Speaker 1: Good evening.
Speaker 2: We're coming up tonight exclusive new details about the scandal
Speaker 2: at the Nine network, with fresh allegations about a Christmas
Speaker 2: party incident involving their top news chief. This as the
Speaker 2: company is accused of a major cover up, plus the
Speaker 2: bizarre push to ban groups of men. But first tonight
Speaker 2: to the International Criminal Courts disgraceful decision that Israeli Prime
Speaker 2: Minister Benjaminette and Yahoo should be arrested alongside the hamas terrorists.
Speaker 2: It's a ruling that's a perverse in its logic, that
Speaker 2: reeks of ideology, not facts, and that punishes Israel for
Speaker 2: daring to defend itself. Such a morally corrupt decision that
Speaker 2: yet again wages war on the Jewish homeland at the
Speaker 2: very time it's under siege from Iran, has Below and Hermas,
Speaker 2: when it's still fighting to bring its stolen children, even
Speaker 2: babies home from rapists and barbarians in dark tunnels. The
Speaker 2: ICC also fans the flames of anti Semitism by promoting
Speaker 2: false claims that Israel is starving Palestinians and deliberately targeting
Speaker 2: civilians when the facts show that the opposite is true.
Speaker 1: As I'll explain in a.
Speaker 2: Minute, Well, who was there to sell this appalling judgment,
Speaker 2: but celebrities like Amaal Clooney. The decision is a clear disgrace.
Speaker 2: The idea that you could equate Hermas's barbaric atrocities with
Speaker 2: Netanyahu defending Jewish citizens from terrorists, well, it confuses reason
Speaker 2: and it confuses what's right and wrong. Joe Biden's administration
Speaker 2: strongly and unequivocally denounced the ICC's ruling. Biden himself called
Speaker 2: it outrage and he said, there's no equivalence between Israel
Speaker 2: and Hamas.
Speaker 3: Let me be clear, we reject the ICC's application for
Speaker 3: rest warrants against a Walla Adia, so when one of
Speaker 3: these warrants may imply there is no equivalence between Israel
Speaker 3: and Hamas.
Speaker 2: Secretary of State Anthony Blincoln described the ICC decision as shameful,
Speaker 2: and he said in a statement that Hamas is a
Speaker 2: brutal terrorist organization that carried out the worst massacre of
Speaker 2: Jews since the Holocaust. So Joe Biden said it's outrageous.
Speaker 2: Anthony Blincoln said it's shameful, and there were similar statements
Speaker 2: from the UK, Germany, Austria and other countries around the world.
Speaker 2: But Anthony Albanesi nothing, no spine, no morals, no courage.
Speaker 2: Just like with the vote at the United Nations, Albinizi
Speaker 2: was yet again at odds with how our closest ally
Speaker 2: the United States, and once again our prime minister was pathetic,
Speaker 2: alb and easy deflected questions, showing no intellect, no moral compass,
Speaker 2: and he was only outmatched in his ignorance by Chris Bowen.
Speaker 4: You are put in Joey Biden seeing your restlance on
Speaker 4: this relatives is outrageous.
Speaker 5: You agree, well, I don't comment on court processes in Australia.
Speaker 6: Let a line court processes globally, which Australia is not
Speaker 6: a party.
Speaker 4: Highly irresponsible, but by Peter Dutton to drag this through
Speaker 4: a domestic political debate. We respect the work of the
Speaker 4: International Criminal Court. International law must always be observed and
Speaker 4: nobody gets a free pass from that.
Speaker 2: How sad it is for all of us that this
Speaker 2: is the leadership we have in Australia during this crisis. Well,
Speaker 2: the Coalition called out Albanese's pathetic, weak lack of leadership.
Speaker 7: It's an abomination and it needs to be ceized. This
Speaker 7: action is anti Semitic and it is against the interests
Speaker 7: of peace in the Middle East. Either the prominence is
Speaker 7: not across the detail, or he's trying to please a
Speaker 7: domestic audience here for political purposes.
Speaker 2: Well, now let's look at the reasons why the ICC
Speaker 2: decision is wrong. In an exceptional Wall Street Journal editorial,
Speaker 2: the board rights that the International Criminal Court has lost
Speaker 2: sight of the crucial distinction between the death squad and
Speaker 2: the bomber pilot. They say that the ruling is a
Speaker 2: subordination of the law in pursuit of Israel. They write
Speaker 2: that on one side are are israel It's democratic leaders
Speaker 2: waging a war to reclaim hostages.
Speaker 1: And root out terrorists in Gaza.
Speaker 2: On the other side is HERMAS, which precipitated the war
Speaker 2: with its mass murder, rape and kidnapping on October seven,
Speaker 2: and whose officials pledged to do it again and again.
Speaker 2: Lumping them together is a slander for the history books,
Speaker 2: they write. Imagine some international body prosecuting tojo and Roosevelt
Speaker 2: or Hitler and Churchill amid World War II. And on
Speaker 2: the claims of starvation, the Wall Street Journal responds that
Speaker 2: Hermas lists thirty one Gazans who it claims died of
Speaker 2: malnutrition or starvation. They say Israel has facilitated the entry
Speaker 2: of over five hundred and forty two thousand tons of
Speaker 2: AID and over twenty eight thousand AID trucks in an
Speaker 2: unprecedented effort to supply an enemy civilians, even while her
Speaker 2: Musk steals the aid and tries to frustrate the delivery.
Speaker 2: Israel has begged Egypt for two weeks to let in
Speaker 2: aid at Ratha, while Egypt refuses. Is this the behavior
Speaker 2: of an Israeli government bent on starving Ghazans?
Speaker 1: Obviously it's not.
Speaker 5: Now.
Speaker 2: The Times in the UK also reports that it is
Speaker 2: Hamas that's been obstructing delivery of aid and stealing supplies
Speaker 2: for its own use and also to sell on the
Speaker 2: black market at inflated prices. And The Times reports that defensively,
Speaker 2: the prosecutor Khan says he has consulted an impartial panel,
Speaker 2: yet it is stuffed with radical.
Speaker 1: Human rights lawyers who are no friends of Israel.
