Speaker 1: Why On Sky News.
Speaker 2: This is Sharry Welcome to the show.
Speaker 3: Tonight, a labor insider has spoken out predicting Albineasi could
Speaker 3: be on track to lose the next election. I'll take
Speaker 3: you through this story in a moment. A major broken
Speaker 3: promise from the Prime Minister as his long awaited laws
Speaker 3: to crack down on hate speech do nothing of the sort,
Speaker 3: all the while, millions of dollars are up for grabs
Speaker 3: for a group linked to hate preachers. Julian Lisa would
Speaker 3: join me to discuss cause tonight for Angus Campbell to
Speaker 3: hand back his medal amid accusations, the top brass are
Speaker 3: escaping accountability?
Speaker 4: Should you wear a medal that says you had distinguished
Speaker 4: command and leadership even if things happened that you didn't
Speaker 4: know about?
Speaker 3: And the nine News boss steps down ahead of an
Speaker 3: explosive report into the alleged cover up of sexual harassment
Speaker 3: at the company. Also tonight, we'll look at the conspiracy
Speaker 3: circling Kamala Harris after the big presidential debate. We'll also
Speaker 3: examine the other debate fallout with New York Post columnists
Speaker 3: a little later on, but first tonight, not only is
Speaker 3: the Albanese government failing to crack down on hate speech.
Speaker 3: It's watering down laws it promised would tackle this very issue,
Speaker 3: and worse, it's giving taxpayer funds to the groups linked
Speaker 3: to hate preachers.
Speaker 2: This is almost too shocking to be true.
Speaker 3: The Albanzi government has invited a group called United Muslims
Speaker 3: Australia to apply for a portion of two point four
Speaker 3: million dollars in grant funding. The Teley reports that the
Speaker 3: group was founded by Sheikh shady Asuliman, who's previously called
Speaker 3: for Allah to destroy the enemies of Islam. But more worryingly,
Speaker 3: another speaker promoted by this group he's on their website,
Speaker 3: famously celebrated the October seven terror attacks. Shaiky Brahum Dedoune
Speaker 3: said he was elated the very day after Hamas launched
Speaker 3: its barbaric and deadly assault on Israel.
Speaker 5: Smiling and unhappy.
Speaker 6: I'm it's a day of courage.
Speaker 3: It's actually how it's actually difficult to comprehend how bad
Speaker 3: this is from the Albanezy government. Not only are they
Speaker 3: failing to crack down on hate preachers, but the organizations
Speaker 3: linked to them, the organizations that promote the hate.
Speaker 2: Preachers, that feature them on their website are.
Speaker 3: Being invited to apply for millions of dollars in taxpayer funding,
Speaker 3: your hard earned taxpayer dollars. And this is how the
Speaker 3: joke of a press release by this Minister for Citizenship
Speaker 3: and Multicultural Affairs, Julian Hill begins, and I quote the
Speaker 3: Albitezy government is continuing to focus on social cohesion here
Speaker 3: in Australia with funding granted to support young Muslim and
Speaker 3: Palestinian Australians and their family, friends and community impacted by
Speaker 3: the conflict and humanitarian crisis in Gaza. And Julian Hill
Speaker 3: in the press really said that the two point four
Speaker 3: million dollars was for and I quote again tackling division,
Speaker 3: prejudice and hate.
Speaker 2: That is some.
Speaker 3: Logic giving millions of dollars to fight hate to the
Speaker 3: organizations that promote the hate preachers. Is that any wonder
Speaker 3: protesters feel so emboldened to spread their hate and violence.
Speaker 3: We saw more aggression on the streets of Melbourne again today.
Speaker 2: There were protests have a look.
Speaker 7: And all of the war mangling and the corporations and
Speaker 7: green institutionalized hatred and ignorance get out of our city.
Speaker 3: Not as violent as yesterday, but still disgraceful. Opposition leader
Speaker 3: Peter Dutton spoke about his disgust on air with Ray
Speaker 3: Hadley this morning, saying the protesters would have expected that
Speaker 3: they weren't going to be locked up or punished.
Speaker 8: They would have had a fair expectation going into yesterday
Speaker 8: that they weren't going to be locked up because the
Speaker 8: Center Ellen government in Victoria and the Men's government in
Speaker 8: New South Wales had allowed them to conduct themselves with
Speaker 8: these chants and waving the flags and the hatred that
Speaker 8: they've expressed for months now. So it's great to see
Speaker 8: to some of them were locked up. I'm sorry that
Speaker 8: some of the police were injured, and also some of
Speaker 8: the people who are going about their lawful businesses you
Speaker 8: point out who were smeared with paint or assaulted. Otherwise
Speaker 8: it's a disgrace and.
Speaker 3: He's right the violence yesterday was shameful. Liquid acid thrown
Speaker 3: at police, reportedly vomit in balloons, twenty seven police officers
Speaker 3: needing medical treatment.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Green Senator David Shubridge complained today on social media that
Speaker 3: police used rubber bullets.
Speaker 5: Their future has been sold out and mortgaged to these
Speaker 5: multinational weapons companies by the major parties, and already there
Speaker 5: have been reports that riot police shot at protesters with
Speaker 5: rubber bullets down in Melbourne, and there's a long list
Speaker 5: a conger line of Labor and Coalition members who then
Speaker 5: use those connections to get a cushy job when they
Speaker 5: leave Parliament. It's obscene and no wonder people are on
Speaker 5: the streets protesting.
Speaker 6: This is the.
Speaker 3: Greens and the Prime Minister took aim at them in
Speaker 3: Parliament today for backing the protest.
Speaker 9: Unlike the Green's political party, who are members of Parliament
Speaker 9: who are ten demonstrations that are violent, that throw things
Speaker 9: against police, that engage in disruption. Because the big.
Speaker 10: Difference between a party of government and a party of
Speaker 10: protests is that we are responsible, that we work through
Speaker 10: issues constructively across this chamber in order to make a
Speaker 10: positive difference.
Speaker 3: And we've heard this a lot lately, the Prime Minister
Speaker 3: attacking the Greens for excusing lawlessness and violence. But as
Speaker 3: Peter Dutton said today, if he's so concerned about the Greens,
Speaker 3: then don't do deals with them.
Speaker 8: If the Prime Minister is a man of principle and
Speaker 8: somebody who stands by his word, then he wouldn't accept
Speaker 8: and he wouldn't preference the Greens, but he will because
Speaker 8: it'll be to their political advantage. Anthony Albanezi's I just
Speaker 8: think without doubt now that the weakest prime minister that
Speaker 8: we've seen in our.
Speaker 3: Lifetime, and this is OLDTC from Albernesi, but no action.
Speaker 3: He talks tough against the Greens, but he will do
Speaker 3: a deal with them to farm government after the.
Speaker 2: Next selection if that's what he needs, just like he's.
