Speaker 1: From the Sky News Center. This is Paul Murray Live.
Speaker 2: Well, good evening, James Borrow here tonight filling in for
Speaker 2: Paul Murray on Paul Murray Live and all through the week.
Speaker 2: And you know it's Monday Night, so you know what
Speaker 2: that means. That's right, it's Monday Night. Fights with our
Speaker 2: friends Senator Matt Canavan and Nicholas Reese coming up in
Speaker 2: a little bit. So these are the rules. No sooks,
Speaker 2: one lefty, no killer, all filler tonight on Paul Murray Live.
Speaker 2: All right, let's get straight into it, and I want
Speaker 2: to start with a little story about the Canberra bubble,
Speaker 2: the Canberra of bureaucracy, and a little oopsie, or, as
Speaker 2: they say in politics, a gaff. Yes, that's right, a gaff,
Speaker 2: which is a term which has been famously defined as
Speaker 2: when someone in politics accidentally tells you the truth. Well, this,
Speaker 2: this accidental truth telling, is an abstinute classic in terms
Speaker 2: of telling us stuff we didn't already know, but which
Speaker 2: it is already pretty nice to have confirmed. So here's
Speaker 2: what happened. Well, it seems that an ABC Business reporter
Speaker 2: put in a freedom of information request to the Department
Speaker 2: of the Treasury asking for the briefings that Treasury prepared
Speaker 2: for the incoming government at the last federal election. Now,
Speaker 2: these are briefings that they do and they give to
Speaker 2: whoever wins, whether they the incumbent, whether the challenger, whether
Speaker 2: they're labor or liberal. It's basically a big booklet that says,
Speaker 2: here's the state of play with each department, that goes
Speaker 2: to the new ministers.
Speaker 1: And guess what happened here.
Speaker 2: Well, Treasury accidentally came through with the goods and they
Speaker 2: gave our friend at the ABC a version of the
Speaker 2: briefing that was not properly redacted.
Speaker 3: II.
Speaker 2: It did not have all the juicy bits that they
Speaker 2: didn't want people to know crossed out, and it.
Speaker 1: Contains some pretty interesting truths.
Speaker 2: Truth like, well, you know that that one point two
Speaker 2: million dollar home building target that the government has been
Speaker 2: promising that they were going to meet, Well, according to
Speaker 2: the briefing, that's impossible. And all that being spending the
Speaker 2: government's been doing well. According to the Treasury, it's going
Speaker 2: to require higher taxes and if we weren't taxed enough already. Also,
Speaker 2: they said they're going to need to cut spending as
Speaker 2: well if they're ever going to get the budget back
Speaker 2: into some sort of good health. Now we knew all
Speaker 2: of this already, but this made for some fun moments.
Speaker 2: At a press conference today with the Treasurer.
Speaker 4: The Incoming Government's break makes an assessment of the government's policies,
Speaker 4: your election commitments, and then gives advice to that implementation.
Speaker 4: But this one says that the house and type would
Speaker 4: not be met.
Speaker 3: What gives it?
Speaker 4: It seems like the challenges in the sector are too
Speaker 4: great for the government's policy.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 5: I mean, first of all, you're responding to a subheading
Speaker 5: in a document, a partial. You know, you're referring to
Speaker 5: a Well, governments don't release the Incoming Government Brief. It's
Speaker 5: been released in error, and that's you know, these things
Speaker 5: happen from time to time. As I said before, I'm
Speaker 5: pretty relaxed about it.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Did he look pretty relaxed about it to you anyway?
Speaker 2: Sure you are a treasure now. The treasure also went
Speaker 2: the full word salad after being asked this question.
Speaker 6: You've always spoken about the importance and value of independent advice.
Speaker 6: Treasury says you can't fix the budget without raising taxes
Speaker 6: or slashing spending.
Speaker 3: So are you open to this advice?
Speaker 2: Straightforward question. But what do you reckon? Do you think
Speaker 2: the treasure gave a straightforward answer.
Speaker 5: Well, a couple of things about that. I mean, first
Speaker 5: of all, you're responding to some headings in the advice
Speaker 5: that we've got in the incoming government brief. What's happened
Speaker 5: here is a Treasury official has sent those documents in error.
Speaker 5: That sort of thing happens from time to time. We've
Speaker 5: already made it really clear that we will need to
Speaker 5: do more to meet our housing targets. So the priorities
Speaker 5: which are being reported today are not you know, those
Speaker 5: other sorts of things that I have mentioned before, including
Speaker 5: at the National Press Club, I gave a whole speech
Speaker 5: on how we need to do more to meet our
Speaker 5: housing targets. We do need to do more to make
Speaker 5: our budget more sustainable and our economy more productive.
Speaker 2: Listen, Treasurer, the first rule of halls is when you're
Speaker 2: in one, stop digging. I mean, that was some real
Speaker 2: bart Simpson giving a book report there on a bookie
Speaker 2: he didn't read kind of stuff now. Of course, hilariously,
Speaker 2: the Treasury tried to quash the story and when they
Speaker 2: released the data in error, they asked the ABC reported
Speaker 2: to delete the e delete the incorrectly redacted brief, and
Speaker 2: I gotta say good on the reporter, he said, fat chance.
Speaker 2: But you know what, this all gets to a bigger
Speaker 2: problem here, and that is the nature of truth and
Speaker 2: government and what we the people, you and I are
Speaker 2: allowed to know rather.
Speaker 1: Than just assume.
Speaker 2: Because you know, what's the funny thing here is that
Speaker 2: what's been revealed here is the way the Canberra game works.
Speaker 2: It's like an episode of Yes Minister or Utopia. Hide
Speaker 2: the facts, hope we don't figure it out, redact the
Speaker 2: things they don't want us to know, and let everyone
Speaker 2: keep on doing what they're doing, ad infinitum. Now, this issue,
Speaker 2: you know, the stuff that was in that report, not
Speaker 2: going to beat the housing targets, spending too much money.
Speaker 2: These aren't secrets, This is not These are not the
Speaker 2: sort of things here that are.
Speaker 1: Like issues of national security.
Speaker 2: You know, we're not talking about a document that accidentally
Speaker 2: got released with the specifications of like our over the
Speaker 2: horizon radar or what are we looking at acquiring in
Speaker 2: the way of underwater drones? Or hell what face cream?
Speaker 2: The Prime Minister uses to say, looking so youthful. No,
Speaker 2: this stuff is the real basic bread and butter stuff
Speaker 2: of government. Our tax money houses bread and butter stuff.