Speaker 2: This impartial panel is actually a hanging jury from the
Speaker 2: Salem School of Law. Verdict first evidence Nowhere, they write,
Speaker 2: the Khan's preposterous move is part of the agenda for
Speaker 2: Israel's destruction through a pincer movement of genocide or terror,
Speaker 2: brainwashed street insurrection and human rights law fare, and the
Speaker 2: beneficiary will only be humus. The victims will be Israel,
Speaker 2: the rule of law and civilization itself. It's a truly
Speaker 2: terrific peace. And the Time says correctly that this ruling
Speaker 2: has destroyed what was left.
Speaker 1: Of the ICC's credibility.
Speaker 2: Now, the claim by the ICC that Israel is deliberately
Speaker 2: targeting civilians simply isn't supported by evidence. No government engaging
Speaker 2: in war has done more to protect civilian life. Israeli
Speaker 2: soldiers have even stayed on the phone to residence waiting
Speaker 2: for them to get out of apartment buildings before an attack.
Speaker 2: Israel is treating wounded Palestinians in their own hospitals, and
Speaker 2: Israeli soldiers drop leaflets and flyers in Arabic asking civilians
Speaker 2: to evacuate before going into an area, even though this
Speaker 2: means they lose the advantage of a surprise attack. The
Speaker 2: death toll figures produced by Himas have been so unrealistic
Speaker 2: that even the United Nations was forced to revise.
Speaker 1: Them down by half recently. Half.
Speaker 2: And if you think it's surprising that the ICC ignored
Speaker 2: all of this evidence. It's because they didn't set foot
Speaker 2: on the ground in Israel, there was no proper investigation, and.
Speaker 1: They've been accused of ignoring due process.
Speaker 2: This was a political, ideological, and quite frankly racist ruling
Speaker 2: that does not reflect reality. Right Tonight's panel joins me
Speaker 2: now former Speaker of the House Bronwin Bishop and Sky
Speaker 2: News host James Morrow.
Speaker 1: Thank you both for joining me. Runwin, what do you
Speaker 1: make of the ICC decision?
Speaker 2: But also, perhaps more importantly for all of us, Anthony
Speaker 2: Alberanesi's response.
Speaker 8: Anthony Albernesi's response is predictable. He's a man with no morals.
Speaker 8: As he said, he's weak, he's pathetic, he remains albo
Speaker 8: the trot. Hasn't changed his views since he was a
Speaker 8: university student and a demonstrated a university. But as for
Speaker 8: the ICC, when it came up in two thousand and two,
Speaker 8: as to whether Australia should sign this treaty, I fought
Speaker 8: it tooth and nail. I fought it with every fiber
Speaker 8: in my body because I knew it would be a
Speaker 8: political court, if the people appointed to it would not
Speaker 8: be proper, would not give justice, and I fought hard
Speaker 8: against Alexander Danna and and it was all for it.
Speaker 8: I see today. It broke his heart to see it
Speaker 8: such a mess, But it broke my heart when we
Speaker 8: signed on because it was predictable. There is a provision
Speaker 8: in that for us, for Australia, we can give twelve
Speaker 8: months notice.
Speaker 1: And get out of it.
Speaker 8: And we should immediately give that notice and get out
Speaker 8: of it the way that has been brought down in
Speaker 8: your editorial. You explained it chapter and verse. But you've
Speaker 8: got a partisan prosecutor who clearly isn't on the side
Speaker 8: of Israel, and it is clearly on the side of Amas.
Speaker 8: So we've got to see justice and give notice to
Speaker 8: get out of the ICC.
Speaker 2: James Morrow, you know you cover federal politics for the
Speaker 2: Daily Telegraph as.
Speaker 1: Well as for Sky News.
Speaker 2: What do you think of Anthony Albinezi here? I mean,
Speaker 2: it would have been the most easy statement in the
Speaker 2: world to say, no cot in the land can possibly
Speaker 2: draw an equivalents between Hamas and Israel. How couldn't he
Speaker 2: even come to articulate such a basic statement.
Speaker 9: Well, I mean, there's a few things to unpack here.
Speaker 9: Number one, of course, is that this is just indicative
Speaker 9: of the latest way in which Albinizi is trying to
Speaker 9: have it both ways when it comes to Israel. You know,
Speaker 9: one day he's saying, oh, no, no, we can't have
Speaker 9: anybody saying the river to the sea and all of
Speaker 9: that stuff. Another day he's saying, I'm not going to
Speaker 9: condemn the ICC for their obviously biased ruling on this,
Speaker 9: And Sherry, I think there's more to this that we
Speaker 9: also need to understand. This is part of a concerted
Speaker 9: international effort, not even just about Israel, but specifically about
Speaker 9: the government of Benjamin itt Yahoo. You know, Joe Biden said, oh, well,
Speaker 9: I don't accept this ruling. It's not really he didn't
Speaker 9: agree with it. But at the same time, you know,
Speaker 9: you can feel behind the scenes that this is part
Speaker 9: of a broader push to delegitimize the net Yahoo government
Speaker 9: and pressure him out. Because the thing that Biden doesn't want,
Speaker 9: and the thing that the international left doesn't want, is
Speaker 9: for bb to be successful in prosecuting his war against
Speaker 9: Hamas and eliminating Hamas, because that then destroys the entire
Speaker 9: sort of foreign policy that they have, which is about
Speaker 9: empowering Iran as a regional power through its proxies.
Speaker 1: That's a very interesting take.
Speaker 2: I agree that there's been a lot of international pressure
Speaker 2: on the Netin Yahu government. I think they see him
Speaker 2: as this kind of Trump like figure, when in fact
Speaker 2: Israel is a democracy it should be entitled to have
Speaker 2: its elections. He is divisive within Israel, but it's a democracy.
Speaker 2: We have to respect the decisions they make. And you know,
Speaker 2: you can't confuse not supporting netin Yahoo, and many people.
Speaker 1: Don't with not supporting Israel.
Speaker 2: You have to support Israel even if you don't like
Speaker 2: the current prime minister. We all support Australia, even if
Speaker 2: many of you watching at home might not like so
Speaker 2: much our current prime minister. Speaking of which, the Albert
Speaker 2: Eezy government has been in office for two years now
Speaker 2: and most would be wondering what is the verdict?
Speaker 1: Two years on? What do they have to show for it?
Speaker 2: We've seen the failed Voice referendum, there's a cost of
Speaker 2: living crisis, a detainee and migration nightmare. More recently, a
Speaker 2: controversial budget and steadily declining holes Runman. Two years on,
Speaker 2: how do you think Elbow's gone?
Speaker 1: What would you give his prime ministership so far?
