Speaker 1: From the Sky News Center.
Speaker 2: This is Paul Murray Live.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Danika, and hey, good evening everyone. James Burrow
Speaker 3: here for Paul Murray Live tonight and all through the week.
Speaker 3: And yes it is a huge Tuesday night for you.
Speaker 3: But with Albanezy's trip to China, more fallout from that
Speaker 3: Treasury blunder and the new Parliament getting ready to kick
Speaker 3: off next week, Darren Barnett and James Ashby will be
Speaker 3: here to duke it out in a little bit. Plus
Speaker 3: we are going to have the one and only nod
Speaker 3: of Farage. So what do you say? Let's rip in
Speaker 3: a shall we all right? So it's day three now
Speaker 3: of Albo and Jody's big six day trip to China,
Speaker 3: which breaking news. The Prime Minister seems to think is
Speaker 3: even more important to attend than Parliament. A little while ago,
Speaker 3: the PM was captured on an open mic earlier today.
Speaker 4: Assume that's meeting for the first time next Tuesday, one
Speaker 4: week Hawaii. And so I'm here before Parliament has been scheduled.
Speaker 4: I think that can be taken as a sign of
Speaker 4: the importance of the relationship.
Speaker 3: Tug the forelock a little more of their Prime Minister
Speaker 3: doesn't it say it all that that he thinks it's
Speaker 3: so important to go to China before going to Parliament's
Speaker 3: But you know what, even with all of that, it's
Speaker 3: not clear to me exactly why this trip is so important.
Speaker 3: I mean, today the Prime Minister met with Chinese President
Speaker 3: Jijin Ping. And by the way, why do we call
Speaker 3: him a president. It's like that applies to some sort
Speaker 3: of democratically elected official. But anyway, whatever, we'll call him that.
Speaker 3: I watched though, after that meeting that he had with
Speaker 3: the president, the whole press conference the Prime Minister had
Speaker 3: after that meeting, and well, is there anything new? Did
Speaker 3: the Prime Minister have anything new to report? Has anything
Speaker 3: really changed with our relationship with China? I don't think so.
Speaker 3: But that said, even if the PM has been serving
Speaker 3: up very little in the way of real meat on
Speaker 3: the bone of this or what's supposed to come out
Speaker 3: of this besides maybe some exchanges of business cards, well
Speaker 3: guess what, the press corps that he brought along for
Speaker 3: the ride has been doing their best to hold the
Speaker 3: Prime Minister to account, because today there was a startlingly
Speaker 3: robust and I think pretty punchy press conference, at least
Speaker 3: again on the side of the press pack and I
Speaker 3: think at times the Prime Minister maybe even wished for
Speaker 3: just a second that he had the sort of control
Speaker 3: over the media that they have in China.
Speaker 5: On the security side, did you think assurances that Australia
Speaker 5: would be better informed in future true about the PLA's
Speaker 5: navy in Australian waters.
Speaker 4: Yes to the former. And secondly, in response of course
Speaker 4: it was president she said that China engaged in exercises
Speaker 4: just as Australia engages in exercises.
Speaker 6: Can I just clarify on that answer that you specifically
Speaker 6: thought that the notification was really the issue that Australia
Speaker 6: had had earlier in the year.
Speaker 4: I said what I said at the time, which was
Speaker 4: that it was within international law. There was no breach
Speaker 4: of international law by China, but that we were concerned
Speaker 4: about the notice and the way that it happened, including
Speaker 4: the li fire exercises.
Speaker 3: There we go again, It was not outside international law.
Speaker 3: And I have to keep asking this question, why is
Speaker 3: the Prime Minister always so quick to defend China. Well,
Speaker 3: the press conference went on and the Prime Minister seemed
Speaker 3: to get a little bit testy as well when he
Speaker 3: was asked anything about any about any topic that didn't
Speaker 3: have to do with trade, which is apparently all he
Speaker 3: wants to talk about on this trip.
Speaker 7: Your government's made clear it's concern about China's explained military
Speaker 7: build up. Did you see clarity on China's strategic or
Speaker 7: military intent and did you seek any clarity Would you
Speaker 7: gain any insight into China's plans for reunification with Taiwan?
Speaker 4: The I reaffirmed on Taiwan, Australia's position of support for
Speaker 4: the status quo, on.
Speaker 7: The military build up and what its purpose is, what
Speaker 7: china strategic and military aims are.
Speaker 4: Well, you would be surprised if that was brought forward,
Speaker 4: And I'm not sure what you're getting out or what
Speaker 4: you're suggesting might be have been raised, So I'm not
Speaker 4: sure the context.