Speaker 2: As I say, and I'm sorry, I mean this government,
Speaker 2: the Albanezy labor government. Let's not forget they came to
Speaker 2: power in twenty twenty two on the basis of saying, Hey,
Speaker 2: we're gonna be transparent, we're gonna be open, we're gonna
Speaker 2: be honest, we're not gonna hide stuff from you. And also,
Speaker 2: by the way, we trust the advice of public servants. Well,
Speaker 2: how about guys, I don't know, maybe putting this stuff
Speaker 2: into practice that could be nice. And there's one more
Speaker 2: thing too. You know, all of this is play out today.
Speaker 2: The Treasurer had that Crimsworthy press conference, and one question
Speaker 2: kept ringing in my head. Where or where is the
Speaker 2: opposition in all of this?
Speaker 1: Do we even have an opposition these days? I mean
Speaker 1: this kind of issue.
Speaker 2: We've got this big release in the incoming government briefing
Speaker 2: that tells us the actual truth about the state of things,
Speaker 2: not what Chalber's in Albaneze. He want us to think. Well,
Speaker 2: I don't know, I mean, call me crazy, but it
Speaker 2: seems like the sort of thing that Susan Lay might
Speaker 2: have hopped on as an issue, or maybe the shadow
Speaker 2: treasure ted O'Brien, Well, look he did to in his defense.
Speaker 2: He set out a media release late in the morning
Speaker 2: around eleven fourteen. But as far as I can tell,
Speaker 2: and I watched the news all day, that was pretty
Speaker 2: much all we heard from the opposition. I have to
Speaker 2: wonder why wasn't everyone in shadow cabinet out hopping on
Speaker 2: this issue, saying typical La, they're addicted to spending and
Speaker 2: taxing you more. This is politics one oh one, and
Speaker 2: I gotta say this opposition needs to spend less time
Speaker 2: talking about itself and start coming up with solutions for
Speaker 2: in Australia that, as that leaked briefing reveals, is going
Speaker 2: badly off track. Anyway, enough of that, let's move on
Speaker 2: to China. This is the big story of the day,
Speaker 2: and you know, in some senses this may be the
Speaker 2: defining story of the century.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: After landing in Beijing earlier, this evening tomorrow is, by
Speaker 2: the way, the big day. Anthony albines, he gets to
Speaker 2: see Jijin Ping again. And you gotta feel bad for
Speaker 2: the Prime Minister because this was all supposed to be
Speaker 2: such a big and special event. Yes, the Prime Minister
Speaker 2: was supposed to go to sleep tonight and is absolutely
Speaker 2: not bugged hotel suite with visions of being called a
Speaker 2: handsome boy dancing in his head. But Albanize's apparent pivot
Speaker 2: to China could be knocked off balance by some very
Speaker 2: recent history and his own doing. What to remind you
Speaker 2: of this little moment from the last federal election campaign,
Speaker 2: remember this when the Prime Minister barged onto ABC Talk
Speaker 2: radio in Darwin at four to twelve pm in the
Speaker 2: afternoon or because he was trying to beat Peter Dutt
Speaker 2: into the punch about an announcement about the Port of Darwin.
Speaker 7: Could you write the headline for me on this announcement today.
Speaker 8: Australia needs to own the Port of Darwin.
Speaker 7: So are you buying back the lease of the Port
Speaker 7: of Darwin or not.
Speaker 8: Well, what we're doing is trying to get to say
Speaker 8: if there's a private buyer through particularly superannuaction tons that
Speaker 8: we've had discussions with.
Speaker 7: Three years Prime Minister to deal with the port lace.
Speaker 7: What would you say to local voters who might say
Speaker 7: this is an election stunt.
Speaker 8: That is something that we have had a consistent view on.
Speaker 2: Well, they had a consistent view on it, not that
Speaker 2: they did anything about it for the first three years
Speaker 2: that they were in government, and it somehow only became
Speaker 2: an issue in the minutes, the literal minutes before Peter Dutton,
Speaker 2: the then opposition leader, was supposed to announce the coalition's
Speaker 2: own policy on the Port of Darwin. You got to
Speaker 2: ask why didn't they do something about it before? But hey,
Speaker 2: you know what they say, no time like the present.
Speaker 2: Now this seemed like a clever bit of campaigning. But
Speaker 2: now this has come back to bite Albinizi. The whole
Speaker 2: thing seems to be putting a little bit of a damper.
Speaker 1: That's right.
Speaker 2: On his trip, there was a little warning of the
Speaker 2: Chinese social media from a Chinese social media influencer today
Speaker 2: who you bet cleared this post with head office. There's
Speaker 2: a guy called Lou wen Jing, and he used to
Speaker 2: edit a Chinese propaganda rag called Voice of the Strait,
Speaker 2: and he put it out there on Chinese social media
Speaker 2: that any attempt to retake the port could provoke countermeasures.
Speaker 2: His words, he has written, quote, if the Australian side
Speaker 2: insists on tearing up the lease agreement, the Chinese side
Speaker 2: may take countermeasures such as restricting Australian companies market access
Speaker 2: in China or tightening imports of key resources such as
Speaker 2: iron ore unquote. Well, you know, we've seen this movie
Speaker 2: before and we all remember how that all played out
Speaker 2: under the Morrison government. But it seems like now that
Speaker 2: poor Anthony Albanezi's in the chair all this foreign policy stuff,
Speaker 2: it's really hard and he can't seem to catch a
Speaker 2: break because guess what, He's been copying it for being
Speaker 2: too soft on the Chinese. Now he's copying it from
Speaker 2: China for being too tough on him.
Speaker 1: You can't win.
Speaker 2: The Prime Minister was asked about this in a press
Speaker 2: conference in Shanghai today.
Speaker 4: Can I ask you, are you concerned about that kind
Speaker 4: of blowback if you go through with your election commitment.
Speaker 8: The answer to that is no. We had a very
Speaker 8: clear position that we want the port to go into
Speaker 8: Australian ownership. We're being clear about it, we're going orderly
Speaker 8: about it, and we will go through that process.
Speaker 2: The whole press conference here in Shanghai was absolutely fascinating
Speaker 2: because the Prime Minister was flanked by business leader leaders
Speaker 2: like Twiggy Forrest, all eager to do more business in China.
Speaker 2: But the big elephant in the room, the fact that
Speaker 2: China is a totalitarian state with aims to dominate the Pacific,
Speaker 2: if not the globe. Well that could be ignored. And
Speaker 2: I have to say credit to this journalist in the
Speaker 2: press pack who asked this question picking up on the
Speaker 2: theme that we talked about last night. That is just
Speaker 2: what and are not the actions of a friend?