Speaker 8: One and a half serious surprise that's that high. Seriously,
Speaker 8: I mean, ask yourself the question, are you better off
Speaker 8: or worse off than you were two years ago. We've
Speaker 8: seen twelve interstrate hikes. We've seen a huge jump in
Speaker 8: immigration levels, which has caused enormous pressure on housing for Australians.
Speaker 8: We have seen the cost of living, which he promised
Speaker 8: to bring down through the roof you're seeing today, Telster,
Speaker 8: it's going to sack nearly three thousand people. That is
Speaker 8: the first telling of how bad things really are.
Speaker 9: Now.
Speaker 8: You know, we talked about Albanesi and his weakness with
Speaker 8: regard to the ICC ruling, and I think I said
Speaker 8: that the ICC prosecutor was on her Massa's side. I
Speaker 8: meant to say, he's really on the side of the
Speaker 8: Palasidenian side. I don't know about hermas.
Speaker 2: But I do know, yes, I noticed you said that.
Speaker 2: But in equating Israel with her mask that is furthering there.
Speaker 2: Yes it is.
Speaker 8: And for Albanesi not to speak out, not to speak
Speaker 8: out and say that there is no moral equivalence, and
Speaker 8: to simply think, oh, I do desperately need this pile
Speaker 8: of voters who won't vote for me if I say
Speaker 8: nice things about Israel. It is just pathetic and there
Speaker 8: are at least a dozen things you could say about
Speaker 8: why we're worse off and when the voter comes to
Speaker 8: think of it, it is this insane drive for so
Speaker 8: called renewable power. When Aimo comes out today and said,
Speaker 8: we're never going to make We're going out.
Speaker 2: We're going to but we're going to get to the
Speaker 2: blackouts in a moment. But James, you know, as a
Speaker 2: political reporter, you follow all of this closely. How do
Speaker 2: you judge the first two years of the alban Easy
Speaker 2: government and.
Speaker 1: What's your view on whether they could go to an
Speaker 1: early election.
Speaker 9: Yeah, look, I mean maybe it'll be a tiny bit
Speaker 9: more generous than Bram and Megham a c you know,
Speaker 9: just to be nice. But the thing is that what
Speaker 9: we have seen in the last couple of years has
Speaker 9: really been just a dramatic decline in Australian's stands of livings,
Speaker 9: our fortunes here. You know, our real GDP is down
Speaker 9: per person. We're in a per capita recession. A lot
Speaker 9: of that is due to the fact that, as Brodwin mentions,
Speaker 9: you know, high immigration levels mean that we can have
Speaker 9: more economic activity that hides that it's a sugar hit.
Speaker 9: But of course, you know the cost of social hithesion, infrastructure,
Speaker 9: everything else massive. You know, our living standards, our household
Speaker 9: income all backwards on his watch. And the thing that
Speaker 9: I'm really concerned about, you know, people talked about this
Speaker 9: budget that just got handed down last week is kind
Speaker 9: of big nothing, but in a lot of ways too,
Speaker 9: it sets some really worrisome precedents. You know, it really
Speaker 9: fully undoes all of the hawk Keating Howard reforms, you know,
Speaker 9: and instead sets up the government as again this sort
Speaker 9: of intermediating force between big business, big unions and big government.
Speaker 9: Government spending of course now expanding to twenty six or
Speaker 9: more percent of GDP, which is insane, and at the
Speaker 9: same time, you know, now deciding to direct capital where
Speaker 9: it's going to go, you know, money to millionaires for
Speaker 9: green hydrogen. This this future brand in Australia stuff which
Speaker 9: is complete nonsense industry policy. I mean, somebody had the
Speaker 9: comment today they said, you know, what's decks, We're going
Speaker 9: to resubsidize holding in Kodeact come back and it just
Speaker 9: it doesn't make any sense. But it shows the ethic
Speaker 9: of this government is all about growing government and growing
Speaker 9: the role of government in the economy and in people's lives.
Speaker 9: And the thing I'm really worried about, Sherry, is that
Speaker 9: as we go forward, this is going to continue to
Speaker 9: make us poorer relative to a where we were, but
Speaker 9: also poorer relative to other countries that we're competing against.
Speaker 2: I mean, look, it's a very controversial policy the future
Speaker 2: made in Australia. Like you, I don't know why the
Speaker 2: government has to subsidize industries and pick companies to invest in,
Speaker 2: you know, when venture capital gets it wrong so often.
Speaker 2: But the Treasurer does argue that in fact he is
Speaker 2: being reformists like the hot Keating era. He says, creating
Speaker 2: an entire new green industry is being a reforming government.
Speaker 2: Now let's turn to an exclusive that James Murray that
Speaker 2: you broke today in the Daily Telegraph that more than
Speaker 2: sixty thousand of the eighty thousand failed asylum seekers are
Speaker 2: still somehow in Australia and allowed to work or study.
Speaker 2: And you report that only seventeen of these people who
Speaker 2: claim to be refugees but were found not to be
Speaker 2: have actually been removed either voluntary or involuntarily over the
Speaker 2: past two months. Ron when look how is this the
Speaker 2: case that people are found not to be genuine asylum
Speaker 2: seekers but they're allowed to still work and study here.
Speaker 8: Of course this is the policy of this left wing government.
Speaker 8: They want them to stay, They want them to become
Speaker 8: voters because they think that'll entrench them in the government
Speaker 8: that they wish to change Australia. The statement the Keyping
Speaker 8: once made that you change the government, you changed the
Speaker 8: country is quite right. And this snake charmer of the
Speaker 8: Treasurer who's trying to bring about a reinvented capitalism I
Speaker 8: think you said it was, really has no idea of
Speaker 8: the damage he's doing. I don't think his doctorate is
Speaker 8: in I studied eating. I mean, it's pathetic the ir
Speaker 8: laws that come in on the twenty sixth of August,
Speaker 8: which are going to hit industry, like you have no
Speaker 8: idea how bad they are. I've taken a look at
Speaker 8: them because to keep a current practicing certificate I have
Speaker 8: to go and do a course and do my ten points.
Speaker 8: So I chose I. Ah, it's horrendous and it hits
Speaker 8: on the twenty sixth of August.
Speaker 1: That's good to know you're still studying, Bradwan James.
Speaker 2: We're nearly out of time, but I've got to quickly
Speaker 2: go to you because this was your big story today.
Speaker 1: Well tell us about it. What's the government's excuse for this?
