do something. This group has become really concerned about the
Speaker 14: damage to the environment and they want to highlight that
Speaker 14: and this is one way for them to do it.
Speaker 2: We've seen, and I don't know how widely you've reported
Speaker 2: on these sort of issues, but we have seen communities
Speaker 2: in other areas concerned about the impacts that when farms
Speaker 2: could have on say the whale population. So this isn't
Speaker 2: just limited to this charity in this area, is it.
Speaker 15: No, it's not.
Speaker 14: I mean if you go all the way down from
Speaker 14: far North Queensland down through central Queensland, down through northern
Speaker 14: New South Wales into Victoria. I mean I wrote about
Speaker 14: Kusiosco National Park on the weekend, which has got a
Speaker 14: major scar going through it now to build transmission lines
Speaker 14: to get the energy out of snow two point zero.
Speaker 15: There are widespread concerns about the environmental damage due to
Speaker 15: really poor planning. I think about a lot of the
Speaker 15: renewables rollouts, and a lot of scientists I speak to
Speaker 15: also say they see problems with this.
Speaker 14: The bigger environmental groups green groups are a bit more
Speaker 14: silent on it.
Speaker 15: They don't want to do anything to sort of dampen
Speaker 15: the rollout.
Speaker 14: But smaller groups environmental groups, they are really standing up
Speaker 14: now and saying we have to do something before you know,
Speaker 14: this gets to a point that we can't turn back.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, fascinating reporting and a really worrying issue. Christine
Speaker 2: mid Upp, thank you so much for your time. All right,
Speaker 2: still to come, a high profile defamation lawyer Nicholas Pullen
Speaker 2: will give his verdict on how the explosive recording of
Speaker 2: Nick McKenzie could impact the Ben Robert Smith case.
Speaker 1: Plas.
Speaker 2: Angus Taylor weighs in on the Trump impact of those tariffs.
Speaker 2: That's after this quick break. Returning now to tonight's top story,
Speaker 2: Trump's trade tariffs. Well for more insight into what this
Speaker 2: means for Australia, our economy and how the Coalition would
Speaker 2: handle this, I spoke a little earlier to Shadow treasurer
Speaker 2: Angus Taylor. Angus Taylor, thank you very much for your time.
Speaker 1: Great to be with your shary.
Speaker 2: Dominating the agenda today, of course, are Donald Trump's trade tariffs.
Speaker 2: He slapped the lowest ten percent on all Australian imports
Speaker 2: to the United States. He says they're reciprocal. Do you
Speaker 2: agree with him?
Speaker 1: No, I don't.
Speaker 3: We don't have tariffs on American goods coming into Australia
Speaker 3: of anything like that kind of magnitude. We haven't had
Speaker 3: a free trade agreement with the United States for nine
Speaker 3: twenty years now, and that's been important in facilitating trade
Speaker 3: and good trade between Australia and the US, including our
Speaker 3: exports of beef and so I don't accept that, but
Speaker 3: I do think there's real rumors they're always with Don
Speaker 3: is with Donald Trump to negotiate a better outcome, and
Speaker 3: the government should be acting now to ensure that we're
Speaker 3: in a position where we can negotiate a better outcome
Speaker 3: with Donald Trump. One of the things we know, for instance,
Speaker 3: with beef exports, is that American beef consumers will have
Speaker 3: to pay more as a result of this because they're
Speaker 3: short of beef.
Speaker 1: Right now.
Speaker 3: The beef herd has dropped significantly because of drought. There's
Speaker 3: still rebuilding, and so I think there's a real opportunity
Speaker 3: for us.
Speaker 1: To get in and negotiate.
Speaker 3: The problem is this government hasn't had good relationships with
Speaker 3: this administration as we did with the last Republican administration,
Speaker 3: and the result is they're not in a position to
Speaker 3: get in and negotiate the sorts of outcomes we should.
Speaker 2: Could he be referring to our goods and services tax
Speaker 2: of ten percent when he talks about having reciprocal tariffs.
Speaker 3: Sure, they might be talking about that, but that's not discriminatory.
Speaker 3: It's applied equally to imported goods versus domestic goods. There's
Speaker 3: no difference in the regime between inputs and domestic purchases.
Speaker 3: So how that can be seen as a discriminatory tariff
Speaker 3: against inputs makes no sense.