Speaker 9: Well, is your message about the circumnavigation of Australia by
Speaker 9: the Chinese flotilla, live fire drills and suspected surveillance ships,
Speaker 9: no watching talents, mandsaber?
Speaker 3: Is this an actual friend?
Speaker 8: Well? With regard to the second question, that would be
Speaker 8: nothing unusual that has happened in the past, And I'll
Speaker 8: continue to assert Australia's national interest as I do.
Speaker 2: Nothing unusual that has happened in the past. Well, okay,
Speaker 2: I mean, look, lots of things have happened in the past.
Speaker 2: Pearl Harbor happened in the past, the Black Death happened
Speaker 2: in the past. Past Steel Day which the French celebrate today,
Speaker 2: that happened in the past. But that doesn't mean we
Speaker 2: just brush these things aside. I mean this answer here
Speaker 2: that the Prime Minister gave here is disgraceful and it
Speaker 2: is part of this incredible pattern that he seems to
Speaker 2: have of any time China does anything that is offensive
Speaker 2: to Australian interests, to Western interests, to the interests of
Speaker 2: liberal democracies, he says, ah, well, you know, stuff kind
Speaker 2: of happens. You know, ships surfcum navigate Australia all the time,
Speaker 2: ship's fire off missiles all the time. These sorts of
Speaker 2: things happen. But of course when it's the West, when
Speaker 2: it's the United States, when it's Donald Trump, who will
Speaker 2: talk about in a moment, well that that is not
Speaker 2: the action of a friend anyway. I don't know if
Speaker 2: the Sky News app by the way, download it if
Speaker 2: you haven't already, because it is absolutely great. I don't
Speaker 2: know if that app works in China. But the traveling
Speaker 2: press pack also noticed another thing we talked about last night,
Speaker 2: and that is the subtle poss of labor towards China
Speaker 2: and away from the US. Though whether that's now going
Speaker 2: to happen with Darwin on the table, we'll see.
Speaker 9: Just to go back to what you were saying before
Speaker 9: about stability with China, chooting ping president, she seems to
Speaker 9: be positioning China as a more stable alternative? Is that
Speaker 9: an assessment that you share, and that's an alternative to
Speaker 9: the US to.
Speaker 8: Kind of I don't draw alternatives. What I do is
Speaker 8: I want to see a stable and secure region. I
Speaker 8: think that's in the interest of everyone in the Indo Pacific.
Speaker 8: But that's an approach I take to global politics as well.
Speaker 2: Stable, that's prime Minister. Do you understand what is going
Speaker 2: on here?
Speaker 1: All right?
Speaker 2: Stability is not good if that means that China winds
Speaker 2: up dominating the Pacific, because you know what, that's not
Speaker 2: good for us here in Australia. Stability is actually quite
Speaker 2: bad if it means that China's strength and power winds
Speaker 2: up growing in the Pacific. What's necessary here, I think,
Speaker 2: is to understand the fact that sometimes in life you
Speaker 2: need to pick your friends, stick with them and push back.
Speaker 2: That doesn't necessarily mean you're going to fight a war,
Speaker 2: but it does mean you're going to stand up for
Speaker 2: Australian interests. Australian interests which are closely tied to not
Speaker 2: only the United States but of liberal democracies around the world,
Speaker 2: and included in that has to be the country of Taiwan,
Speaker 2: which is of course under constant threat from the People's
Speaker 2: Republic of China. Now this is a thing, This is
Speaker 2: not Prime Minister.
Speaker 1: I hope you're.
Speaker 2: Watching a both sides issue. You cannot both sides this question.
Speaker 2: And I want to bring this in here because earlier
Speaker 2: today I had a chat to John Lee. Now he's
Speaker 2: a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and he is,
Speaker 2: among other things, was the Foreign ad Minister's lead advisor
Speaker 2: on the twenty seventeen Foreign policy white Paper. Now I
Speaker 2: talked to him for the Daily Telegraph newspaper and you
Speaker 2: can read more about this in tomorrow's paper. But this
Speaker 2: line he told me struck me and I wanted to
Speaker 2: share it with you.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: John Lee told me quote, it is one thing to
Speaker 2: assert Australian diplomatic independence China, not Trump's America. Is the
Speaker 2: dangerous and more serious structural disruption to regional and global
Speaker 2: peace and stability that Anthony Albinizi seems more comfortable with
Speaker 2: Chinese policy rather than US policy is something he needs
Speaker 2: to explain to the Australian electorate. And moreover, John Lee
Speaker 2: said there was a bipartisan mindset. Only a few years
Speaker 2: ago that Australia needed to diversify its economic interests away
Speaker 2: from China for the national resilience and as a hedge
Speaker 2: against Chinese economic coercion which will occur again in the future.
Speaker 2: Anthony Albanisi, he said, seems to have abandoned that position. Well,
Speaker 2: how true that is it? I mean, seriously, don't you
Speaker 2: remember when COVID happened. And I don't want to talk
Speaker 2: about COVID, but when that happened, that was the big
Speaker 2: thing that we talked about. We said, universities, get off
Speaker 2: the drip of Chinese students, diversify yourself, everybody's supply chains,
Speaker 2: don't get everything from China. The risk is just to
Speaker 2: be everything coming from China. Well, we know the position
Speaker 2: that puts you into it. That was the position that
Speaker 2: we were put in a week one. As a result
Speaker 2: of that, we said, as a nation, we're not going
Speaker 2: to do that anymore. But apparently here we are, and
Speaker 2: without any consultation or taking it to the election or
Speaker 2: having a you know, national conversation. To use one of
Speaker 2: my least favorite expressions, we are going all in on China.
Speaker 2: More trade with China, not less. Okay, Well, let's give
Speaker 2: the Prime Minister for a moment the benefit of the
Speaker 2: doubt on this, because he does seem to be stock
Speaker 2: in this old mindset that says if the West, if
Speaker 2: Australia just has enough free trade with China, China will
Speaker 2: become a freer and more peaceful nation. Well, this is
Speaker 2: a mistake that has driven decades of China policy. Through
Speaker 2: allowing Beijing to join the WTO, through the aftermath the
Speaker 2: TMN Square disaster, to the great cover up around COVID
Speaker 2: and everything else from influenced buying scandals to the theft
Speaker 2: of intellectual property and so much more. We know that
Speaker 2: this whole idea that if we just expose the totalitarian
Speaker 2: Chinese communist government to Western liberal democracy and trade with
Speaker 2: them and the people get rich, whether they're going to
Speaker 2: become or liberal, that hasn't worked. It has been just
Speaker 2: the opposite. This was a fantasy that we would and
Speaker 2: in fact what has happened, honestly, if you think about it,
Speaker 2: is we've become a bit more like China than China
Speaker 2: has become like us. And you don't need to go
Speaker 2: very far to see examples of that. You know, we
Speaker 2: saw that start during COVID. We see it today with
Speaker 2: the increasing realms of Internet surveillance and the e Safety
Speaker 2: Commissioner and the Great Australian Firewall that's coming our way.