Speaker 3: Done countless deals with the Greens that the Business Council
Speaker 3: wanes is jeopardizing our economy well. In response to the
Speaker 3: anti Semitism crisis, the Prime Minister has repeatedly promised to
Speaker 3: introduce tough laws, and he first made this promise in February.
Speaker 11: I've asked as well the Attorney General to develop proposals
Speaker 11: to strengthen laws against hate speech, which we will be doing.
Speaker 11: This is not the Australia that we want to see.
Speaker 1: We've already been working on the hate speech the provisions.
Speaker 1: It is our intention to bring them forward. Strengthen current
Speaker 1: laws that deal with hate speech.
Speaker 3: Total rubbish because we learned today that they've just watered
Speaker 3: them down. I mean, we shouldn't be surprised about this
Speaker 3: because the Prime Minister is a continual disappointment. But this
Speaker 3: was meant to be a hate crimes bill. Yet even
Speaker 3: The Herald reports that Labor has scrubbed criminal penalties for
Speaker 3: seriously vilifying minority groups, and The Herald reports that sources
Speaker 3: familiar with Labour's promised hate speech.
Speaker 2: Bill said it said it had.
Speaker 3: Been significantly weakened in the final stages of drafting and
Speaker 3: was now starkily different from Albanese's original pledge, which he
Speaker 3: made earlier this year following months of concern about inflamed
Speaker 3: anti semitism. Walking away from that creates another political dispute
Speaker 3: for Albanezi, who will be forced to clarify how he
Speaker 3: plans to get tougher on hate speech if the bill
Speaker 3: does not allay community concerns, particularly around anti Semitism. Gone
Speaker 3: from the legislation reportedly are the words hate speech.
Speaker 2: That's what these laws were designed to tackle.
Speaker 3: This is just yet another broken promise from a weak
Speaker 3: government that's comprehensively failed to tackle violence and racism erupting
Speaker 3: on our streets, all for the sake of political expediency.
Speaker 2: There's a lot more to come on the show.
Speaker 3: Tonight, we'll get into the calls for Angus Campbell to
Speaker 3: hand in his medal in a moment, also accusations that
Speaker 3: the top brass are escaping accountability, with only juniors reportedly
Speaker 3: stripped of their medals. I'm going to have the Defense
Speaker 3: Association's Neil James joined me on the program. But now
Speaker 3: let's bring tonight's panel National Senator Matt Canavan and commentator
Speaker 3: Jason Morrison.
Speaker 2: Welcome to you both.
Speaker 3: Matt, I want to start with what I was just
Speaker 3: speaking about there in my editorial. I mean, you can't
Speaker 3: make this up watering down race hate laws at the
Speaker 3: same time as giving millions of dollars in funding to
Speaker 3: an organization that promotes the hate preachers.
Speaker 2: What is happening to this government?
Speaker 12: Well, they just don't have their priorities in the right place, Shari.
Speaker 12: I mean that we already have laws against pilification. I'm
Speaker 12: not sure why the government doesn't do more to prosecute
Speaker 12: some of the speeches we've seen from in sermons around
Speaker 12: Western Sydney, obviously the instant of the Opera House. I'd
Speaker 12: just like to see our laws in force that we've got.
Speaker 12: I mean, I want to look at any kind of
Speaker 12: new speech laws that come forward, hate or otherwise. I'm
Speaker 12: very concerned about the misinformation laws coming through. I think
Speaker 12: the general principle should be to allow free speech in
Speaker 12: our country and not have government regulate what we say. Obviously,
Speaker 12: where people step over that in terms of inciting others
Speaker 12: to violence or vilifying other races, there it was appropriate
Speaker 12: laws against that. But I come back to the fact
Speaker 12: I just don't see the state of federal governments enforcing
Speaker 12: the laws that already on our books. And I don't
Speaker 12: like the knee jerk reaction though, let's just create more
Speaker 12: laws when we're not doing that, we're not even trying
Speaker 12: to enforce the ones we've already got.
Speaker 3: Well, I agree with you. The current laws aren't being enforced.
Speaker 3: They're not people aren't the in law enforcement aren't even
Speaker 3: trying to use them.
Speaker 2: Have a go at using them.
Speaker 3: If there are hurdles, then you know they can tinker
Speaker 3: with the legislation. But the issue is, this is why
Speaker 3: Albinisi and Mark Drefers said that they were going to
Speaker 3: introduce new race hate speech laws, is because police were
Speaker 3: saying to them, we don't have strong enough laws. We
Speaker 3: don't have strong enough laws to prosecute here. So the
Speaker 3: government went, fine, we'll go back to the table. They
Speaker 3: promise to introduce use them. And now they've just looks
Speaker 3: like they've given up. You know, it's great that there
Speaker 3: is docs and laws that they've introduced today, but they've
Speaker 3: given up on this, and Jason, you'd have to think
Speaker 3: again that it's to appease the Muslim communities in the
Speaker 3: seats they're trying to hold onto.
Speaker 13: Yeah, they don't have strong enough will. And the reason
Speaker 13: they don't have strong enough will is because politically the
Speaker 13: police are not backed to have strong enough will because
Speaker 13: politically you look around. I mean I'm in New South Wales.
Speaker 13: I'm going around seeing local council posters up everywhere and
Speaker 13: it is quite staggering how many of the candidates running
Speaker 13: in seats in western and south western Sydney are of
Speaker 13: Middle Eastern background. Now there's nothing wrong with that, but
Speaker 13: you know, Labour's got a problem there because it knows
Speaker 13: there's a double message here. This was always a trick.
Speaker 13: What they said was a trick. It was a trick
Speaker 13: to appease the Jewish community at the time rightly fiercely
Speaker 13: angry at what happened on October the ninth of the
Speaker 13: Opera House ever.
Speaker 6: Since and ever since.
Speaker 13: But you know, I mean they hadn't. There wasn't even
Speaker 13: a response on October the ninth, and there were people
Speaker 13: out there calling for the bloods of Jews in Sydney.
Speaker 13: It is extraordinary that they are going to be able
Speaker 13: to get away with this. But they're doing it because
Speaker 13: they're playing to a base, and the base is rotten.
Speaker 2: The base is.
Speaker 13: Fear of losing seats in areas that are very strong
Speaker 13: Muslim populations. And of course the great assumption of all
Speaker 13: of this is that this is what Muslims necessarily want.
Speaker 2: I'm not even sure.
Speaker 14: That's what they want.
Speaker 13: They want protections as much as anybody else.
Speaker 3: I had Jamar Riffi on the show the other night
Speaker 3: and he said hate speech and race hate laws should
Speaker 3: be used against the hate preachers.
Speaker 2: I mean he supported that.
Speaker 13: So perhaps the buck each way, the whole thing's been
Speaker 13: a buck each way.