Speaker 2: We have also had a five percent customs duty, including
Speaker 2: when the Coalition was in government. So again the customs duty,
Speaker 2: that's not really really any different to an import tariff
Speaker 2: that Trump's speaking about, is.
Speaker 3: It, except that it didn't apply in the case of
Speaker 3: the United States because we had a free trade agreement.
Speaker 3: So that's a default tariff which applies very rarely these days,
Speaker 3: only to a very small proportion of traded goods, because
Speaker 3: at the end of the day, we've got free trade
Speaker 3: agreements with most countries which we put in place, which
Speaker 3: we put in place. So the important point here is
Speaker 3: that the free trade agreements have put us in a
Speaker 3: position where our customs duty doesn't apply. GST is not discriminatory,
Speaker 3: and so the result is this is a tariff being
Speaker 3: imposed which is not reciprocal and it will hurt American consumers.
Speaker 3: But we've got a government that simply doesn't understand the
Speaker 3: beef market frankly, but also more importantly doesn't have the
Speaker 3: connections into the administration we had that. I saw that
Speaker 3: personally when I was the Minister for Cybersecurity with the
Speaker 3: last administration. I worked on the decision we made on Huawei,
Speaker 3: working closely with the United States throughout that we had
Speaker 3: a very close relationship because Joe Hockey was essential to that.
Speaker 2: The last phone call the Prime Minister's had with Trump
Speaker 2: was on February the tenth, so it has been a
Speaker 2: long time. The President today spoke about Australia's ban on
Speaker 2: beef expots from the United States. The reason that was
Speaker 2: in place was by security reasons mad cow disease. That's
Speaker 2: no longer an issue anymore, so should that be lifted.
Speaker 1: Well, it's not a ban.
Speaker 3: It requires certain protocols to be followed if beef.
Speaker 1: Is effectively is to come in.
Speaker 3: But at the end of the day, I mean we
Speaker 3: should always be looking at our bios security protocols and
Speaker 3: making sure they're fit for purpose. And you know that's
Speaker 3: something that we take Well, I'm not going to appinn
Speaker 3: on that one now. I think that's one where you
Speaker 3: take advice from the experts.
Speaker 2: Something we should consider.
Speaker 3: What we should always be considering those protocols and we
Speaker 3: should be asking our customers to consider them. I mean,
Speaker 3: I worked very hard to get Australian cherries into Asian markets,
Speaker 3: and we worked very hard to get protocols changed, and
Speaker 3: we should always be seeking to do that. But when
Speaker 3: I take a step back, the Coalition has been always
Speaker 3: been the one to open up these markets and get
Speaker 3: this working. We've understood the markets, We've represented agricultural parts
Speaker 3: of Australia much more than the Labor Party, and we've
Speaker 3: had deep, deep links into the last Trump administration and
Speaker 3: we can do that again. But you've also got to
Speaker 3: be prepared to say this is unacceptable and we have
Speaker 3: a strong relationship with the US. We have done throughout
Speaker 3: our history and we can do better than this.
Speaker 2: Donald Trump is emerging as a dominant figure in this
Speaker 2: election campaign. Somewhat surprisingly, the research in the published polls
Speaker 2: show that Australians are concerned about Trump. They view him
Speaker 2: as erratic and unreliable. Do you think this is working
Speaker 2: as a negative for Peter Dutton and the Coalition because
Speaker 2: Albin Ezi is comparing Dutton to Trump.
Speaker 1: Look, Albenezy will do that. He's desperate.
Speaker 3: It's student politics every day of the week with this guy,
Speaker 3: and the same with his treasurer. I mean, let's focus
Speaker 3: on the main issues here. This is a government that
Speaker 3: has absolutely failed to deal with the cost of living crisis.
Speaker 3: We've got our standard of living has collapsed. It's been unprecedented,
Speaker 3: worse than any of our peer countries in the world.
Speaker 1: We're not going to get back to.
Speaker 3: Where we were when we were asking government under their
Speaker 3: plan until the twenty thirty.
Speaker 1: This is a hopeless situation for Australia to.