Speaker 7: Well, your government's raised concerns about the military build up
Speaker 7: and the lack of clarity around what it might be
Speaker 7: used for. Do you feel confident that China is a
Speaker 7: force for peace in the region after this meeting or
Speaker 7: do you?
Speaker 4: Well, what we did was we put forward Australia's position
Speaker 4: or I did, which is that we want peace and
Speaker 4: security in the region, that that is in the interests
Speaker 4: of both Australia and in the interests of China.
Speaker 3: He really didn't like that question. You can always tell
Speaker 3: what he plays with his glasses and his mouth gets
Speaker 3: as ball because he's really annoyed that someone's asking him
Speaker 3: a question that he doesn't want to answer, but he
Speaker 3: had to. But of course he also put a little
Speaker 3: bit more distance between Australia and the US Prime Minister.
Speaker 8: Our security partner, the United States regards China as its
Speaker 8: greatest military thing. Read I'd like you if you could
Speaker 8: to say, how do you regard China in terms of
Speaker 8: its threat and particularly has your view on the security
Speaker 8: threat changed as a result of your sitting down with
Speaker 8: the president on the latter.
Speaker 4: No, it hasn't. We have strategic competition in the region,
Speaker 4: but we continue to engage in order to support peace
Speaker 4: and security in the region and stability in the region,
Speaker 4: and that's something that we advocate for. That's something I
Speaker 4: advocated for today.
Speaker 3: Note the very clear difference in the way Australia regards
Speaker 3: China and China's plans from Australia now. The press also
Speaker 3: asked not one, not two, but three questions about detained
Speaker 3: Chinese Australian Yang Han Jun. But the Prime Minister batted
Speaker 3: those questions away. And as to the outcomes of this trip,
Speaker 3: well we still seem to be three days in, none
Speaker 3: the wiser.
Speaker 9: You spoke a lot about the importance of increasing dialogue,
Speaker 9: building engagement between businesses. What tangible outcomes are you looking for,
Speaker 9: for example, with a free trade agreement from these talks.
Speaker 4: Well, you see some outcomes this afternoon. I will travel
Speaker 4: back immediately after this for the leader's meeting with Premier Lee.
Speaker 4: But already what you've seen is a range of business
Speaker 4: to business relationships, if you like, coming forward. Some of
Speaker 4: those have been written about already on the free trade agreement.
Speaker 4: One of the provisions, not unusually in the chapter the
Speaker 4: Chinese Australia Free Trade Agreement that was signed by the
Speaker 4: former government ten years ago in twenty fifteen following the
Speaker 4: Comprehensive Partnership that was signed also by the Abbic government,
Speaker 4: was as a clause in there for a review that
Speaker 4: will happen because the ten years has clicked in, so
Speaker 4: will engage in that.
Speaker 3: Did that make any sense to you? Do you know
Speaker 3: why he's there? Do you know what's going to come
Speaker 3: out of this? I still don't really after all of that. Now,
Speaker 3: there was more to the press conference, but one thing
Speaker 3: is clear that Chinese government was very happy with the
Speaker 3: outcome of all of this. Now, they didn't raise anything
Speaker 3: about US pressure over our stance on Taiwan, and according
Speaker 3: to the Prime Minister, they also said nothing about the
Speaker 3: port of Darwin either and strategically that makes a lot
Speaker 3: of sense for them, you see, because for Jijin Ping
Speaker 3: and the Chinese Communist Party, their aim is to draw
Speaker 3: Australia closer to Beijing and further away for Washington d C.
Speaker 3: They don't need any of those issues getting in the
Speaker 3: way of that trajectory. And guess what, the Prime Minister
Speaker 3: seems more than happy to oblige on this. But frankly,
Speaker 3: I don't think this performance on his part is good enough.
Speaker 3: And it wasn't good enough either for Opposition leader Susan Lay,
Speaker 3: the Opposition leader earlier today was in Western Australia, and
Speaker 3: here's what she had to say.
Speaker 10: Well, the issue of Australians that are detained in human
Speaker 10: rights and for Dr Jung, this is something that I
Speaker 10: would expect the Prime Minister to raise because it is
Speaker 10: of great concern to many Australians. Also of concern is
Speaker 10: the live firing exercises that took place around our coastline
Speaker 10: in February this year. That was not a respectful relationship
Speaker 10: in terms of not being informed the life firing nature
Speaker 10: and the way that activity took place. That should also
Speaker 10: be raised. And the Prime Minister should speak frankly about
Speaker 10: the increasing influence that China has in the region and
Speaker 10: speak about the importance to Australia of the US relationship.