Speaker 2: Although this is a sort of a fantasy, though we've
Speaker 2: seen this fantasy for decades.
Speaker 1: It has been.
Speaker 2: Espoused for decades by the likes of academics such as
Speaker 2: Hugh White, and this notion was on full display today
Speaker 2: when Anthony Albanizi addressed the Shanghai business launch. Cameras weren't
Speaker 2: allowed in apparently, but he said, quote, this is Albanesi speaking.
Speaker 2: He said, quote, there is no fixed model for a
Speaker 2: stabilized relationship. There's that word stable again. Our job is
Speaker 2: to make sure that we manage our relationship so that
Speaker 2: we can contribute to regional and global peace and prosperity. Yet,
Speaker 2: I ask you what is missing from that statement, which
Speaker 2: weirdly sounds like it could have been written by the CCP,
Speaker 2: by ggpings Comm's people. Tell you what's missing? Any talk
Speaker 2: of what it means for us to be a liberal democracy,
Speaker 2: upholding liberal values, the sort of thing we are supposed
Speaker 2: to do in the Pacific and around the globe. It's
Speaker 2: what our alliance with the US is supposed to be
Speaker 2: not just a security arrangement, but an alliance of people
Speaker 2: and nations with shared values. Now, yeah, I know that
Speaker 2: Donald Trump tests all of this a bit. I'm not
Speaker 2: going to argue that now. But again, Australia, we have
Speaker 2: to ask ourselves what are the alternatives. Alliances are not
Speaker 2: a one white way street. An alliance has a much
Speaker 2: deeper philosophical and strategic meaning. It is a mutual commitment
Speaker 2: to the defense of our shared values. And as we know,
Speaker 2: and this has been going on since before Trump, the
Speaker 2: world is dividing into totalitarian and free states. Again, this
Speaker 2: has been happening for a long time now, since the
Speaker 2: end of the Cold War. And Australia and the Albanese
Speaker 2: government cannot walk both sides of the fence any longer.
Speaker 2: We will as a country have to make a choice.
Speaker 2: We will have to ask ourselves what happens if Taiwan
Speaker 2: is invaded and the US has a right to ask
Speaker 2: us as an alliance partner for support. Remember, if China
Speaker 2: dominates specific it is uniformly bad for US. This is
Speaker 2: not a good outcome. Anthony ALBANESEI talks about Australian values,
Speaker 2: but he does not seem to know what they are anymore,
Speaker 2: and he certainly can articulate them. This is why this
Speaker 2: Labor Prime Minister ironically seems so focused on the market
Speaker 2: and free trade in his talks with China, because I
Speaker 2: guess that's easier. But Labor also, of course, has a
Speaker 2: long tradition of anti Americanism and isolationism that is coming
Speaker 2: to the fore. We saw this the other day with
Speaker 2: Albanisius John Kurtin lecture, and now we are seeing it
Speaker 2: repeat again at a very dangerous time. Jijinping has us
Speaker 2: just where he wants us, and he must be laughing
Speaker 2: as he sees the fault lines appear in an alliance
Speaker 2: officially founded by Robert Menzies back in nineteen fifty one.
Speaker 1: I just cannot.
Speaker 2: Believe that Albo is falling for all the false flattery. Now,
Speaker 2: Matt Canavan and Nikree is gonna be coming with me
Speaker 2: after the break.
Speaker 10: Don't go anywhere, did my guys pull marihi Aunt, Gambia
Speaker 10: in South Australia is the next location for a town Sunday,
Speaker 10: the twenty seventh of July, and I'd love you to
Speaker 10: join me in the audience ourtown at skynews dot com.
Speaker 10: Do I use the white I said this an email.
Speaker 10: It is one of the great hidden treasures of Australia.
Speaker 10: Halfway between Melbourne and Adelaide and Bang on the Pliswagonna
Speaker 10: Bay Sunday the twenty seventh. Mount Gambia a town at
Speaker 10: skottews dot com dot Au.
Speaker 2: Now back to James, thank you, Paulie, and yeah, Mount
Speaker 2: Gambier is fantastic. Hatch ass to go there a couple
Speaker 2: of years ago. It is amazing. Now we're going to
Speaker 2: bring a panel in in just a second, but also
Speaker 2: first before that, I've got some really exciting news for you.
Speaker 2: I'm thrilled to bring a little news here to you
Speaker 2: for our many thousands of regional viewers who rely on
Speaker 2: Sky for all the hard news and opinion that they
Speaker 2: can't get elsewhere. Today here we at Sky News Australia
Speaker 2: have entered into a new multi year agreement with Network
Speaker 2: ten so that we can continue broadcasting our free to
Speaker 2: air Sky News regional channel into regional markets across New
Speaker 2: South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. Great news for everybody out there.
Speaker 2: So if you're sitting at home in the regions right
Speaker 2: now on the couch. That hello, and we can't wait
Speaker 2: to keep bringing you more of our leading political coverage,
Speaker 2: breaking news, sport and opinion. All right, let's get into
Speaker 2: it now with the panel National Center Llen p Senator
Speaker 2: Matt Canavan and Lord Mayor of Melbourne Nick Reese. And
Speaker 2: you know what, I have a feeling we're gonna have
Speaker 2: a bit of a fiery evening here tonight here, because
Speaker 2: there's so much to talk about.
Speaker 1: Gentlemen.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much for joining me here. Let's kick
Speaker 2: off here. I just had a big, long rant. I
Speaker 2: guess you can call it about China and the Prime
Speaker 2: Minister's speech time in China here, and one thing I
Speaker 2: want to talk to both of you about here, and Matt,
Speaker 2: maybe i'll start with you here. Alexander Downer, the former
Speaker 2: Foreign Minister, has written a brilliant piece in the Australian
Speaker 2: newspaper today and he said that Australia is retreating. We
Speaker 2: are coming critical commentators and not contributors to the security
Speaker 2: of free peoples. And this week the Prime Minister is
Speaker 2: rushing to catch up with China's unelected dictator Jijinping before
Speaker 2: he's even met the President of the United States. The
Speaker 2: symbolism is stark. Matt Canavan. Even if we take Donald
Speaker 2: Trump out of the equation, I do find the way
Speaker 2: that Labor is treating this trip as entirely a trade
Speaker 2: mission and in ignoring basically all of the national security
Speaker 2: and geopolitical implications of this are really kind of disturbing.