Speaker 3: Be And the worst part of this is we are
Speaker 3: seeing an uncertain world and the Reserve Bank Governor, in
Speaker 3: her statement earlier in the week, used the word uncertainty
Speaker 3: five times. We are in a more uncertain world than
Speaker 3: we have been for a long time, and yet the
Speaker 3: government has left us in a position where we don't
Speaker 3: have the buffers. Our government budget is reading as far
Speaker 3: as the eye can see, and household budgets have been decimated,
Speaker 3: so our capacity to absorb shocks that might come through
Speaker 3: is not anything like it was.
Speaker 1: And that's that bad situation to be.
Speaker 2: Just on the IRBA you mentioned the governor. Of course,
Speaker 2: the RBA didn't even have a discussion about cutting rates
Speaker 2: in this board meeting. Do you think that shows that
Speaker 2: the rate cut at the last board meeting was premature
Speaker 2: and even potentially politically motivated.
Speaker 3: Look, I'm not going to comment on Reserve Bank decisions.
Speaker 3: I mean I think that ultimately should be left to
Speaker 3: be independent. What I do know is I think the
Speaker 3: government has made it harder for them to cut interest rates.
Speaker 3: Core inflation in Australia has remained higher than other peer
Speaker 3: countries across the world, and that, at the end of
Speaker 3: the day makes it harder for the Reserve Bank to
Speaker 3: bring down interest rates. We've also seen the government projecting
Speaker 3: ready as far as the eye can see. That makes
Speaker 3: it harder to bring down interest rates. So it's not
Speaker 3: surprising that we're being slow to see the reductions in interestrates.
Speaker 3: And of course we've seen between three and seven cuts
Speaker 3: in Canada and Europe, in New Zealand in the UK,
Speaker 3: and of course that's not been the case here.
Speaker 2: All right, Angus Taylor, really appreciate your time in the
Speaker 2: middle of a busy campaign.
Speaker 1: Good to be with you, Shary all right.
Speaker 2: Coming up next, high profile defamation lawyer Nicholas Pullen will
Speaker 2: give his verdict on how that explosive recording of Nick
Speaker 2: McKenzie could impact on the Ben Robert Smith case. That's next.
Speaker 2: Welcome back. Well. There will be a two day hearing
Speaker 2: on May first and second in the Federal Court for
Speaker 2: Victoria Cross recipient Ben Robert Smith to argue his case
Speaker 2: that the defamation judgment made against him should be set aside.
Speaker 2: This is in light of the audio recording where nine
Speaker 2: journalist Nick McKenzie admitted to breaching his ethics. He also
Speaker 2: admitted to obtaining part of Robert Smith's legal strategy.
Speaker 16: No, I shouldn't tell you I've just breached my ethics
Speaker 16: doing that. Like this is where like this is to
Speaker 16: really cheap position. There if they knew that impeting you,
Speaker 16: that actively breaking us on his legalship, you respected you
Speaker 16: like the his piece, and yet we're not learning about
Speaker 16: we anticipated most of it. One or two things now
Speaker 16: we know, which is helpful. But he's about.
Speaker 2: Ben Roberts, Smith's father, the former Justice of the Supreme Court,
Speaker 2: Len Roberts, released his statement earlier this week where he
Speaker 2: said there were questions about what legal strategies of Ben's
Speaker 2: McKenzie was referring to questions too, about what privileged information
Speaker 2: or material Ben's ex wife, Emma and her friend Dannielle
Speaker 2: Scott told McKenzie or gave to him. Len Roberts also
Speaker 2: said further, if mackenzie was prepared to speak to Person
Speaker 2: seventeen as he did, on the recording. Did he have
Speaker 2: similar conversations with other witnesses? If so, who and what
Speaker 2: did is say to them? Now Nine has denied any
Speaker 2: journalistic breaches or any breach of their legal strategies as well.
Speaker 2: They have launched a full defense accusing everyone else of
Speaker 2: a smear campaign without properly answering questions now to analyze
Speaker 2: how this could affect the case. Joining me now is
Speaker 2: an expert in defamation law media law partner at HWL
Speaker 2: Absworth Lawyers, Nicholas Pull and Nicholas thank you for your time,
Speaker 2: and we should just add for full disclosure that you
Speaker 2: acted against Nine in a case representing an orthopedic surgeon.
Speaker 2: It's concluded, but it is awaiting final judgment. Now, Nicholas,
Speaker 2: what do you think the legal ramifications of this recording
Speaker 2: could be.