Speaker 9: Well, you know, they just say that they blame everything
Speaker 9: on you know, the system that they inherited and so
Speaker 9: on and so forth. But they're not doing anything really
Speaker 9: to fix this huge situation. We're talking eighty thousand people
Speaker 9: have had their applications rejected. Most of these come from
Speaker 9: people who come from countries, you know, like India is
Speaker 9: one of the top sources of these applications. When you know,
Speaker 9: nobody is really found to be a genuine refugee from there.
Speaker 9: It's a democracy, there are allies. It's just a nonsense.
Speaker 9: We have so many students who then convert their student
Speaker 9: visas to asylum visas, and then once they've got that,
Speaker 9: they can stay for ten years while the process plays out.
Speaker 9: They establish a life here and they never get kicked out.
Speaker 9: The entire refugee system is broken because it's destroying the
Speaker 9: chances of people who are genuine refugees to get a
Speaker 9: quick decision, and so many people are abusing it. It's
Speaker 9: a real shame and it needs to be fixed.
Speaker 2: I think yeah, all right, James ma Bron and Bishop Broun.
Speaker 2: I have to say, you give the government one and
Speaker 2: a half out of ten and yet they're still probably
Speaker 2: going to be re elected.
Speaker 1: I mean that's what we're that's the reality. That's what
Speaker 1: we're looking on.
Speaker 8: Trusting that won't o good.
Speaker 1: All right, we'll see, Thank you Bright so much for
Speaker 1: your time.
Speaker 2: Now still to come, fresh revelations about the departure of
Speaker 2: the top news trief at Channel nine and the network's
Speaker 2: attempt to cover it up, plus the fallout from the budget.
Speaker 1: Continue use as voters reveal what they'll.
Speaker 2: Be spending Charmers energy rebate on that's all coming up next,
Speaker 2: Welcome back.
Speaker 9: Well.
Speaker 1: Some of Channel nine's biggest.
Speaker 2: Stars are speaking about the blokey culture of working under
Speaker 2: former legendary news guru Darren Wick and their concern that
Speaker 2: his conduct is now being swept under the carpet. The
Speaker 2: nine network stands accused of covering up allegations that it's
Speaker 2: former director of News and Current Affairs behaved inappropriately towards
Speaker 2: women on several occasions, with claims nine is even using
Speaker 2: non disclosure agreements to keep this scandal secret. There are
Speaker 2: several allegations of inappropriate behavior involving Wick.
Speaker 1: Over the years, yet he kept his job.
Speaker 2: This included an alleged incident at the Logis after party
Speaker 2: on the Gold Coast in twenty nineteen. Channel nine stars
Speaker 2: have also spoken to me today about another incident at
Speaker 2: a network Christmas party where Wick was described as hansy.
Speaker 2: It was the talk of the newsroom afterwards, but it
Speaker 2: was put down to the television boss having had too
Speaker 2: much to drink.
Speaker 1: Yet Wick was given a warm send.
Speaker 2: Off when he left the network on March fifteen, with
Speaker 2: glowing remarks from some executives. Well nine staff was shocked
Speaker 2: to see him back in the newsroom on April twenty fourth.
Speaker 1: Several women told us.
Speaker 2: Today they felt uncomfortable as he walked around the newsroom
Speaker 2: for a large part of the day. Well of the
Speaker 2: culture at Channel nine under Darren Wick, one Channel nine
Speaker 2: star told me and I quote, it was really just
Speaker 2: the norm. He would get very drunk and the next
Speaker 2: day in the newsroom all the girls would swap stories
Speaker 2: in the ways in which he would be inappropriate towards them.
Speaker 1: Environment was very toxic.
Speaker 2: Women constantly felt pitted against each other and you felt
Speaker 2: like you were on eggshells all the time. Another woman
Speaker 2: said there were concerns about his behavior because he manipulated
Speaker 2: young women and undermined senior women.
Speaker 8: Well.
Speaker 2: Another employee said nine Corporate Affairs is very defensive of him.
Speaker 2: As I exclusively revealed last night, a female employee in
Speaker 2: the television news division made a recent complaint about an
Speaker 2: alleged incident involving Darren Wick that occurred some years ago.
Speaker 2: An external legal firm were brought in to investigate while
Speaker 2: Wick remained on leave.
Speaker 1: While the firm did not.
Speaker 2: Substantiate the claims, the decision was made at the highest
Speaker 2: levels to let him go given his alleged pattern of behavior.
Speaker 2: But now there's unrest inside Channel nine. Employees are accusing
Speaker 2: the board of a cover up. The board knew about
Speaker 2: the complaint, yet there's been no transparency. There are questions
Speaker 2: now being asked also about wicks severance package, how large
Speaker 2: it was and how does it compare to how the
Speaker 2: female employee who made the complaint or how she was
Speaker 2: treated Handling the fallout of all of this is Wick's
Speaker 2: long term friend, Victoria Buckan, the head.
Speaker 1: Of nine's corporate affairs. Now.
Speaker 2: The Daily Telegraph has also covered this story tomorrow. The
Speaker 2: editor Ben English has sent me the front page. This
Speaker 2: is going to be the front page of the Daily
Speaker 2: Telegraph tomorrow. As you can see there, Darren Wick is
Speaker 2: on the front page. TV stars unload on departing newsboss.
Speaker 2: That's the headline and I can read you at least
Speaker 2: one comment from this story that's been written by journalist
Speaker 2: Jonathan Morray. One of the women who spoke to Jonathan Moran,
Speaker 2: one of the television stars, said that he Darren Wick
Speaker 2: has been very divisive.
Speaker 1: It has been.
Speaker 2: Difficult for women to work with and under him. They've
Speaker 2: not been happy. At one stage we were calling him
Speaker 2: a cockroach and saying he's impossible to metaphorically kill.
Speaker 1: The metaphoricles in bracket so he was impossible to kill.
Speaker 1: Calling him a cockroach.
Speaker 2: One television star said he was just someone we had
Speaker 2: to work around in our professional lives.
Speaker 1: So that's in the Daily Telegraph tomorrow as well. Were
Speaker 1: the Australians.
Speaker 2: Media writer Sophie Ellsworth has also been following this story
Speaker 2: and she joins me now from Melbourne.
Speaker 1: Sophie, thank you so.
Speaker 2: Much for your time. What can you tell us about
Speaker 2: what the board knew about this fresh complaint? That led
Speaker 2: to Darren Wick's departure.