Speaker 10: And while I note that the Prime Minister is making
Speaker 10: this trip to China, we also note that he hasn't
Speaker 10: had conversations or been in the room with President Trump.
Speaker 10: And we want a strong, stable, prosperous region and pace
Speaker 10: through strength and returns.
Speaker 3: Well said on the part of the Opposition leader. And
Speaker 3: while Albanez he did talk about doctor Yang and the
Speaker 3: live fire exercises, or at least he said so, who
Speaker 3: knows how strongly he represented Australia's interests here. By the way,
Speaker 3: speaking of the Opposition leader, it was also good to
Speaker 3: see her firing up over that revelation in those accidentally
Speaker 3: released Treasury documents that the government is going to miss
Speaker 3: its one point two million house housing target and is
Speaker 3: going to have to raise taxes to get the budget
Speaker 3: into some sort of shape. And also how Treasurer Jim
Speaker 3: Chalmers said that he was well relaxed about all that.
Speaker 3: Here's a bit of what she had to say there.
Speaker 10: Measure relaxed about Australians paying more tax What has he
Speaker 10: got planned for them? It's a treasurer relaxed about the
Speaker 10: fact that we are not going to meet a target
Speaker 10: of one point two million more homes. For the young
Speaker 10: Australians that I meet every day, they deserve that dream
Speaker 10: of home ownership, and they deserve a government that backs
Speaker 10: in their aspiration every single day of the week, instead
Speaker 10: of shrugging its shoulders and saying it's okay, we'll take
Speaker 10: the easy way out and we'll just raise taxes.
Speaker 3: Well indeed, and that was well said there, and I
Speaker 3: think they're getting their lines all nice and sharpened up
Speaker 3: for Parliament next week. But let's get back to the
Speaker 3: main issue here, which is of course Albanese's trip to China,
Speaker 3: because again, the Albanese way here is I think very
Speaker 3: dangerous in the long run for US, even if it
Speaker 3: seems superficially attractive in terms of trade and making money
Speaker 3: and keeping the economy ticking. Over look, it's pretty clear
Speaker 3: to me that the Prime Minister has been duchess at
Speaker 3: every step of the way here by the Chinese Communist Party.
Speaker 3: Before the meeting. Today, the official China Daily newspaper, a
Speaker 3: mouthpiece for the Chinese Communist Party that is used to
Speaker 3: signal their positions to the English speaking world, they published
Speaker 3: an editorial that was entitled common Ground Prevails over Differences.
Speaker 3: The editorial went on to say, quote against the backdrop
Speaker 3: of rising tensions between the United States and many countries
Speaker 3: because of the US administration's recent threat to levy higher
Speaker 3: tariffs on them from August first, Albanesi's visit shows that
Speaker 3: the Australian side has a clearer judgment and understanding of
Speaker 3: China than it had under the previous Scott Morrison government. Well. Morrison,
Speaker 3: by the way, to his credit, laughed at off, saying
Speaker 3: quote having a character reference from the China Daily was
Speaker 3: never one of my foreign policy aspirations. But maybe not
Speaker 3: for Morrison. Albo is a different story. He doesn't see
Speaker 3: the trap that he is walking our country into. For him,
Speaker 3: he sees this trip as just business.
Speaker 4: The fact that Senior Australian business people led by the
Speaker 4: Business Council of Australia have come here to Beijing as
Speaker 4: well as we're president in Shanghai, and in Australian businesses
Speaker 4: will also be engaged with us in Chungdu. Shows how
Speaker 4: important the economic relationship is and how the Australian business
Speaker 4: community regard this as an important relationship.
Speaker 3: Well you see where this is all going here. I mean,
Speaker 3: this is this kind of weird values free foreign policy
Speaker 3: here that the Prime Minister seems to have that says, well,
Speaker 3: you do business with China, your security from the United States,
Speaker 3: those two things they don't have to come into conflict
Speaker 3: and a thing we find. But it does seem to
Speaker 3: me like business is driving the relationship with China, not
Speaker 3: necessarily those Australian values that Anthony Albanizi is so fond
Speaker 3: of talking about. But this is a really difficult balancing
Speaker 3: act and we wait to see what more comes of
Speaker 3: this series of meetings yet. To me, just the fact
Speaker 3: that Albanizi even had to ask about detained Australian Chinese
Speaker 3: Yang Haan Jung, that should be a clue about the
Speaker 3: sort of regime that we're dealing with. They are not
Speaker 3: a free speech regime. They are a totalitarian regime. They
Speaker 3: are not a liberal democracy. And the fact that Prime
Speaker 3: Minister Albanesi was asked three times about this case should
Speaker 3: also tell him something. Yes, China may be an economic powerhouse.