Speaker 3: Now a Labor insider has spelled out how the Prime
Speaker 3: Minister could be on track to lose the next election.
Speaker 3: This is the former Labour Queensland State director, also Bill
Speaker 3: Shotton's former chief of staff, Cameron Milner. As you know
Speaker 3: he's our Monday Night regular guest. Well, he keeps saying
Speaker 3: on this show that Albert Easy could lose. He's pretty
Speaker 3: much the only one saying that. Everyone else says that
Speaker 3: Albernize's on track for minority government. So I told him
Speaker 3: on Monday Night that he was the only one saying this.
Speaker 3: And now he's written a piece about how Labor could
Speaker 3: lose altogether after just one term. And here it is
Speaker 3: front page of The Nightly Tonight. Cameron Milna writes that
Speaker 3: the glib line that Peter Dutton is unelectable is easy
Speaker 3: to say for Labor, but the evidence just doesn't support
Speaker 3: the contention. And he predicts the Liberals and I'm going
Speaker 3: to take you through what he says are the seats
Speaker 3: that they could win. Now, he predicts the Liberals could
Speaker 3: win from the Teals, Goldstein Curtain and mckella. And then
Speaker 3: he says, given the cost of living crisis is hurting
Speaker 3: out of metropolitan and regional areas the most he says
Speaker 3: Labor could lose these seats. Gilmour, Lyons Lingiari, McEwen, Patterson, Robertson, Aston,
Speaker 3: Tangy and the.
Speaker 2: New seat of Bullwinkle.
Speaker 3: There's what to all play out, Milna works out that
Speaker 3: the Liberals would then be up eleven seats, taking them
Speaker 3: to around sixty nine seats, while Labour would be down
Speaker 3: to seventy one seats.
Speaker 2: And Milner then says.
Speaker 3: There are other seats up for grabs as well, like
Speaker 3: bruth b and South Australia, Reed and ben along very
Speaker 3: marginal seats in New South Wales and Chisholm in Victoria.
Speaker 3: And then Milner says that if there's another independent candidate
Speaker 3: who's popular in Western Sydney like Da Lee, or perhaps
Speaker 3: even one of the Muslim candidates could be successful, this
Speaker 3: would mean more losses for Labor. Now, Matt Canavan, we
Speaker 3: know at the moment that Albanezi is facing minority government.
Speaker 2: But Milner talks.
Speaker 3: About the situation with the Voice how alban Easy managed
Speaker 3: to turn around a proposition where about sixty percent of
Speaker 3: the population supported it to a case where it was
Speaker 3: a thorough rejection. So what do you think there's still
Speaker 3: probably around five or six months potentially enter the poll.
Speaker 12: Well, look, I mean the coalition is going to be
Speaker 12: the underdogs going into the election. It's very hard, of
Speaker 12: course to get rid of a first term government and
Speaker 12: on the match you've gone through. We've got an enormous
Speaker 12: number of seats we have to win, but we're in
Speaker 12: this to win it. We've got to do a lot
Speaker 12: of hard work ourselves and prove to the Australian people
Speaker 12: that we've got the policies and solutions to fix their issues.
Speaker 12: I mean, I, for one, hope that the Labor Party
Speaker 12: don't read Cameron Milner's piece, because they certainly seem to
Speaker 12: be governing like they think they can't lose. And you know,
Speaker 12: pretty much from day one, they've acted like they are
Speaker 12: somehow been coronated by the Australian people, when in fact,
Speaker 12: even at the last election that they won, they receive
Speaker 12: the lowest share of a primary vote of any incoming
Speaker 12: government in our history. Just a third of Australian's voted
Speaker 12: for the Labor Party. And so I just feel like
Speaker 12: they've got ahead of themselves still are. I've spent the
Speaker 12: last couple of weeks debating among themselves about what questions
Speaker 12: on transgenderism should be asked in the Australian census, not
Speaker 12: worrying about how they can create more homes for people
Speaker 12: who don't have one in Australia. Right now, not how
Speaker 12: they can get inflation rate down to a level at
Speaker 12: least what exists in other comparable countries like in North
Speaker 12: America and Europe with the highest inflation rate in the world.
Speaker 12: They just totally distracted and not focused on the priorities
Speaker 12: and challenges, many challenges that are facing Australian family. So
Speaker 12: if they keep governing like this, look anything's possible. But
Speaker 12: as I say, we've got that hard work to do
Speaker 12: as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a lot of seats to make up.
Speaker 13: What do you think, Jason, I actually don't think he's
Speaker 13: alone on this. I saw Redbridge polling the other day
Speaker 13: out with similar results talking about Gilmore the most marginal
Speaker 13: seat going against the government. A whole stack of those
Speaker 13: that are on that list going against the government. I
Speaker 13: got two theories on this. One is the obvious that
Speaker 13: they are terribly I mean your mate that comes on
Speaker 13: here from the polling company the other day and Milner
Speaker 13: himself said that Albanese is coming across this week useless
Speaker 13: and a liar week. Useless and a liar. It keeps
Speaker 13: coming out in the polling. And this is a guy,
Speaker 13: this is a labor guy.
Speaker 2: Now there's a.
Speaker 13: Possibility that this is a hit piece too. This actually
Speaker 13: could be designed and MPs go home over the weekend
Speaker 13: they see.
Speaker 2: Disasters for a long time.
Speaker 13: I'm just saying.
Speaker 4: They are screwed.
Speaker 13: They are screwed with him, and they know it, and
Speaker 13: it's just a matter of time.
Speaker 15: He's got to go.
Speaker 13: The only thing, I mean, nothing they can do policy
Speaker 13: wise is going to make the people Matt speaks of
Speaker 13: in their homes have a better quality of life, have
Speaker 13: lower mortgage payments, have lower powers. There is nothing they
Speaker 13: are going to be able to do. The only thing
Speaker 13: they can do is get rid of the bloke who
Speaker 13: is useless at campaigning and is disliked by the Australian
Speaker 13: public at the moment. And that's the Prime Minister.
Speaker 2: And you know, this guy's a Labor right guy.
Speaker 13: There's a lot of writers in the Labor Party that
Speaker 13: are pretty pod about the way alberanize taking the government
Speaker 13: right now.
Speaker 2: They want him.
Speaker 3: I'm not going to get rid of him, though, matter
Speaker 3: do you think we do?
Speaker 12: You think we should draft out a campaign to draft
Speaker 12: Bill Shorten back. I think again, Bill don't go.
Speaker 16: Well, I would I would have.
Speaker 12: A stranger things have happened.
Speaker 13: I would have said that someone like Charmers would be
Speaker 13: an option for them. Except today I saw Charmers basically
Speaker 13: taking the piss out of an old pensioner in Parliament
Speaker 13: question time because the blokes had his letter read out
Speaker 13: in Parliament complaining about his gas bill and they just
Speaker 13: took the mickey out of it. I mean they forget
Speaker 13: that this is real in people's lives, that people are
Speaker 13: really struggling.