Speaker 10: Well, Sharry, the board knew there was a complaint regarding
Speaker 10: inappropriate conduct by Wick towards a female staff member, and
Speaker 10: it was discussed among them. And just to remind you,
Speaker 10: as Sharry, this is the most These are the most
Speaker 10: senior people at nine. The board at nine is chaired
Speaker 10: by Peter Costello and it includes members of the Liking
Speaker 10: of nine Entertainment CEO Mike Sneezeby. Now it's understood the
Speaker 10: matter has gone also to nine's human resources department, and
Speaker 10: this was all prior to Wick's departure.
Speaker 2: Now, I've spoken to many sources at nine about this issue,
Speaker 2: where employees view it as a very clear cover up
Speaker 2: by the board. And this is what people are saying,
Speaker 2: that it's a cover up by the board, that there's
Speaker 2: been no transparency and the issue of non disclosure agreements,
Speaker 2: the use of non disclosure agreements has shocked many.
Speaker 10: What can you tell us about this, Well, yes, there
Speaker 10: are non disclosure agreements involved, and shary when organizedas media
Speaker 10: or otherwise are not transparent, it often leads to further
Speaker 10: problems when information does come to light. Now nine should
Speaker 10: be transparent because we the Australian repeatedly asked the network
Speaker 10: of wis whereabouts and up until five days before he
Speaker 10: announced his resignation in March, we were told Charry that
Speaker 10: there were no discussions about his departure.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 10: I was also told a little as about a fortnight
Speaker 10: before Darren Wick announced he was leaving, that he was
Speaker 10: actually coming back.
Speaker 1: He was just on leave.
Speaker 10: I was told this by Nine And then suddenly about
Speaker 10: six thirty pm on a Friday, the March fifteen, the
Speaker 10: day that the email went out from Channel nine, releasing
Speaker 10: a statement, said he'd quit. Now, Sharry, you and I know,
Speaker 10: when you want a story to be buried and not
Speaker 10: to be covered, you put it out on a Friday
Speaker 10: night when all the journalists have signed off, the papers.
Speaker 1: Have been put to bed, and the news bulletins have gone.
Speaker 10: And this timing definitely raised eyebrows.
Speaker 2: Yeah, now do you think nine is being hypocritical here?
Speaker 2: This is another key accusation. At the very same time
Speaker 2: as nine was misleading you about Wick's absence, they were
Speaker 2: pursuing their commercial rival Channel seven about the scandal that
Speaker 2: was at the time unfolding at Spotlight.
Speaker 1: Well, yes, it is hypocritical.
Speaker 10: They certainly at nine throw all their resources into chasing
Speaker 10: stories involving high profile people, Sharry, whether it's journalists, other networks.
Speaker 1: Or well known people in the community.
Speaker 10: And as you said this on your show last night,
Speaker 10: so where are the editorial resources at nine Entertainment right
Speaker 10: now being thrown into this? You've got to remind people here, Shary,
Speaker 10: this is the network's most senior news director and he
Speaker 10: suddenly left. And in the lead up to mister Wick's departure,
Speaker 10: as I have said, there were also many people talking
Speaker 10: internally about where he was, and we were reporting this
Speaker 10: in The Australian. But then Chari suddenly this email came
Speaker 10: out on a Friday night and he was gone. So
Speaker 10: I'm waiting very anxiously or curiously, should I say, for
Speaker 10: nine to follow up both the Australian and Sky and
Speaker 10: the Daily Telegraph stories on this.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well let's see if they do. What about this
Speaker 1: issue about the board?
Speaker 2: Do you think this could turn into a major corporate
Speaker 2: issue for nine if the accusations against the board escalate
Speaker 2: and if shareholders start to question why there hasn't been transparency.
Speaker 1: Well it's fair enough, Shari, if they do.
Speaker 10: But time will tell, and I can tell you there
Speaker 10: are plenty people, as you know yourself, talking about this
Speaker 10: situation inside nine at the moment, and there's more questions
Speaker 10: that need to be answered on this now. Nine releases
Speaker 10: their financial results in August and they have an AGM
Speaker 10: in November, so there's quite a lot of time between
Speaker 10: now and then, but let's wait and.
Speaker 2: See, all right, Sophie Alsware, thank you so much for
Speaker 2: joining me to break that down for us. And if
Speaker 2: you missed my story either last night or tonight on
Speaker 2: this issue, you can head to the Sky News website.
Speaker 2: Also the Daily Telegraph big story as well on the
Speaker 2: front page tomorrow. Now, the budget feedback is rolling in
Speaker 2: and the major concern for voters is that the government's
Speaker 2: at cash splash will cause inflation and rates to rise.
Speaker 2: This is according to the latest A Freshwater Strategy poll,
Speaker 2: where nearly forty percent of voters think that the budget
Speaker 2: will force the RBA's hand. Another forty six percent didn't
Speaker 2: think it would have any effect on household finances. So
Speaker 2: to discuss this, let's bring in now Director of Freshwater Strategy,
Speaker 2: Leo Shanahan. Leo, great to see you again.
Speaker 11: Thanks.
Speaker 5: Thanks.
Speaker 1: Can you tell us about how because you looked at.
Speaker 2: You know, there is tax relief for Australians in the budget,
Speaker 2: both in the form of the three hundred dollar energy
Speaker 2: rebate also the tax cuts that take effect from the
Speaker 2: first of July. What does your polling tell you about
Speaker 2: how Australians are planning to spend this money?
Speaker 11: Yes, and I don't think that three hundred dollars was
Speaker 11: an accident even either, given the promise to reduce cost
Speaker 11: of living by two hundred and seventy five dollars and
Speaker 11: it's convenient amount obviously, But yes, what do people do
Speaker 11: with this money? Sharry and combining that with tax cuts,
Speaker 11: The shorter answer is most people are going to spend it.
Speaker 11: How quickly they spend it and what they spend it
Speaker 11: on is the key.
Speaker 9: Now.