Speaker 3: Yes they may buy our green steel whatever that is. Yes,
Speaker 3: but its system, the system of the Chinese Communist Party
Speaker 3: is fundamentally different. Now I am not saying here at all.
Speaker 3: Let's be really clear here. I'm not saying we have
Speaker 3: any sort of mission or role or need to turn
Speaker 3: China into some sort of liberal democracy. That's not our business.
Speaker 3: That's not our concern. That's the concern of the Chinese people.
Speaker 3: But the fact is that the Chinese government is imperialist
Speaker 3: and it aims to supplant the United States as the
Speaker 3: world leading power, particularly in the Pacific. And if that happens,
Speaker 3: I'm sorry, that just is not going to be good
Speaker 3: news for us, no matter how much green steel we
Speaker 3: think we can ship to them. Now, today things are happy,
Speaker 3: there's all this happy talk about business and trade and
Speaker 3: getting rich. But the fact is they may not always be.
Speaker 3: Remember COVID, Remember when we said we have to diversify
Speaker 3: our supply lines. Recall that China daily invoked Morrison in response,
Speaker 3: and when Morrison had his fight with China during that period,
Speaker 3: in response, China issued a list of fourteen points of
Speaker 3: fourteen demands through the press, and they said at the time,
Speaker 3: this is how can you go bad? They said, at
Speaker 3: the time, China is angry. If you make China the enemy,
Speaker 3: China will be the enemy. And you know how our
Speaker 3: wine growers and our coal producers and so many other
Speaker 3: industries suffered. And remember that among the grievances that China
Speaker 3: had against the government during that time, we're funding for
Speaker 3: quote unquote anti China research at the Australian Strategio Policy Institute,
Speaker 3: raids on Chinese journalists and academic visa cancelations, spearheading a
Speaker 3: crusade in multileaer forums on China's affairs in Taiwan, Hong
Speaker 3: Kong and Jinjiang, calling for an independent investigation into origins
Speaker 3: of COVID nineteen, Huawei from the five G network in
Speaker 3: twenty eighteen, and blocking ten Chinese foreign investment deals across infrastructure,
Speaker 3: agriculture and animal husband as husbandry sectors. Sorry about that,
Speaker 3: but listen, this is what it's all about. These were
Speaker 3: demands against Australian sovereignty. This is what happens if you
Speaker 3: go against what the CCP wants you to do as
Speaker 3: a nation. They make these demands against our sovereignty. And
Speaker 3: make no mistake, things may seem fine in the here
Speaker 3: and now, and we may get some more trade out
Speaker 3: of this, and that's all great. But China sees themselves
Speaker 3: in this relationship as they do with their relationships with
Speaker 3: other nations in the Pacific, whether it's the Philippines, Vietnam,
Speaker 3: anybody else. They see themselves in the driver's seat. We
Speaker 3: here in Australia, we're passengers. We are the junior supplicants
Speaker 3: in this relationship, at least as far as Jijin Ping
Speaker 3: sees us. Now. Watching the events in the last few
Speaker 3: days in the lead up to the trip, I have
Speaker 3: to ask, does Anthony Albaniazi realize this? Frankly, I don't know. Anyway, Look,
Speaker 3: before we go, there's something else I also want to
Speaker 3: talk about very quickly, and that is the autopen scandal
Speaker 3: engulfing the former Joe Biden administration. Now you may have
Speaker 3: heard about this that for some time there has been
Speaker 3: a controversy over this device called an autopen, which can
Speaker 3: basically replicate somebody's signature, in this case the presidents. And
Speaker 3: it has come out that this autopen was used to
Speaker 3: sign all sorts of things pardons, you see it there
Speaker 3: on your screen, orders, all sorts of different presidential instruments
Speaker 3: that would normally be signed by his own hand. And
Speaker 3: the issue is whether or not Joe Biden when he
Speaker 3: was president, legally signed then instruments such as these parties,
Speaker 3: including thousands of pardons. Now, when President Donald Trump first
Speaker 3: raised the idea, and he did this a long time ago,
Speaker 3: that White House staffers in the Biden administration may have
Speaker 3: hijacked the auto pen and used it to reproduce Joe
Speaker 3: Biden's signature, it seemed like an out there conspiracy theory,
Speaker 3: designed more as a way to capture the vibe of
Speaker 3: Joe Biden's udderless presidency than a statement of actual fact. Yet,