Speaker 2: They have forgotten that because they are.
Speaker 13: So removed from it and talk about removal.
Speaker 15: The removal solution is out now.
Speaker 3: I think he was having a bit of a lighthearted moment,
Speaker 3: but I don't think he was miking h well.
Speaker 13: I wonder how cess all the pension of feels about
Speaker 13: it being mocked and having the piss taken out of
Speaker 13: his name by the Treasure of Australia with his double
Speaker 13: power bill.
Speaker 3: Let's have a look at Tanya pliversek now, very controversial
Speaker 3: move we've been discussing on the show, her decision to
Speaker 3: kill off the billion dollar gold mine at the eleventh hour.
Speaker 2: But now there's one.
Speaker 3: Hundred and twenty one land councils are preparing to converge
Speaker 3: in the state's central West to discuss this intervention. This
Speaker 3: report in the OZ today we heard the former New
Speaker 3: South Wales Aboriginal Land Council chair ry R s He
Speaker 3: was outraged by Plebisk's decision.
Speaker 2: He was on Chris Kenny a bit earlier.
Speaker 17: I have a look for the minister and not even
Speaker 17: talked to the local Aboriginal Land Council. That in itself
Speaker 17: is disrespectful. It's disrespectful to our voice. The landline system
Speaker 17: was set up, Chris, to give abidinal people a voice
Speaker 17: in the state of New South Wales.
Speaker 2: It wasn't only for.
Speaker 17: Recompense, for compensation and dispossession. It was set up to
Speaker 17: give abidinal people a voice in the state of New
Speaker 17: South Wales. And she hasn't even listened to our voice.
Speaker 3: I mean, Matt, this is stunning as well that Tanyabo
Speaker 3: were second, that Albanezi government has managed to get indigenous
Speaker 3: groups offside.
Speaker 12: Well, Tan your purposec needs to go to this meeting.
Speaker 12: Just go there and listen. Doesn't have to say anything.
Speaker 12: I don't have given speeches. Listen to the people there
Speaker 12: because Royc there's hit the nail on the head. I mean,
Speaker 12: this was a government that had at its centerpiece was
Speaker 12: what it wanted to achieve an election night. The first
Speaker 12: thing the Prime Minister mentioned was to establish a voice
Speaker 12: for Aboriginal people. Now, ultimately the Australian people didn't want
Speaker 12: to have that in our referendum, but I think all
Speaker 12: Australians would agree that the Aboriginal people deserve to have
Speaker 12: a voice, that Abridginal people deserve to have their voices
Speaker 12: heard just like any other Australian. Just didn't want it
Speaker 12: enshrined in the constitution a race based way. But if
Speaker 12: this Globor party is seriously serious about listening to a
Speaker 12: voice rather than just radical constitutional change, go out to
Speaker 12: Orange and meet with these groups and hear from these
Speaker 12: Aboriginal land councils about why they're upset with this change.
Speaker 12: I mean my experience with Aboriginal groups that yes, they're
Speaker 12: very serious about respecting their areas of heritage and sacred
Speaker 12: sites like the rest of us. They do want economic
Speaker 12: opportunity too, and of many entrepreneurial people among them who
Speaker 12: want businesses, and all of these decisions have to be
Speaker 12: balanced against the economic opportunity that Aboriginal areas against also
Speaker 12: the right to protect herriage. It's just like they are
Speaker 12: in urban environments as well. And it's pretty clear here
Speaker 12: Tanya has let that balance way out of whack and
Speaker 12: she's listening to some fringe radical extremists, so not the
Speaker 12: vast bulk of Aboriginal people.
Speaker 2: Yeah, indeed, all right, Matt Canavan.
Speaker 3: You mentioned a moment ago that Labor introduced its new
Speaker 3: revamped Misinformation Bill into Parliament today. Now, this bill is
Speaker 3: one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation ever to
Speaker 3: be introduced into the parliament, Jason. It has been criticized
Speaker 3: by the left and the right broadly. There are serious
Speaker 3: concerns about how we're impact on journalism, on individuals in
Speaker 3: the public who want to have their say, give a
Speaker 3: different opinion.
Speaker 2: What do you think about this?
Speaker 13: Yeah, we don't need another government agency of unelected individuals
Speaker 13: making decisions on what's acceptable to say or not. The
Speaker 13: market can make that decision, and the market can call
Speaker 13: out people who say the wrong things, and shows like
Speaker 13: this and shows on the ABC can even do it
Speaker 13: as well. We don't need a government agency for this.
Speaker 8: I dubbed this.
Speaker 13: I think it's a dangerous step in a direction we
Speaker 13: don't need to go, Matt.
Speaker 3: One of the examples the Minister gave when she was
Speaker 3: talking about this legislation is that it could be used
Speaker 3: against people who were promoting anti vaccination information online well
Speaker 3: after the COVID vaccine. There are a lot of legitimate
Speaker 3: concerns about that vaccine and that could be repeated in
Speaker 3: the future if there is.
Speaker 2: Another pandemic and another quick vaccine welled out. So should
Speaker 2: those concerns be removed from online? This is a debatable area.
Speaker 12: It absolutely is. It absolutely is. There's actually nothing that
Speaker 12: maybe we should debate more than the health outcomes of
Speaker 12: different interventions, whether they be ones in response to the coronavirus,
Speaker 12: just the general health of different food products and our
Speaker 12: general pharmaceutical first approach to health in the modern world.
Speaker 12: It's a very legitimate source of political debate, and our
Speaker 12: Constitution actually protects political communication, or the High Courts interpreted
Speaker 12: that as an implied right. Nowhere in this bill that
Speaker 12: I could find I've tried to get through the seventy
Speaker 12: pages of it this evening. Now are this bill I
Speaker 12: could find any protection for those implied rights of all Australians.
Speaker 12: And really this is not a bill to protect your
Speaker 12: listeners tonight, your viewers tonight against misinformation. This is a
Speaker 12: bill to protect government bureaucrats against criticism.
Speaker 2: That's what it is.
Speaker 12: It's a bill. It's a protection racket to stop any
Speaker 12: accountability from our public servants, who look as diligent as
Speaker 12: they may be, as we saw during the COVID epidemic,
Speaker 12: have enormous power over our lives. And when that power
Speaker 12: has to come accountability, they have to be subject to
Speaker 12: criticism in a proper functioning democracy, and this bill weakens
Speaker 12: that and it should be just immediately dismissed out of
Speaker 12: hand and taken out as part of it is one
Speaker 12: of the worst piece piece of legislation to being introduced
Speaker 12: in a democratic parliament this country.