Speaker 11: About thirty five percent of people said they were likely
Speaker 11: to save that money. About another thirty three percent so
Speaker 11: they'll pay down debt and spend it. Another twenty said
Speaker 11: they'll spend it on things they usually buy. Now the inflationary,
Speaker 11: really inflationary stuff is to invest it or spend it
Speaker 11: on things they wouldn't have thought otherwise. Now, the government
Speaker 11: might have a point here in the sense that it's
Speaker 11: not inherently inflationary to pay down debt or to spend
Speaker 11: it on things well, to save it. It is not
Speaker 11: inflationary to spend it on things you usually buy. However,
Speaker 11: that's when we're yeah, where that's where we're kind of
Speaker 11: entering the zone where we're already in a hyperinflation or
Speaker 11: very inflationary environment, and then we're really dealing with people
Speaker 11: who are kind of just kind of escaping that wave
Speaker 11: and letting them continue on in the manner in which
Speaker 11: they are that is in an inflationary way. But they
Speaker 11: have the government has to do this dance of you know,
Speaker 11: giving cost of living in relief. They said they would,
Speaker 11: they've done it, but the extent to which, and there's
Speaker 11: that key question will it increase the chance of an
Speaker 11: interest rate rise? And most people think it will, or
Speaker 11: at least the majority of respondents at around forty percent.
Speaker 2: Although you're polling on how people plan to spend it.
Speaker 2: You know, if it's followed through, that would be good
Speaker 2: news and that might mean that it's not as inflationary. Look,
Speaker 2: let's look at you know, how Australians feel about energy sources.
Speaker 1: You know that this is going to be a key.
Speaker 2: Issue in the lead up to the next election, Peter
Speaker 2: Dutton's put nuclear on the table.
Speaker 1: You know, what does your research tell us?
Speaker 11: Well, look, I think from the get go you see
Speaker 11: solar having supporter of about eighty one percent of people.
Speaker 11: So solar is the kind of Koala bear at the
Speaker 11: moment in energy that everybody still loves. Yeah, eighty one percent.
Speaker 11: But natural gas has made a huge breakthrough at around
Speaker 11: fifty six percent in terms of support. That beats wind now.
Speaker 11: Winds support has really dropped off both offshore onshore wind
Speaker 11: by about ten percent.
Speaker 8: Now.
Speaker 11: There's obviously a lot of concern, especially in regional areas
Speaker 11: about the role of wind now and gas. Despite those
Speaker 11: activist proponents who are coming out, you know, increasingly against
Speaker 11: that gas, trying to compare it with coal, it is
Speaker 11: increasingly popular about fifty six percent now. The bad news
Speaker 11: for Peter Dutton is that nuclear is consistently pretty low
Speaker 11: at about thirty six percent in terms of support and
Speaker 11: thirty one percent of people who actually oppose it, So
Speaker 11: you've actually got a pretty entrenched opposition to it as well.
Speaker 11: Coal thirty three percent thirty four percent similarly divisive. But
Speaker 11: the difference with coal is it's in the system. It's there.
Speaker 11: We rely on it and at the moment we certainly
Speaker 11: need it. Nuclear doesn't have that benefit at the moment.
Speaker 1: And what about your overall polling.
Speaker 2: You know, in the overall political figures in the primary vote,
Speaker 2: Labor gained one point I understand, to thirty two percent.
Speaker 1: The Coalition remained unchanged at forty percent.
Speaker 2: So it told us through these figures and what it
Speaker 2: says about how the prime minister is going.
Speaker 11: Yeah, look, there's no budget bounce. These are kind of overstated,
Speaker 11: but you know, they haven't gone backwards, which is good
Speaker 11: for the government, but Liberal and National parties SPA having.
Speaker 1: Billions not to go backwards as well.
Speaker 11: When well, will you know, Labor government on thirty two
Speaker 11: percent primary vote, that's still relatively low compared to what
Speaker 11: we have the coalition on which is forty percent. Obviously
Speaker 11: on a two pp basis. The Greens really pushed them up.
Speaker 11: The Greens have gone up slightly to forteen percent. So
Speaker 11: now we're pretty much at status quo on fifty to fifty. Now,
Speaker 11: if an election were held tomorrow on these numbers, it's
Speaker 11: more than likely that Labor would form government with about
Speaker 11: seventy three seats Greens with four Liberal National Coalition about
Speaker 11: sixty three and then independence but this would be would
Speaker 11: slip into a minority government. And then this of course,
Speaker 11: the College managed to.
Speaker 2: Get a forty percent primary, they'd have a good shot
Speaker 2: at being in government themselves.
Speaker 11: But well, yeah, that if they can out, that would
Speaker 11: be a remarkable attempt.
Speaker 2: If they if they managed to get forty percent, that
Speaker 2: would be a very surprising us.
Speaker 11: Yeah, the trend is down for the government and that's clear.
Speaker 11: And the real question is, you know, how long do
Speaker 11: they want to risk that trend before going to election.
Speaker 11: Al analysis says there will be an early election. This
Speaker 11: will be the last budget under this government.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I understand the PM has no intention of going early.
Speaker 11: So he says, all right, go if you can win.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 2: Thanks Now after the break, the bizarre proposal for a manvan. Well,
Speaker 2: there's no man ban on this show with two gentlemen,
Speaker 2: Kayler Bond and Nick Cata joining me. Next, plus why
Speaker 2: mediation between Linda Reynolds and Britney Higgles. Brittney Higgins has
Speaker 2: fallen apart for a second time. Welcome back, Well Ambulance
Speaker 2: ramping is back in the spotlight with a Gold Coast
Speaker 2: man dying after waiting hours for hospital access.
Speaker 1: He eventually had a heart attack.
Speaker 2: Ambulance ramping and long wait times when you call Triplo,
Speaker 2: even if Triplo knows the situation is urgent.
Speaker 1: Well, this is a.
Speaker 2: Problem right across the country. Not enough is being done
Speaker 2: to fix this crucial issue. If you're having a medical episode,
Speaker 2: if you're having a heart attack or a stroke, you
Speaker 2: need urgent attention.
Speaker 1: Not being left in a queue for hours.
Speaker 2: Well to discuss, let's bring in Sky News host kayleb
Speaker 2: Bond and senior fellow at the Menzies Research Center, Nick
Speaker 2: cat Neck.
Speaker 1: Where in the world are you joining us from tonight?
Speaker 6: I'm in Stockholm, Shari, Beautiful Stockholm in springtime, lovely.
Speaker 5: Hope you don't have the syndrome, Nick, Well, it looks beautiful.
Speaker 6: Not yet, not yet, Caleb.
Speaker 1: We know this issue, Caleb.
Speaker 2: We know this issue of ambulance ramping isn't exclusive to Queensland.
Speaker 2: This is a major issue for state governments right across
Speaker 2: the country and none of them seem to be able
Speaker 2: to fix it.