Speaker 2: And I feel like he is breaking us away ever
Speaker 2: so slightly from the United States, and Beijing must be
Speaker 2: looking at this and laughing.
Speaker 3: Yeah, look, there's some of that. I agree with James.
Speaker 3: I'm not quite as idealistic as some of the commentators
Speaker 3: in the newspaper. I mean, I'm not so sure it's
Speaker 3: our job to spread democracy around the world, and even
Speaker 3: if we wanted to, couldn't. And it's not even our
Speaker 3: job to necessarily secure the borders of every country in
Speaker 3: the world. Again, we just can't do that, and there
Speaker 3: are many conflicts in the world we do not get
Speaker 3: involved in. I squarely believe that we must conduct our
Speaker 3: foreign policy according to what's in the best interests of Australia. Now,
Speaker 3: it isn't the best interests of our country to countries
Speaker 3: that show aggression. Aggression or seek to pressure and bully
Speaker 3: other countries are not allowed to get away with it.
Speaker 3: So that's something we do need to combat and something
Speaker 3: that I think is being completely missed here in as
Speaker 3: I say, this flowery, idilistic language about democracy and freedom.
Speaker 3: It's that right now, as we stand right now, the tactics,
Speaker 3: the industrial tactics of the Chinese Communist Party have put
Speaker 3: one thousands of Australians out of work in the last
Speaker 3: year and there are thousands more on the chopping block
Speaker 3: if their practices continue, and there's almost zero commentary on this.
Speaker 3: It was because of the aggressive Chinese financed qulified powerstations
Speaker 3: Indonesia that ten thousand Australians in the nickel industry lost
Speaker 3: their jobs last year and now they're pretty much every
Speaker 3: smelter in the country, from copper to aluminium to lead
Speaker 3: and zinc is un a threat because China is aggressively
Speaker 3: seeking to dominate those industrial supply chains. They're doing someone
Speaker 3: a way that is clearly inconsistent with international trade rules,
Speaker 3: and there's not anyone raising this issue or the government
Speaker 3: raising it with China. And as I say, look, democracy
Speaker 3: would be great, but as I say, it's not our
Speaker 3: job to spread democracy to the building of buddiest of China,
Speaker 3: but it is our job to protect our own jobs,
Speaker 3: and our own interests, and our own industry, our own
Speaker 3: manufacturing capability, and hardly anyone is taking up that fight
Speaker 3: right now.
Speaker 1: Well, no, look bad, I agree with you.
Speaker 2: You know, this isn't some idea that we need to
Speaker 2: idealistically turn China into some sort of liberal democracy. But
Speaker 2: I think what we want to do is make sure
Speaker 2: that they're not dominating the specific And you know, Nick Rees,
Speaker 2: I want to take this over to either because the
Speaker 2: Senator makes a really good point here about all those
Speaker 2: jobs in critical minerals industries, in call and all of
Speaker 2: these things. Part of the reason, of course, is because
Speaker 2: of China's really sharp and you know, unethical and really
Speaker 2: an awful lot of times illegal according to various trade
Speaker 2: courts practices. But part of that too is because this country,
Speaker 2: in the Albanezi government, has insisted so much on net
Speaker 2: zero and other environmental regulations that has meant we also
Speaker 2: simply cannot compete. So it's sort of funny that we are,
Speaker 2: on the one hand saying we want to do more
Speaker 2: business with China, but at the same time we're tying
Speaker 2: one hand behind our back on this.
Speaker 11: Book James, I thought your editorial earlier was very entertaining
Speaker 11: and thank you, thank you. I read Alexander Danna's face
Speaker 11: in The Australian today, which look if it was entertaining
Speaker 11: as well.
Speaker 3: I'm fortunately on both scores.
Speaker 11: I think you've got it wrong though, and unfortunately, you know,
Speaker 11: the conservative side of politics in Australia has got a
Speaker 11: long history of getting it badly wrong when it comes
Speaker 11: to dealing with China. I mean, probably most famously there
Speaker 11: was GoF Whitlam's trip to China in nineteen seventy one,
Speaker 11: which you know, Billy McMahon wasn the Liberal Prime Minister,
Speaker 11: and the Conservatives all piled in and criticized.
Speaker 1: Weekends for beating China.
Speaker 11: Of course, shortly thereafter, Richard Nixon visited China, opened up
Speaker 11: relations with the West and it was one of Nixon's
Speaker 11: finest moments as presidents. So, you know, more recent times
Speaker 11: you've got like Scott Morrison who thought, you know, beating
Speaker 11: up on China and criticizing Australians of Chinese background was
Speaker 11: somehow a pathway to elections.
Speaker 2: Completely we're going to pull until here were on that history. Sorry,
Speaker 2: long history getting sorry, Nicholas Ris. We have to put
Speaker 2: pull you up on that here, and I think I
Speaker 2: think that wants to hop in on this too. But
Speaker 2: you know we're not talking about this is what Leverol
Speaker 2: is does. They always say, if you criticize the CCP,
Speaker 2: you're criticizing Chinese people. Nothing could be further from the
Speaker 2: truth that Scott Morrison, I think, did it add little
Speaker 2: job of asking a very simple question which the world
Speaker 2: deserves an answer to, which is where did COVID come from?
Speaker 1: Open the books?
Speaker 3: Well, it was clearly part of you asked that question and.
Speaker 11: Question and it was something that has been the subject
Speaker 11: of many investigations, academic studies, and of course it's the
Speaker 11: right question. But along enough, that's not what it was about.
Speaker 11: It was about Scott Morrison trying to muscle up against
Speaker 11: China's ridiculous Franklin ways to try and win an election.
Speaker 3: It was disasterus on both fronts. Happened.
Speaker 1: Morrison wanted to let's let let's let that talk. Did
Speaker 1: let that talk?
Speaker 3: Well, what actually happened was James absolutely right. It wasn't
Speaker 3: actually even Scott Morrison. It was the foreign mister Mary's
Speaker 3: pain asked a reasonable question about a need for an
Speaker 3: investigation to the origins of COVID, and in response to that,
Speaker 3: the Chinese governments issued fourteen demands through the Australian media.