Speaker 3: Absolutely and we've heard the Prime Minister and his ministers
Speaker 3: accuse everything of being misinformation, even political attacks on them,
Speaker 3: you know, criticism about the voice. And if they're now
Speaker 3: legislating misinformation, you can just imagine how this could be abused,
Speaker 3: misused during for political purposes during an election campaign. It's scary,
Speaker 3: all right, Matt Canavan, Jason Morrison, thank you Bach so much.
Speaker 18: Now.
Speaker 3: Defense Minister Richard Miles today revoked service medal service medals
Speaker 3: from commanding officers during the Afghanistan War. This was a
Speaker 3: recommendation after an inquiry into alleged war crimes by Ossie troops.
Speaker 2: Here was Richard Miles.
Speaker 16: Today closing out these two recommendations. Was me writing to
Speaker 16: relevant commanders about my decision in relation to medals awarded
Speaker 16: to them as part of their service during periods approximate
Speaker 16: to the incidents which are at the heart of the
Speaker 16: Breton Report. I have now written these letters. My decisions
Speaker 16: on this matter are consistent with the findings and recommendations
Speaker 16: of the Breton Report, in accordance with obligations owed to
Speaker 16: the individuals involved, including under the Privacy Act, I am
Speaker 16: prohibited from disclosing the details and outcomes.
Speaker 3: With Shadow Defense Minister Andrew Hasty said more senior officials
Speaker 3: on the top brass need to be held accountable.
Speaker 19: Those in the chain of command who saw the post
Speaker 19: mission slide decks with the kill counts and pictures of
Speaker 19: dead individuals had an obligation to ask questions. From Taran
Speaker 19: Court to Kubble, to candor Heart, to do Ye to Candra,
Speaker 19: excuse me, those in the chain of command should have
Speaker 19: asked more questions.
Speaker 3: He was quite emotional about that well. Also in the opposition,
Speaker 3: Keith Wallahan said that Angus Campbell himself should handback his mettle.
Speaker 4: Have a look, we'll bring The awards that we're talking
Speaker 4: about were given for distinguished command and leadership or distinguished leadership.
Speaker 4: I've been a leader in combat. You do get all
Speaker 4: of the glory of the good work and courage that
Speaker 4: your soldiers do. But the flip side of that is
Speaker 4: that you also have some moral accountability for when things
Speaker 4: go wrong.
Speaker 3: Okay, let's bring in now Australian Defense Associations Executive director
Speaker 3: Neil James. Welcome to the show, Neil. Look, what do
Speaker 3: you think of those comments from Andrew Hasty and Neil
Speaker 3: James that there hasn't been enough accountability at the top.
Speaker 20: Well, there certainly hasn't, and we have the advantage in
Speaker 20: footal partner at the moment that we have too Afghan
Speaker 20: to stend more veterans with combat experience in the Special
Speaker 20: Operations time scrip. They've raised some very very good points.
Speaker 20: The Breton Report basically said that certain senior officers, even
Speaker 20: if they couldn't be held legally responsible, were morally responsible
Speaker 20: in all good conscience, their awards could not or should
Speaker 20: not be retained, which was a subtle hit by Breton.
Speaker 20: Maybe they should be handed back the ministrative laws now
Speaker 20: kicked in. The Minister has written to various people and
Speaker 20: provided them with the opportunity to show cause why their
Speaker 20: medals should not be revoked. In about a third of
Speaker 20: the cases they provide a sufficient cause that a revocation
Speaker 20: apparently didn't happen. In about two thirds of the cases
Speaker 20: they were unable to or judged unable to, so the
Speaker 20: awards will be revoked. The big problem here and no
Speaker 20: one's really addressing it, but to an extent you've seen
Speaker 20: that from Keith Woller and Andrew Hasty is what about
Speaker 20: further up the chain, Because a number of the problems
Speaker 20: that occurred in afghanist und occurred because governments of both
Speaker 20: political persuasions, over a period of some years expected the
Speaker 20: Defense Force and indeed the Special Forces campaigner of the
Speaker 20: Defense Force do some things without adequately taking into account
Speaker 20: of the situation they're putting.
Speaker 21: Those forces in.
Speaker 20: So this is not just a problem for the Defense
Speaker 20: Force or and do the Department of Defense. It's a
Speaker 20: problem for Australia as a whole, particularly the way decisions
Speaker 20: are made and the way our troops are sent to war.
Speaker 3: Now there hasn't been any real information given by the
Speaker 3: Defense Minister, and rightly so, you know this should be
Speaker 3: kept private. But as a result of that, a lot
Speaker 3: of people watching tonight are saying, well, you know, these
Speaker 3: young men and maybe women went off bravely to fight
Speaker 3: in battle in the fog of war. You know, they
Speaker 3: had to make snap decisions to defend themselves or to
Speaker 3: defend their mates. They solve their fellow soldiers being killed.
Speaker 3: So given we don't have the detail that it's not
Speaker 3: in the public domain, there is this sense of confusion
Speaker 3: in the public about whether or not you know, these
Speaker 3: soldiers deserve to have their medals revoked.
Speaker 2: What's your response to this, Well.
Speaker 20: It depends on how you look at it. For example,
Speaker 20: the war crimes were the callous murder of unarmed prisoners.
Speaker 20: They weren't fog of war or heat of battle incidents.
Speaker 20: There are deliberately decisions taken to murder people unarmed after
Speaker 20: they were captured. In any way you look at this,
Speaker 20: not only is this a defense against the laws of war,
Speaker 20: it's also an offense against the professionalism expected of Australian
Speaker 20: military personnel. And the cover up that then occurred was
Speaker 20: also unprofessional and illegal, and the people who did this
Speaker 20: will duly be punished. They have their day in a
Speaker 20: court of law. But we can't wait for that to
Speaker 20: occur because we know it occurred, and where we've got
Speaker 20: to take steps to resurrect austraight as public reputation, the
Speaker 20: reputation professionalism and the Defense Force. The problem we have though,
Speaker 20: is that further up the command chain, you know, there
Speaker 20: were people. If they didn't know and covered it up,
Speaker 20: then they're guilty of an offense both morally and legally.
Speaker 20: If they didn't know then obviously, but the plan would
Speaker 20: be made that they should have known, and therefore there
Speaker 20: was a command failure. And we said this when we
Speaker 20: first rate about the report back in December twenty twenty.
Speaker 20: It's even to pin tweet on our Twitter stream. The
Speaker 20: problem there, though is even senior Defense Force commanders are
Speaker 20: not the only people that need to be held culpable
Speaker 20: for what went wrong. There are people up to chain
Speaker 20: going into parliament and in de caapment under governments of
Speaker 20: both political persuasions who put the Defense Force in a
Speaker 20: situation where the risk of this type of thing occurring
Speaker 20: was quite high and it's just like noble courts corruption
Speaker 20: in a police force. You've actually got to stamp it
Speaker 20: out from the top to the bottom to make certain
Speaker 20: that never happens again. And no matter what happens, Australia
Speaker 20: has to resurrect its international reputation. And if we don't
Speaker 20: take the appropriate legal steps to do that and to
Speaker 20: make sure that this type of war crime is never
Speaker 20: committed again by Australians, international criminal court will start to
Speaker 20: take a big interest and I don't think any Australian
Speaker 20: Once that do occur, we should deal with this in
Speaker 20: the Australian court and by Australian criminal law and administry
Speaker 20: law and command law procedures.