Speaker 1: Well, it's everywhere.
Speaker 5: I mean, look the words of Peter malinowskis the South
Speaker 5: Australian premier ring in May is because he was elected
Speaker 5: very much on a promise that we will fix the
Speaker 5: ramping crisis in South Australia. Well, two years on, ramping
Speaker 5: is worse than it has ever been in South Australia.
Speaker 5: It's bad in Victoria, and that's compounded in Victoria by
Speaker 5: a really bad triple zero system they have down there.
Speaker 5: And when I was at the Herald Sun we did
Speaker 5: quite a bit of coverage in the Sunday Herald Sun
Speaker 5: on it was more than thirty people who had died
Speaker 5: because they weren't having their triple zero calls attended to
Speaker 5: within the time required. So you add all these things
Speaker 5: together and you've got to ask yourself the question, how
Speaker 5: can we trust any state government to look after anything
Speaker 5: when they can't deal with the most basic issues such
Speaker 5: as health and the population keeps going up. We don't
Speaker 5: get more hospitals, we don't get more beds, we don't
Speaker 5: get more ambulances, and somehow we expect the system to work.
Speaker 5: In say, if I use that example again, they built
Speaker 5: a new hospital. They got to the old Royal Adelaide Hospital,
Speaker 5: built a new Royal Adelaide Hospital. It had fewer beds
Speaker 5: than the old one. Make it make sense.
Speaker 2: I mean state governments get involved in all sorts of things.
Speaker 2: You just want them to be on top of service delivery.
Speaker 2: That's what everyone pays their taxes for, Nick Cata. This
Speaker 2: is shaping up to be now an issue in the
Speaker 2: Queensland state election.
Speaker 1: How do you think that's going to play out? For labor.
Speaker 6: It should be an issue in the Queensland state election,
Speaker 6: Chari because this is not at its route about a
Speaker 6: short sortritage of medical services or shortage of ambulances. It's
Speaker 6: about organization because other states with the same degree of
Speaker 6: resources manage this better. And I've said this before, but
Speaker 6: if you put the head of Amazon in charge of
Speaker 6: ambulances in Queensland, I think he'd fix it within a day.
Speaker 6: It's simply a matter of organization. This poor gentleman should
Speaker 6: have been accelerated and pushed at the front of the queue.
Speaker 8: He wasn't.
Speaker 6: That's about systems, that's about organization, and I think it's
Speaker 6: something that the coalition and incoming coalition government should and
Speaker 6: must fix as a matter of priority. And they can
Speaker 6: do it because it's been done in other places.
Speaker 2: Well, I have to say this issue has been just
Speaker 2: as bad under Coalition and Labor state governments, at least
Speaker 2: in New South Wales. And you know if you were
Speaker 2: that man's family who had died of a heart attack
Speaker 2: because he wasn't given medical treatment fast enough, because he
Speaker 2: was just left on an ambulance stretcher, you would be.
Speaker 1: Absolutely furious that fury adding to the Greek.
Speaker 2: Now, there was a second attempt at mediation talks between
Speaker 2: Linda Reynolds and Britney Higgins and it's failed yet again
Speaker 2: to reach a settlement. So this is Linda reynolds defamation
Speaker 2: suit against her former political staffer. Now, after leaving the
Speaker 2: West Australian Supreme Court this afternoon, Linda Reynolds said she'd
Speaker 2: like to reach a settlement.
Speaker 1: Have a listen.
Speaker 4: Justice Lee made some very comprehensive findings in his judgment
Speaker 4: and it is time for all parties to accept.
Speaker 1: All of his comments and I think that will help
Speaker 1: us all move forward.
Speaker 2: Caleb, you know this now seems the mediation talks have
Speaker 2: failed twice, so it now seems like it's going to.
Speaker 1: Go to trial, set for a six week trial. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, you totally.
Speaker 2: Understand that Linda Reynolds would feel very hard done by,
Speaker 2: and just as Michael Lee did find that there was
Speaker 2: no political cover up, those were the allegations against her.
Speaker 1: She ended up with problems in hospital.
Speaker 2: But at the same time, we know that Britney Higgins
Speaker 2: has been suffering quite serious mental health issues under the
Speaker 2: stress of all of this, So you know, you just
Speaker 2: hope that they could reach a settlement, that Higgins could
Speaker 2: apologize for the claims that she didn't that Linda Reynolds
Speaker 2: didn't handle this properly.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and you've sort of ended up with this cat
Speaker 5: and mouse game where, of course, after the case where
Speaker 5: Justice Lee laid out that there was no political cover up,
Speaker 5: David Scharraz, Britney's fiance, made comments online to the effect that,
Speaker 5: you know, we wish Linda would drop this case. So
Speaker 5: there's no desire from either side of this defamation case
Speaker 5: to walk away from it. And I have no doubt
Speaker 5: that Linda would much prefer to settle because it makes
Speaker 5: things a lot easier. But it's not going to be
Speaker 5: an easy process for either of them. As you say,
Speaker 5: we know Britney has had mental health issues, and I'm
Speaker 5: sure a six week trial does nothing to help that,
Speaker 5: particularly after the trial that just happened with Bruce Lehreman.
Speaker 5: And we know that Linda had self has had health
Speaker 5: issues connected to this case. Like everything that has transpired
Speaker 5: ever since it all came to like, everyone who has
Speaker 5: been touched by this case has come out damaged by it,
Speaker 5: and I don't think we're about to see anything different
Speaker 5: in that regard.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, Nikita, do you think you know either party
Speaker 2: should walk away here or do you know do you
Speaker 2: think both have a responsibility to just compromise a bit to.
Speaker 1: Get this settled.
Speaker 6: Absolutely, And having been in a media agent session ahead
Speaker 6: of a defamation case, I can tell you it is
Speaker 6: not in anybody's interests to go to court except the lawyers.
Speaker 6: They are the only people who benefit for going to court.
Speaker 6: It should be settled now. I'm surprised that it hasn't been.
Speaker 6: I think Linda Rewolds is right to put to justice
Speaker 6: Lee's findings and say, well, it gets quite straightforward. I
Speaker 6: was blamed for something which I didn't do. My repute
Speaker 6: was damaged severely, possibly my whole political career was damaged
Speaker 6: because of this. I need some sort of apology and
Speaker 6: recompense I don't know why they haven't come to it,
Speaker 6: but I think it's very very foolish for them to
Speaker 6: go to court, and I really think that it would
Speaker 6: seem for an outsider, pretty straightforward. You just acknowledge what
Speaker 6: Justice Lee has said about Linda Reynolds being entirely blameless
Speaker 6: in this, and you make clear that her reputation, you
Speaker 6: make good on her reputation. It's straightforward.