Speaker 3: May I say not to Australian of the Australian gup
Speaker 3: to change our laws on a bunch of things and
Speaker 3: all else. But and I think any self respecting gub
Speaker 3: and hopefully this guver would do the same. They're about
Speaker 3: to be tested potentially on this, but hopefully any Istralian
Speaker 3: government would tell another foreign comment, No, we don't just
Speaker 3: respond to bullying and threats like China tried to do
Speaker 3: to us. And so they did. They did. They did
Speaker 3: ban our coal, they banned our wheat, they ban a
Speaker 3: bali and guess what, we didn't miss a beat, despite
Speaker 3: the Labor Party saying the sky was going to fall,
Speaker 3: and I remember Murray Whattt in the Senate saying, oh,
Speaker 3: the Australian coal industry is going to be devastated because
Speaker 3: Matt Canavan is not toning up with China. Well it
Speaker 3: didn't happen because we saw our colder elsewhere. China was
Speaker 3: hurt by not buying our coal and they eventually had
Speaker 3: to back down. So it's a massive victory for Australia
Speaker 3: by doing that. And second title, Labor Party not standing
Speaker 3: up for our country on that, because you're about to
Speaker 3: be tested as well now because China has just said
Speaker 3: that if you go through, if Anthony Ebanizi goes through
Speaker 3: his election commitment to take back the Port of Darwin,
Speaker 3: they are going to place trade sanctions on us. So
Speaker 3: what is the Labor Party going to do? I hope,
Speaker 3: I hope they deliver on their election commitment and they
Speaker 3: stand to such threats and buildings, because there's no way
Speaker 3: any self respecting country should let other nations dictate terms
Speaker 3: to it like China has tried to done the last
Speaker 3: couple of years. And thank god for Scott Morrison for
Speaker 3: not kneeling over, not backing down on what is our
Speaker 3: sovereign nation and independence.
Speaker 2: And I mean this is this is the thing that
Speaker 2: Nicholas rees. Let's just you know, if you look across
Speaker 2: specific the Chinese Communist Party, the CCP government led by
Speaker 2: Ji Jinping, I want to be very clear about what
Speaker 2: we're talking about, has used all sorts of aggressive tactics,
Speaker 2: built islands where they're not supposed to build islands up,
Speaker 2: you know, intimidated the Philippines intimidated, Vietnam intimidated, all sorts
Speaker 2: of other countries with navies, with coastguard fleets. They're doing
Speaker 2: similar things here. At some point, you know, free countries
Speaker 2: have to simply say enough, don't.
Speaker 11: We Well, let's hope we don't, Actually, James, let's hope
Speaker 11: that China continues to be a rational, self interested because
Speaker 11: Australia has got very rich, become very prosperous off the
Speaker 11: back of the economic rise of China.
Speaker 3: I mean, after that.
Speaker 11: Whitlam visit, we've seen five decades of phenomenal economic growth
Speaker 11: of China and Australia has been one of the world's
Speaker 11: biggest beneficiaries of that. We enjoy incredibly good, prosperous lives
Speaker 11: in this country thanks in no small part to the
Speaker 11: rise of China economically. And so what you see in
Speaker 11: any I been easy traveling as Prime Minister to China
Speaker 11: is a very pragmatic, self interested, independently minded prime minister,
Speaker 11: putting Australia's interests first. We've done very well out of
Speaker 11: China problem, and.
Speaker 1: Let's we continue to do so.
Speaker 3: We continue to do so.
Speaker 2: Let's let's let's let's let that be the last word, Matt,
Speaker 2: I think I got a lot to say on this,
Speaker 2: and I do too, and I think the viewers at host.
Speaker 3: I'm just going to say that the problem I've got
Speaker 3: is I've always and I was a resources minister wanted
Speaker 3: to see a good relation of China. That wouldn't let
Speaker 3: me visit. This was long before the COVID issue, but
Speaker 3: they wouldn't even let the streaming to go there. So remember,
Speaker 3: the original threats happened because we had the temerity to
Speaker 3: pass a foreign interference law.
Speaker 1: Nick.
Speaker 3: That's that's when the that's when the threats and bullings
Speaker 3: from China started, a law that the Labor Party supported.
Speaker 3: Uh And so again we've got to stand up to
Speaker 3: this sort of bullying. But the issue we've got now
Speaker 3: is we're far too dependent on China. So I don't
Speaker 3: understand why the primise for spending his longest visit in
Speaker 3: China and not visiting India or Vietnam or Indonesia and
Speaker 3: other countries, because we clearly need to again exactly let's.
Speaker 11: Look, hang on, hang on a second, let's not forget
Speaker 11: mad but China. China is bigger than Australia's next five
Speaker 11: trade parts.
Speaker 1: That's because the.
Speaker 2: Risk we have business is that big.
Speaker 1: Don't we stop this car?
Speaker 3: No no, no, no, no no no no no no no.
Speaker 3: Risk management.
Speaker 2: It is not risk management. It is diversification. We need
Speaker 2: a diverse And I want to talk we need to
Speaker 2: resky our questions here.
Speaker 1: And I want to.
Speaker 2: Talk about two because this is also a great story here,
Speaker 2: this story about the ABC puts it an FOI request
Speaker 2: to the Treasury and they find out guess what, oh yeah, no, no, no, sorry,
Speaker 2: we are spending too much money. Oh yeah, we are
Speaker 2: going to need to raise taxes. Oh yeah, that one
Speaker 2: point two billion house target, I don't know who's going
Speaker 2: to build those houses isn't going to happen. But Matt Canavan,
Speaker 2: let me start with you here. Why is the government
Speaker 2: so secretive? They were acting like this is a matter
Speaker 2: of national security that we can't know what Treasury thinks
Speaker 2: about the forecast for Australians. This seems, you know, to
Speaker 2: be against the idea of a very transparent government.
Speaker 3: Senator, Well, look, I'm not going to be hypocritically James.
Speaker 3: I mean all governments don't like to reveal advice from
Speaker 3: their department's agencies. We would be the same. I think
Speaker 3: that's particularly the major issue here. The sad thing I
Speaker 3: think for our country is that we have a premier
Speaker 3: economic advisory body who has given up, given up on
Speaker 3: spending restraint and just telling the government raised taxes. I mean,
Speaker 3: I've said on this show before that pre COVID, your government,
Speaker 3: the Australian government spent to four hundred and seventy seven
Speaker 3: billion dollars a year four and seventy eight four and
Speaker 3: seventy eight billion dollars a year. So and now seven
Speaker 3: years later, in the last budget, this financial year, you're
Speaker 3: set to spend seven hundred and seventy seven billion dollars
Speaker 3: three hundred billion dollars a year more on an average basis.