Speaker 3: All right, Neil James really appreciate you giving your thoughts tonight. Now,
Speaker 3: after the break tensions between Alban Easy and his rival
Speaker 3: Tanya Plibisek over the backlash to environment laws, plus the
Speaker 3: conspiracy theory surrounding Kamala Harris in the wake of the
Speaker 3: presidential debate, my panel will join me next.
Speaker 2: Welcome back.
Speaker 3: Let's bring in tonight's panel, National Affairs editor at The
Speaker 3: Australian Joe.
Speaker 2: Kelly and former Labor and P Michael Danby. Welcomed you
Speaker 2: both look at it.
Speaker 3: In an eleventh hour move, Tanya Plibisek has withdrawn her
Speaker 3: contentious environmental laws from the Senate. This came after heavy
Speaker 3: opposition from the business sector. They were furious that Plibisk
Speaker 3: was considering doing a deal with the Greens.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 3: Interestingly, Simon Benson in The Australian reports that alban Easy
Speaker 3: is reportedly unhappy about the latest blow up and the
Speaker 3: potential for another war on something else that he clearly
Speaker 3: doesn't need. Sources say this has been communicated to Plibosc's office,
Speaker 3: So Joe Kelly, it clearly looks like there are tensions here,
Speaker 3: an annoyance on the Prime Minister's part, that this was
Speaker 3: another bungled policy area by Plibersec.
Speaker 18: I think that's right, Cherry. I don't quite know what
Speaker 18: the labor strategy is here. I think they should have
Speaker 18: been pretty definitive from the get go that they won't
Speaker 18: agree to a climate trigger to get the Greens on
Speaker 18: board to establish this environmental protection agency. I think that
Speaker 18: just exposes them to a backlash from the business community
Speaker 18: and opens up an attack on them from the coalition.
Speaker 18: They have always left that on the table, so this
Speaker 18: was always a risk. I think that the messaging from
Speaker 18: Tanya Plibosek has been very confusing this week, where she
Speaker 18: has indicated that yes, a deal with the Greens over
Speaker 18: this is possible, particularly given how upset the minerals and
Speaker 18: resources sector is at the industrial relations policies of this
Speaker 18: government in relation to their position on environmental approval. So
Speaker 18: I can understand why Anthony Albinizi is upset, but he's
Speaker 18: the Prime Minister and I think that at the end
Speaker 18: of the day he has to take responsibility for this,
Speaker 18: and I think he should have been very clear from
Speaker 18: the start no deal with the Greens and no climate trigger.
Speaker 3: Michael Danby, I mean, you know all the players here
Speaker 3: very well. You were in Parliament for years and years
Speaker 3: and years. Do you think part of the issue that
Speaker 3: we're seeing with all of these cases that just blow
Speaker 3: up in Labour's face is that the Prime Minister isn't
Speaker 3: across the detail. He just leaves it to the ministers
Speaker 3: and it's only when something erupts that he gets involved.
Speaker 21: Well, the mining sector provides so much of the revenue
Speaker 21: that we spend on our social programs. When BHP goes
Speaker 21: on the front page of The Australian and that it's
Speaker 21: spending its contribution to tax revenue, is contributing fifty percent
Speaker 21: of the health budget. You know, Elbow's got a problem.
Speaker 21: BHP and some of the other mining companies aren't like
Speaker 21: Gina Reiner. They've been pretty work on some issues now.
Speaker 21: None of us want that Aboriginal carvings has happened in
Speaker 21: West Australia to be destroyed in the future. But in
Speaker 21: this area of mining, he has a real problem. These
Speaker 21: are the people who provide us with the revenue, the
Speaker 21: wealth to do all of the things that Australians expect.
Speaker 21: How do we pay for NDIS and the defense budget
Speaker 21: if we don't have the support of the mining industry.
Speaker 21: It's dealing with the Greens and the Senate is a
Speaker 21: typical problem. It'd be better to deal with the Liberals
Speaker 21: and the crossbench.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, very difficult.
Speaker 3: Just to another big story today in media circles. At
Speaker 3: the Very Least nine chief executive Mike Sneezeby announced that
Speaker 3: he was stepping down from the role. He described the
Speaker 3: recent period as one of the most challenging of his career.
Speaker 3: This is a head of an independent review into workplace
Speaker 3: culture and sexual harassment that's going to be handed down
Speaker 3: on October thirty. First, Joe, this is a serious issue.
Speaker 3: This was the me too movement hitting Channel nine. Sneezey
Speaker 3: said the announcement of his resignation was completely unrelated to this,
Speaker 3: but it's no question that the company is going through
Speaker 3: a very difficult, troubled period.
Speaker 18: I think it's irrelevant whether it was related or not.
Speaker 18: The fact is that he's announced that he's going. This
Speaker 18: is a media organization going through a period of turbulence
Speaker 18: and leadership change. They've had a really shocking run of
Speaker 18: it in the last few months. So obviously we had
Speaker 18: the abrupt resignation of Darren Wick, then the allegations of
Speaker 18: inappropriate behavior against him, which soon followed the commissioning of
Speaker 18: this review into the culture at nine, including allegations of
Speaker 18: bullying and harassment. There was the Peter Costello incident not
Speaker 18: too much later. The share price has taken a clobbering.
Speaker 18: It's less than half of what it was when Mike
Speaker 18: Sneezeby took over the top job three years ago. And
Speaker 18: in the publishing arm just recently there were obviously strikes
Speaker 18: about pay in conditions from journalists on their flagship Masthead,
Speaker 18: so look they're going through a period of difficulty in
Speaker 18: leadership change, and they'll need to rebuild. They'll need to
Speaker 18: rebuild from here and adapt to the times.
Speaker 3: Yeh, look, just ending tonight this panel at least on
Speaker 3: the US presidential debate that we saw yesterday.
Speaker 2: General consensus.
Speaker 3: Michael downby that Kamala Harris won the debate, that Donald
Speaker 3: Trump was unprepared.
Speaker 2: What were your main takeouts?
Speaker 21: Well, he's an older guy. He should have done what
Speaker 21: Kamala didn't taken some not rest, but some preparation beforehand,
Speaker 21: and he lacked the detail that he has got on
Speaker 21: his side. There was no discussion of international affairs, no
Speaker 21: commemoration of the fact that it was an anniversary of
Speaker 21: September the eleventh. I mean, didn't three thousand Americans die
Speaker 21: in New York on that day, the city that Trump
Speaker 21: comes from. Look, he could have not come ella for
Speaker 21: a sixth but he didn't. And I think she showed
Speaker 21: herself to be more capable than most people thought of.