Speaker 2: Yeah, all right, after the break, we're going to talk
Speaker 2: about the bizarre call for a man ban as I said,
Speaker 2: no man ban on this program, plus Donald Trump and
Speaker 2: the fiery appearance outside Cot after break.
Speaker 1: Well, as you know, domestic violence has.
Speaker 2: Been in the spotlight, but an article suggesting ways to
Speaker 2: curb it is causing a stir.
Speaker 1: The headline reads, is it time to start?
Speaker 5: Men?
Speaker 1: Congregating in groups?
Speaker 2: Could mean no footy training, no group chats, norowdi tables
Speaker 2: at pub trivia.
Speaker 1: Well, Ben Fordham said this morning that the idea was
Speaker 1: utter madness.
Speaker 5: I think we've reached peak madness. And the blokes playing
Speaker 5: pub trivia or the blokes at footy training, they're probably
Speaker 5: the same blokes would be first to step.
Speaker 6: In and help.
Speaker 1: Caleb. What do you think about this.
Speaker 2: Do you think the debate about domestic violence is now
Speaker 2: just going too far when people are suggesting banning groups
Speaker 2: of men.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean, look, the suggestion is pretty brainded, isn't it.
Speaker 5: I understand the objective of the author's column, and all
Speaker 5: three of us are are columnists at various times, and
Speaker 5: I understand the idea that you want to provoke a reaction.
Speaker 5: And if you read through the entire column, the points
Speaker 5: she is getting at is that women feel unsafe in
Speaker 5: some situations, So why should women be made to feel unsafe?
Speaker 5: Perhaps the men should have to take a hit so
Speaker 5: women feel safe. I get the argument she is making.
Speaker 5: But to take something that is as serious as domestic
Speaker 5: violence and sexual violence, which is referenced in the column,
Speaker 5: and to then suggest, well, the solution is to ban
Speaker 5: men from gathering. You know, come on, if you really
Speaker 5: want to bring men along with the discussion, and you
Speaker 5: had this discussion with the Josh Zepps last week, I
Speaker 5: think it was, it might might have been earlier this
Speaker 5: week even, But if you want to if you want
Speaker 5: to bring men along with you, you actually have to
Speaker 5: bring them to the table and say this is what
Speaker 5: we need you to do to help, and this is
Speaker 5: why you should help. Going down the road of saying, oh, well,
Speaker 5: you know you're all potentially violent, even though we all
Speaker 5: know it's not true, it does turn people off, and
Speaker 5: I don't think that's good for the cause.
Speaker 1: I mean, Nickkita, you like a bit of a male gathering.
Speaker 1: You're a cyclist.
Speaker 2: Can you imagine being told you couldn't cycle in with
Speaker 2: a group of men anymore?
Speaker 6: Look, I don't know we do any harm to anybody.
Speaker 6: There's certainly no women except perhaps you know. The site
Speaker 6: of the licro maybe a little bit difficult for some,
Speaker 6: but look, I mean it's absurd, it's absurd chari and
Speaker 6: this is really a long running campaign beginning with you know,
Speaker 6: feminists who thought they would say this is all about
Speaker 6: being a man. It's not about being a man. It's
Speaker 6: about being it's about behaving in an outrageous and unacceptable
Speaker 6: and violent and often criminal way. That's what it's about.
Speaker 6: It's about criminal behavior. Okay, so some men rob banks,
Speaker 6: But does that mean to say we stop men going
Speaker 6: anywhere near banks? I mean, that's the kind of logic
Speaker 6: we're getting to on this. Instead, we should deal with
Speaker 6: the with the people themselves that we should make sure
Speaker 6: that that the police are fully equipped and the law
Speaker 6: is on their side to come down and hard on
Speaker 6: men who do cowardly things to women. I should also
Speaker 6: look at underlying causes.
Speaker 1: Okay, we've got to quickly get to Donald Trump.
Speaker 5: Now.
Speaker 2: His historic hush money trial is nearing its end, and
Speaker 2: we've seen his farmer fixer from a lawyer, Michael Cohen,
Speaker 2: admit to stealing tens of thousands of dollars.
Speaker 1: From his company.
Speaker 2: I don't know if we have time to play you
Speaker 2: Trump's comments, But Caleb, what did you make of Michael
Speaker 2: Cohen's evidence?
Speaker 8: Oh?
Speaker 5: Look, this whole trial has been exactly what we expected
Speaker 5: it would be, which is a show trial. The point
Speaker 5: is to try and string Trump up for what purpose
Speaker 5: we don't really know, except to beat the chests of
Speaker 5: Democrats and say, look at us, we're trying to get
Speaker 5: them man and Cohen is no different. It does not
Speaker 5: make a lick of difference what Cohen or Trump or
Speaker 5: anyone else says in that courtroom. It is not going
Speaker 5: to change a single vote in the United States. If
Speaker 5: you're going to vote for Trump, you already know you're
Speaker 5: going to vote for Trump. And if you're not going
Speaker 5: to vote for Trump. Well, you're already not voting for him.
Speaker 5: This case ain't changing it. The whole thing has been
Speaker 5: a joke.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Nick Cata, what's your verdict on how this is
Speaker 2: going to play out for Trump?
Speaker 6: Plug out very well because all the polling shows that
Speaker 6: the less he talks about politics, the higher his ratings go.
Speaker 6: And so the Democrats or whoever's driving this case has
Speaker 6: done him a great favor by getting him concentrated on
Speaker 6: something else. And you know, it is a show trial,
Speaker 6: as Caleb said, but it's a show title that's really
Speaker 6: I suppose it does two things. One, it keeps Democrats
Speaker 6: spirits up because they've got a pretty dismal election ahead
Speaker 6: with Biden in charge. But it also brews Trump as
Speaker 6: we know that this actually has a positive effect.
Speaker 2: All right, Nick Cata, enjoy Stockholm, Kay the bind will
Speaker 2: see you back at ten o'clock. Thanks everyone for your company.
Speaker 2: I'll see you tomorrow at eight. And here's my great mate,
Speaker 2: Paul Murray.