Speaker 3: Now they are only about ten million households in Australia,
Speaker 3: so that's an extra thirty thousand dollars per household. So
Speaker 3: every house watching this show tonight, your government is spending
Speaker 3: thirty thousand dollars a year more. That's not the total spending.
Speaker 3: They're spending that more compared to COVID. Now are we
Speaker 3: getting thirty thousand dollars a year more extra services and
Speaker 3: need Treasury saying hey, maybe it's a few items we
Speaker 3: could cut back on here we could have some efficiencies
Speaker 3: and so that we don't place such a burden on
Speaker 3: the Austraian taxpay because at least there's one bit of
Speaker 3: honesty advice is if we keep going with the spending
Speaker 3: we've got, taxes are going to have to go up.
Speaker 3: We can't keep borrowing like this as we are, and
Speaker 3: I don't think Austraine people have been prepared for that,
Speaker 3: and the government hasn't been honest about that. And we
Speaker 3: need to have some ideas here that are not just
Speaker 3: about raising taxes but actually get about government spending within
Speaker 3: their means.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, Nicholas Real. So that makes an awful
Speaker 2: lot of good points there, you know, putting aside the
Speaker 2: secrecy of it. We're not in a great position if
Speaker 2: we are going to have to raise taxes and we
Speaker 2: can't get all these houses built and all these promises
Speaker 2: that you know, we've had a great economic management and
Speaker 2: so the housing phrases well, you know, according to at
Speaker 2: least as treasury bureaucrat, and I think probably a lot
Speaker 2: of people out there just with their own eyes think
Speaker 2: that ain't going to happen.
Speaker 11: Look, I actually could it. It was a good thing
Speaker 11: for Australian that this advice has become public. I think
Speaker 11: we should be able to openly and transparently see the
Speaker 11: advice that you know ministers are receiving. On most issues,
Speaker 11: I totally accept there would be exceptions to that, you know,
Speaker 11: on sensitive defense matters commercial dealings where the government would
Speaker 11: be prejudiced if the information was disclosed, But on so
Speaker 11: many things I think we're better off as a democracy
Speaker 11: if the advice is out there in the public.
Speaker 3: Doesn't mean that the.
Speaker 11: Government we elect needs to follow the advice all the time.
Speaker 11: In fact, you know, we elect them to be our
Speaker 11: democratically democratic leaders, not just to follow the bureaucratic advices
Speaker 11: on but actually putting that advice out there is a
Speaker 11: good thing.
Speaker 3: I continue.
Speaker 11: The City of Melbourne, we've got a council meeting tomorrow night.
Speaker 11: It was the number of things we're voting on to
Speaker 11: make decisions on the advice of the public servants at
Speaker 11: the City of Melbourne is actually publicly available for people
Speaker 11: to see on the website. They put a report and
Speaker 11: a recommendation to counsel. Tomorrow night we vote on whether
Speaker 11: we follow those recommendations, not follow it, or do a
Speaker 11: variation on the advice with God. But it's all out
Speaker 11: in the open and it's a really good system.
Speaker 2: Look, I can see the larger of that. Gentlemen, stick around,
Speaker 2: don't go to where it'll come back more Monday Night
Speaker 2: Fights here on Palmer Live. Now, you don't go anywhere either,
Speaker 2: because we're gonna have a lot more fired up debate
Speaker 2: after the break. Welcome back to the program. James Borrow
Speaker 2: here hosting Monday Night Fights on Paul Murray Live. We've
Speaker 2: got Nicholas Reese and Senator Matt Canavan here. We've had
Speaker 2: a lot of fired up debate before the break. We're
Speaker 2: gonna have some fired up debate in this segment too. Hey,
Speaker 2: let's just move back Jents real quick because I just
Speaker 2: want to talk and get one more little China topic
Speaker 2: knocked over here because Matt. This one here, I think
Speaker 2: is also important. Port of Darwin, the Prime Minister said
Speaker 2: right before the election. He said, I want to take
Speaker 2: that back and it was sort of throwaway thing to
Speaker 2: Gazump Peter Dutton, very clever. It doesn't seem so clever
Speaker 2: now because it seems to be interfering with his trip.
Speaker 2: But frankly, the port of Darwin getting that back in
Speaker 2: our hands. That can't be a bad idea Canada.
Speaker 3: Well, look I write that before James. If nothing else
Speaker 3: the problem Minister did Mike a promise to the Australian
Speaker 3: people at the election that he would do this, take
Speaker 3: that back into Australian hands. I think it's something that
Speaker 3: the Australian people have long wanted to see. It's an
Speaker 3: extremely important and vital port for our nation's interests. We
Speaker 3: have a large naval base there. I should stress that
Speaker 3: the Chinese owned or Chinese least part of the port
Speaker 3: is not where a defense assets are. But be that
Speaker 3: as it may, it's still very sensitive location. It's right
Speaker 3: next door, and really it makes sense I think for
Speaker 3: that to be in Australian hands now. As I said earlier,
Speaker 3: I don't think we should in any way here. It's
Speaker 3: a bit of a test the newly elected Albanezi government.
Speaker 3: We certainly shouldn't see our government's reneg on a promise
Speaker 3: the Australian people based on a demand from another country.
Speaker 3: And I also think if it is true that China
Speaker 3: wants to be a friendly nation to us, that this
Speaker 3: makes perfect common sense. I mean, can you imagine if
Speaker 3: an Australian infrastructure company, say Mcquarie Bank sought to take
Speaker 3: a lease over the Tjin port near Beijing. I mean,
Speaker 3: let's it's just not.
Speaker 1: I can't see that. I can't see that happen.
Speaker 3: What's good for the ghost should be good for the Ganda,
Speaker 3: and it's in our national interest and that should be
Speaker 3: respected from out the country and should like no one
Speaker 3: is talking about taking it back.
Speaker 1: No, of course, not something like that.
Speaker 3: We don't.
Speaker 1: It's just outing.
Speaker 3: But we should pursue our national interests.
Speaker 2: Correct, correct, And just on that national interest question there,
Speaker 2: you know, Nicholas Rees, you say, and you made an
Speaker 2: eloquent case that really trade with China is the thing
Speaker 2: that makes us all rich and everybody be happy.
Speaker 1: And that's the.