Speaker 21: I'm not sure that debates Shari in the end determine
Speaker 21: the results. I still think from what I see, Frank
Speaker 21: Lunt says that he's ahead the Polster in the Swing
Speaker 21: States and that's what he has to hang on to.
Speaker 3: Yeap, Joe Kelly, just very quickly. You know a lot
Speaker 3: of people watching would have already made up their mind
Speaker 3: about who they were going to vote for, very small
Speaker 3: pool of undecided. So where do you think this is
Speaker 3: headed at this point in time?
Speaker 18: Well, look, I think if Kamala Harris goes on to
Speaker 18: win the election in November, people might look back and
Speaker 18: actually say that the debate was more significant than it
Speaker 18: might appear now. I think it was actually interesting for
Speaker 18: showing how much things had changed. The contest has flipped.
Speaker 18: I think Donald Trump wasn't prepared and he's underestimated the
Speaker 18: challenge that Kamala Harris has brought to the table.
Speaker 2: Yeah, indeed, all right, Joe Kelly.
Speaker 3: We look forward to hearing more US analysis from you
Speaker 3: in the coming weeks, and Michael dowb be great to.
Speaker 2: Have you on the show.
Speaker 3: Now after the break the story that's about to blow
Speaker 3: up Albanize's major broken promise on hate speech laws.
Speaker 2: Liberal Julian Lisa would join me in a moment, welcome back.
Speaker 3: Well, we've all been horrified at the violence and vile
Speaker 3: behavior that took place in the streets of Melbourne yesterday.
Speaker 3: This is the failure of our political leaders who failed
Speaker 3: to act on aggression that has now become normalized in
Speaker 3: the wake of the October seven attacks. Will Liberally and
Speaker 3: p Julian Lisa spoke out about it in Parliament today.
Speaker 15: People have the right to protest, but they have to
Speaker 15: do it peacefully.
Speaker 14: All around our country there has been a growing sense
Speaker 14: of lawlessness since October seven. The violence involved in Melbourne's
Speaker 14: protest yesterday is shocking and all too often governments aren't
Speaker 14: throwing the book at people who thumb their nose at
Speaker 14: the law and shown no respect for their fellow Australians.
Speaker 2: And Julian joins me here now, great to.
Speaker 14: See you hire.
Speaker 3: So you know, this does seem to be a culmination
Speaker 3: of lawlessness. This mob think that they run the streets,
Speaker 3: that there's going to be no consequences for their actions
Speaker 3: because there haven't.
Speaker 15: Been no That's exactly right, Sherry.
Speaker 14: I mean, we shouldn't have a situation where bad people
Speaker 14: run run the country and bad people run the town.
Speaker 14: And that's effectively what's happened here. Because every protest since
Speaker 14: the seventh of October, starting with the Opera House riots
Speaker 14: on the ninth of October have basically been met with
Speaker 14: a slap on the wrist rather than people throwing the
Speaker 14: book at these practice. There's no consequence for this stuff.
Speaker 14: And what we're seeing in Melbourne isn't a protest, it's
Speaker 14: a riot. We should call out for what it actually is.
Speaker 14: The violence that was there where feces were thrown at police,
Speaker 14: where there's reports tonight in the press that people squirted,
Speaker 14: people squirted to nerve things into the nostrils of the
Speaker 14: horses there. This isn't Australian behavior. And yet these people,
Speaker 14: these anarchistic type behavior that is around. The sort of
Speaker 14: anti Israel, anti Semitic behaviors that we're seeing there is
Speaker 14: unprecedented in our history. And the only thing you can
Speaker 14: do with this is throw the book at people with
Speaker 14: the strongest laws possible.
Speaker 3: Well, you talk about throwing the book at people with
Speaker 3: the strongest laws possible. And Mark Dreyfus and the Prime Minister,
Speaker 3: Mark Drefs being the Attorney General, promised new hate speech laws.
Speaker 3: The police said they needed them. They promised new laws.
Speaker 3: That was back in February. We now learn that they've
Speaker 3: wanted them down and they're not going to be any
Speaker 3: stronger than what we've got at the moment.
Speaker 14: Yeah, this is hugely disappointing Sharia. I mean, the increase
Speaker 14: in antisemitism since the seventh of October is off the charts.
Speaker 14: We've had an over seven hundred percent increasing incidents, everything
Speaker 14: from anti Semitic incidents outside Jewish schools to doxing, to
Speaker 14: the drive throughs in suburbs, to the terrible things that
Speaker 14: are happening on our university campuses. If ever, there was
Speaker 14: a time where we needed stronger laws to deal with
Speaker 14: these issues, and we actually needed governments to use the
Speaker 14: laws that are there on the statute book today, and
Speaker 14: that's the main thing we've been asking.
Speaker 6: Them to do.
Speaker 14: Police should enforce the laws, prosecutions should happen, and with
Speaker 14: these laws that the government has presented today, they will
Speaker 14: go off to a Senate committee. And it's very important
Speaker 14: that the Senate committee interrogates the police, interrogates the prosecution authorities,
Speaker 14: and interrogates the government to find out why there haven't
Speaker 14: been these prosecutions and whether there'll be any prosecutions for
Speaker 14: any of this bad behavior under their proposed laws.
Speaker 3: And politics is probably the reason why they have waded
Speaker 3: them down. But at the same time, we saw the
Speaker 3: front page of the Daily Telegraph today with the revelation
Speaker 3: that two point four million dollars has been made available
Speaker 3: to three community groups, one of which promotes and features
Speaker 3: on their website the hate preacher who said he was
Speaker 3: elated just twenty four hours after the October seven attack.
Speaker 3: What do you think of this, of this utter hypocrisy
Speaker 3: from the Albanezi government.
Speaker 14: This is a product of the moral equivalents with which
Speaker 14: the government's approached this whole issue from the very beginning.
Speaker 14: You'll remember, after the seventh of October, the government gave
Speaker 14: twenty five million to the Jewish community to improve its security. Now,
Speaker 14: any community that is a threat deserves to have money
Speaker 14: to improve it security, doesn't matter whether it's the Jewish community,
Speaker 14: the Muslim community, the Christian community, the Hindu community. But
Speaker 14: because they needed to so called balance the ledger, they
Speaker 14: gave money to the Palestinian communities and basically said, well,
Speaker 14: we'll give that money to you for advocacy. But advocacy
Speaker 14: that is run by a person who has said those
Speaker 14: things about Jews and who took that reaction to the
Speaker 14: seventh of October terrorist attacks actually diminishes our social cohesion.