Speaker 8: The ramifications really need to be assessed once, certainly once
Speaker 8: submissions are made and evidence which has to be provided
Speaker 8: by a fidavit material before first of May, as you've mentioned,
Speaker 8: comes out. At the moment, it really is speculative concerning
Speaker 8: what impact this is going to have, but one can
Speaker 8: say quite clearly that what we're looking at are issues
Speaker 8: that go to credit of witnesses, and how that assessment
Speaker 8: of credit that was made by the trial judge in
Speaker 8: the case has been affected perhaps by the representations that
Speaker 8: have being made by Ben Robert Smith's lawyers.
Speaker 2: So talking about that credit issue, then, in the judgment,
Speaker 2: the judge did not find Person seventeen's evidence sufficiently reliable
Speaker 2: to accept that her serious allegations were true, but he
Speaker 2: also did not accept Robert Smith's evidence regarding Person seventeen.
Speaker 2: So how could this rejection of Robert Smith's evidence in
Speaker 2: relation to Person seventeen have influenced potentially the judge's view
Speaker 2: of Ben Robert Smith's credibility when it then came to
Speaker 2: the war crimes witnesses and allegations.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, this.
Speaker 8: Is certainly going to one of the very salient points
Speaker 8: in this matter. And I've also noticed some media commentators
Speaker 8: have in a sense tried to categorize the issues of
Speaker 8: credit carrying over from issues concerning Witness seventeen and other
Speaker 8: issues concerning what occurred in Afghanistan. Now, you can't box,
Speaker 8: you can't categorize a person's credit in relation to one
Speaker 8: set of instances and be ignorant or certainly not take
Speaker 8: them into account in the other instances in the same trial.
Speaker 8: I think that this is certainly what this is certainly
Speaker 8: what Ben Robert Smith's lawyers will be going for. Ben,
Speaker 8: don't forget even though witness seventeen was not fully accepted
Speaker 8: credit wise in the trial judge assessment, it was preferred
Speaker 8: over the assessment made on many issues regarding Witness seventeen
Speaker 8: over Ben Roberts Smith by the trial judge.
Speaker 2: Now, as I said, nine has said that they haven't
Speaker 2: breached their journalistic or legal ethics. Given we now know
Speaker 2: that Ben Robert Smith's emails were accessed both in relation
Speaker 2: to Person seventeen and in relation to his marriage breakdown,
Speaker 2: do you think it's reasonable to ask whether other emails
Speaker 2: were accessed in relation to other areas of the case.
Speaker 8: Well, this is certainly the thrust of Ben Roberts Smith's lawyers.
Speaker 8: That is, that information has been accessed that was legally privileged.
Speaker 8: This is part of the information that they're looking for
Speaker 8: as to whether or not any other information has been accessed.
Speaker 8: So it really remains to be seen what the nature
Speaker 8: of that evidence, sorry, what the nature of that information
Speaker 8: or that was gained. We can only speculate in relation
Speaker 8: to what that is and clearly it's not worth while
Speaker 8: going down that avenue right now.
Speaker 2: So just explain to us how this appeal will work.
Speaker 8: Look, that's a good question in the sense that it's
Speaker 8: not usual. I mean, after all, it's the appeal has
Speaker 8: occurred and there has been an application on for an
Speaker 8: amended appeal to take into account what is being said
Speaker 8: to be.
Speaker 1: Well in the application, a miscarriage of justice.
Speaker 8: Now it's been indicated that if the application is successful,
Speaker 8: it's been indicated that in fact a trial could happen
Speaker 8: before the full Court. At the moment, that's a bit
Speaker 8: up in the air. It's a bit hard to read
Speaker 8: the ruins on that one, but it has been mentioned
Speaker 8: by the judge hearing the application that that is a
Speaker 8: possibility it could be heard before the full court.
Speaker 2: Not fascinating, all right, Nicholas Pullan, thank you very much
Speaker 2: for your insights tonight, and everyone, thank you so much
Speaker 2: for your company this week. Thanks for watching. Next week
Speaker 2: is going to be huge. We've got the Leader's debate
Speaker 2: on Tuesday night, first time Albanesi and Dutton will be
Speaker 2: up against each other. Then the treasure is debate on
Speaker 2: Wednesday night. It's all heating up. Have a lovely weekend,
Speaker 2: and right now, here's Paul Murray.