Speaker 2: Alb and easy line here. But what about this idea
Speaker 2: about critical infrastructure, Because there are controversies in a lot
Speaker 2: of countries, the United States here as well, and people
Speaker 2: are passing legislation in some places, say foreign governments, particularly
Speaker 2: hostile governments and governments that are totalitary and decartorships like
Speaker 2: China cannot own critical infrastructure because they have the ability
Speaker 2: to cut us off or make trouble for us in
Speaker 2: times of would you be supportive of you and as
Speaker 2: you support all of this trade with Beijing, also say
Speaker 2: you know there needs to be limits on what they
Speaker 2: can know in terms of infrastructure, far land resources here
Speaker 2: in Australia as a matter of our sovereignty, not as
Speaker 2: a matter of trade, but a sovereignty.
Speaker 11: Short answer is yes, James, I do support those measures.
Speaker 11: I mean, I think the Port of Darwin is a
Speaker 11: strategically important asset for our country and it's not surprising
Speaker 11: that our Prime Minister and then Opposition leader Peteton both
Speaker 11: made promises to see that asset return to Australian ownership
Speaker 11: after the election and Prime Minister One Anthony Alberti and
Speaker 11: now he's going to move to do that. And look,
Speaker 11: I'm sure something that will come up in discussions in Beijing,
Speaker 11: and I'm confident that the Prime Minister will explain very
Speaker 11: calmly and rationally the reasons for doing so. And as
Speaker 11: I think that has quite eloqantly said, China will do
Speaker 11: the same thing for their nationally strategically important asset. And
Speaker 11: so look, the port's one good example of something that
Speaker 11: fits in that category. And yes, I do think there
Speaker 11: are other assets that fit in that category. As well,
Speaker 11: and so again, what's what's you need to have a
Speaker 11: framework that you used to apply to make these decisions,
Speaker 11: and so that includes things like things that are important
Speaker 11: to preserving our sovereignty and things that ultimately serve our
Speaker 11: national interest to remain in Australian hands.
Speaker 2: Absolutely right, Hey, that's pretty well said there. You say
Speaker 2: that's eloquent. But hey, let's just end on a fun
Speaker 2: note here, because there has been the FIFA Club World
Speaker 2: Cup Final and it was visited by none other than
Speaker 2: your favorite President Donald J. Trump, and he had this
Speaker 2: thought about whether we should call it soccer or football.
Speaker 2: Have a look at this.
Speaker 1: Johnny's a friend of mine.
Speaker 5: He's done such a great job with the league and
Speaker 5: with soccer or if they would call it football.
Speaker 8: But I guess we call it soccer.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure that change could be made very easily.
Speaker 11: What if we make an executive order we can only
Speaker 11: say football from now on.
Speaker 5: I think we could do that, and I think I
Speaker 5: could do that.
Speaker 2: Quick responses from both of you, Matt Canavan, soccer or football?
Speaker 1: What should be called?
Speaker 3: Well, Matt, I've got a ten year old son who's
Speaker 3: mad about football and that's what he demands. It to
Speaker 3: be called. So I'll have to back that one. How
Speaker 3: about Donald Trump on the on the celebration stage with
Speaker 3: the team. It's not like it. Trump's just all about
Speaker 3: getting there and making that.
Speaker 1: It was an iconic shot. I don't know if we've
Speaker 1: got it. We've got it there on the screen for you.
Speaker 1: There this guy.
Speaker 2: You know when everything was politics, you could churn out
Speaker 2: the images, say it and down. Nicholas reaes very quickly.
Speaker 2: Soccer or football? What are we calling it?
Speaker 9: Oh?
Speaker 11: Look, if I'm at a soccer function, I of course
Speaker 11: call it football. If I'm at an Aussie rules or
Speaker 11: rugby function, I call the round ball game soccer. So
Speaker 11: you know you used to write names for the writer audiences.
Speaker 11: Is how I Very diplomatic, gentlemen.
Speaker 2: We're gonna have to leave with here, Nicholas Rees, Matt Canavan,
Speaker 2: thanks so much for joining me tonight on Paulbury Live.
Speaker 2: Now after the break, I'm gonna show you a funny
Speaker 2: video from the United States that you're not.
Speaker 1: Gonna want to miss. Stick around.
Speaker 2: Hey thereon James Borrow here for Paulbury Live. Gosh, it's
Speaker 2: been great to be here tonight with Nick Reese and
Speaker 2: Matt canavan. We've had a lot of fun. Well the
Speaker 2: fun ain't orient. We've got a little news item I
Speaker 2: want to share with you before we go. It's from
Speaker 2: the United States. You know, I always love to share
Speaker 2: news from the US with you. Check this out here.
Speaker 2: According to our friends at the New York Post, there's
Speaker 2: a mountain lion on the loose in upstate New York,
Speaker 2: specifically in the city of Rochester. And this man here, yep,
Speaker 2: he says he encountered this mountain lion on his street.
Speaker 2: And I'm gonna tell you what. He gave one of
Speaker 2: the best play by play interactions of a of an
Speaker 2: interaction with a mountain lion.
Speaker 1: I think I've ever.
Speaker 2: Heard, not that I've heard a lot of them, but
Speaker 2: I think this one has to be number one. Here's
Speaker 2: what this gentleman told his local news station about the encounter.
Speaker 1: Heard, I heard, Rau. I felt I felt down, RAU.
Speaker 1: I know to keeping pushing, I know that.
Speaker 10: Curtis Jones says he was walking near Robber Street late
Speaker 10: Wednesday when he saw people running from what appeared to
Speaker 10: be a large wild cat.
Speaker 2: I thought, I see the people.
Speaker 1: I'll just see some big just walking just right over here.
Speaker 2: Right everybody, but way right over here, I swear, I
Speaker 2: promised him right over there.
Speaker 9: They just it's a row.
Speaker 1: I'll just I'll just cut walk.
Speaker 2: I've seen it, seen me see it, so in my head,
Speaker 2: I'm like, no, I gotta go, man, I'm about like
Speaker 2: this bit.
Speaker 1: It was it was it was it was just walking
Speaker 1: Slytherin like it was. I don't know, man, it.
Speaker 2: Was just walking and slithering. I got my base bat.
Speaker 2: Never seen anything like that. But I haven't hed a
Speaker 2: mountain lion in upstate New York either, But you know,
Speaker 2: who knows what else is out there? And thank you
Speaker 2: so much to the New York Post and our friends
Speaker 2: in the local news environment for that. You never know
Speaker 2: what you're going to wind up getting when you pick
Speaker 2: up the local news in the.
Speaker 1: New York Post.
Speaker 2: Anyway, stay safe out there, watch out for mountain lions,
Speaker 2: and if you do see a mountain lion, get your
Speaker 2: baseball bat and say ur ah, I'm gonna say or
Speaker 2: are because guess what the late debate is coming up
Speaker 2: right now