Speaker 14: I couldn't think of a worse organization to receive that
Speaker 14: sort of money At this time.
Speaker 3: The scrutiny on the Abenezy government over this is really
Speaker 3: only coming from newscot Do you think there should be
Speaker 3: more attention paid to this issue from the other media organizations,
Speaker 3: because if you're not reading.
Speaker 2: Newscop products or watching Sky News, then you.
Speaker 3: Might just not realize what they're doing here and how
Speaker 3: they are deliberately, in my view, at least, causing the
Speaker 3: further erosion of social cohesion in our country.
Speaker 14: Absolutely, Sharia, the social cohesion of Australia is not just
Speaker 14: an issue for Jewish people. It's not just an issue
Speaker 14: for the consumers of news corp publications and media. It's
Speaker 14: an issue for all Australians. And what we saw in
Speaker 14: Melbourne this week is reminded that this is so much
Speaker 14: more than just the Jewish community, and it's so much
Speaker 14: more than just the people who watch this program. This
Speaker 14: is about the small businesses in Melbourne who have that
Speaker 14: trade interrupted. Is a about the security of our country
Speaker 14: through having proper weapons for Australia to defend itself. This
Speaker 14: is about the ability for us to bring international business
Speaker 14: to this country. This is about people just going about
Speaker 14: their ordinary business.
Speaker 2: You're going to get their kids to school.
Speaker 14: Correct, go to work correct. And if we have people
Speaker 14: who are fermenting the sort of breakdown in social cohesion
Speaker 14: for the country, that is bad for all Australians.
Speaker 3: All right, Julian Lisa, great to have you on set
Speaker 3: with us after your busy week in Candra.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Thank you.
Speaker 15: Charing.
Speaker 3: After the break, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump put their
Speaker 3: differences aside to commemorate the September eleven terror attacks.
Speaker 2: As the fallout from.
Speaker 3: The presidential debate continues, I'll be joined by New York
Speaker 3: Post columnist David Kaufman.
Speaker 2: Next. Welcome back.
Speaker 3: Well, before we turn to the fallout of the presidential debate,
Speaker 3: we have some breaking news now from space.
Speaker 2: This is the first ever.
Speaker 3: In the history of the world civilian space walk. This
Speaker 3: is SpaceX so Elon Musk Venture has taken four civilians
Speaker 3: into space. I understand that they're in a capsule orbiting
Speaker 3: the Earth, first ever civilians to be taken into space.
Speaker 3: They're doing experiments, but ultimately this will be a commercial
Speaker 3: enterprise that Elon Musk is running where people will be
Speaker 3: able to pay to go into space. So that is
Speaker 3: just happening now, some big breaking news from space. The
Speaker 3: world is changing and Elon Musk, for all your criticisms
Speaker 3: of him, is doing incredible things that we didn't think
Speaker 3: was humanly possible. All right, let's turn to the US
Speaker 3: elections now, and let's bring in New York Post columnist
Speaker 3: David Kauffman.
Speaker 2: David, great to see you.
Speaker 3: Look, there was it was September eleven yesterday in Australia,
Speaker 3: but of course it was September eleven today in the
Speaker 3: US and there were the commemorations.
Speaker 2: For the terror attacks. How did Kamala and Trump honor
Speaker 2: this case?
Speaker 15: So considering the sort of a hallowed reverence of September elevenths,
Speaker 15: it's traditionally a day without politicking, but yesterday was really
Speaker 15: all about politics and optics. Harris, Trump, Biden, JD. Bank
Speaker 15: has all appeared on stage in Laura, Manhattan to commemorate
Speaker 15: the terror attacks. And really, if you've looked at the
Speaker 15: optics of this image, it was very much a win
Speaker 15: for Kamala Harris. You know, at the debate she positioned
Speaker 15: herself as sort of a pathway forward, a way out
Speaker 15: of this mess that America finds its way in right now.
Speaker 15: And there she was standing, you know, on the dais
Speaker 15: with you know, four or five men, all white, all
Speaker 15: you know, at least a decade, if not too older
Speaker 15: than her. And she really looked like a breath, like
Speaker 15: the breath of fresh air, like the way forward that
Speaker 15: she positioned herself the previous evening. At the debate yesterday
Speaker 15: was supposed to be not about politics, but it was
Speaker 15: all about politics, and in many ways Vice presid Kamala
Speaker 15: Harris really one.
Speaker 2: Yeah she did. Indeed, we don't.
Speaker 3: We didn't learn any more detail about why her policy
Speaker 3: positions have changed or really what her policy position is,
Speaker 3: particularly when it comes to foreign policy, which is a
Speaker 3: concern for everyone around the world.
Speaker 2: But she did win.
Speaker 3: Is there now a concern in the Republican Party? Do
Speaker 3: you think they're going to agree to another debate and
Speaker 3: actually get Trump to knuckle down?
Speaker 15: I would be surprised if Republicans did agree to another debate.
Speaker 15: You know, the goal of Tuesday night was really different
Speaker 15: people like me who are just undecided. We don't like
Speaker 15: any of them. And what Harry seemed to do was
Speaker 15: to sort of demonstrate that she was presidential, that she
Speaker 15: was taking this seriously, that she could rise to the occasion,
Speaker 15: that she was more than these kind of goofy laughs
Speaker 15: and memes, And in that regard she really succeeded. I
Speaker 15: was quite impressed by the gravitas that she displayed. I
Speaker 15: was quite impressed by I felt like this woman was
Speaker 15: taking seriously. She looked presidential. Donald Trump, on the other hand,
Speaker 15: you know, it was business as usual with him and Kamala.
Speaker 15: Harris keeps on using that phrase with Trump, business as usual,
Speaker 15: And with Trump it was business as usual. He was arrogant,
Speaker 15: he was adversarial, he was full of conflict, he was nasty.
Speaker 15: And I think that US public is somewhat tiring of
Speaker 15: this sort of you know, tired old train of Trump.
Speaker 15: The question about our next debate, you know, I think
Speaker 15: it doesn't really work in Trump's favor. He's proven himself
Speaker 15: unable to evolve, and if we have another spectacle like this,
Speaker 15: I think it would really begin to hurt him.
Speaker 3: Well, Trump is a known quantity though people know what
Speaker 3: he's like as president, they know what his record is,
Speaker 3: and you know, I agree with you that Kamala did
Speaker 3: present very well, but she didn't give any answers for
Speaker 3: the key concerns that people have about her, you know,
Speaker 3: her border policy for one, and also the cost of
Speaker 3: living crisis at the moment that's gripping the United States
Speaker 3: States as it is in Australia as well. All Right,
Speaker 3: David Kaufman, great to have you join us, and that's
Speaker 3: it for me. Thank you everyone for your company this week.
Speaker 3: I'll see you Monday.
Speaker 2: And right now he's Paul Murray