Speaker 3: as I always like to say, today's conspiracy theory is
Speaker 3: tomorrow's coming attraction. And now the autopen issue has gotten
Speaker 3: a massive airing in the very anti Trump pro Democrat
Speaker 3: New York Times, now getting out in front of what
Speaker 3: is going to be a rather big congressional investigation. Democrats
Speaker 3: have gone there and given the story, and they have said,
Speaker 3: on the one hand, the former president said he was
Speaker 3: across every pardon an order that was signed. Yet when
Speaker 3: you read the article closely, it reveals that in many
Speaker 3: cases the president barely knew what was going on with
Speaker 3: many of these pardons, including some incredibly troubling ones that
Speaker 3: included grants of clemency's for Chinese spies and all sorts
Speaker 3: of other unsavory characters as well. Biden's chief of staff
Speaker 3: Jeff Zietz, personally signed off on preemptive pardons for a
Speaker 3: number of people, including doctor Anthony Fauci, remember him, well,
Speaker 3: he had actually also been previously, you'll recall, the coordinator
Speaker 3: of the White House's COVID response during the cod pandemic,
Speaker 3: So who knows about that. But despite all this, Joe
Speaker 3: Biden said, I made every decision, which is reassuring because
Speaker 3: everyone knows the politicians where the pastor president, and certainly
Speaker 3: not Joe Biden. Well, they never shame the truth in
Speaker 3: order to burnish their legacy. So the only reason the
Speaker 3: device was used, apparently was because he said, according to Biden,
Speaker 3: we were talking about a whole lot of people, a
Speaker 3: whole lot of partons that needed to be signed. It,
Speaker 3: even as the former president, who was generous enough to
Speaker 3: give The New York Times a full ten minutes of
Speaker 3: his time over the phone to talk about the issue,
Speaker 3: claimed to be across the issue. The Times account suggested otherwise,
Speaker 3: with it admitting that Biden's staff said the president didn't
Speaker 3: really make the individual clemency decisions, that the staffers executed
Speaker 3: the signings, were not present when he supposedly authorized them,
Speaker 3: and that in many cases these pardons or clemencies were
Speaker 3: granted as part of simply broad categories. Cont the former
Speaker 3: president's claims to The Times, The paper reported that mister
Speaker 3: Biden did not individually approve each name for the category
Speaker 3: of pardons that applied to large numbers of people. He
Speaker 3: and aides confirmed rather extensive discussion occurred, and he signed
Speaker 3: off on the standards he wanted to be used to
Speaker 3: determine which convicts would qualify for a reduction incentence. Turns out,
Speaker 3: the only parton Joe Biden did sign with his own hand. Well,
Speaker 3: that was the full part, and he gave to his
Speaker 3: son Hunter, something he had promised not to do on
Speaker 3: multiple occasions before the twenty twenty four election. So this
Speaker 3: is a fascinating story here, and we're going to see
Speaker 3: quite a bit more of it. Donald Trump, though, had
Speaker 3: this to say.
Speaker 11: Look, Yodo Penn, I think is maybe one of the
Speaker 11: biggest scandals.
Speaker 10: That we've had in fifty.
Speaker 9: To one hundred years.
Speaker 11: This is a tremendous scandal. The people on the other
Speaker 11: side of the Resolute Desk I know them, Lisa, the
Speaker 11: Hall Group, and they're no good.
Speaker 4: There's sick people.
Speaker 11: And I guarantee he knew nothing about what he was saying.
Speaker 2: I guarantee you.
Speaker 3: That may be so, and I think this is gonna
Speaker 3: be pretty big. But at the same time, it's hard
Speaker 3: to see how apart from further tarnishing Biden's reputation and
Speaker 3: raising more questions about who was really in charge for
Speaker 3: the four years of his presidency, anything here is really
Speaker 3: going to wind up changing. Now, don't go anywhere, because
Speaker 3: after the break, we're gonna be joined by Darren Barnett
Speaker 3: and James Ashby for some fired up Tuesday Night debate. Hey,
Speaker 3: welcome back to the program. We've got a lot to
Speaker 3: unpack here. Thankfully, I'm joined by one of my regulars here,
Speaker 3: one Nation Chief of Staff James Ashby. James Ashby joins
Speaker 3: from Queensland tonight. James, I want to talk to you
Speaker 3: first of all about this trip that ALBINIZI is on
Speaker 3: to China and you're in Queensland, which is of course
Speaker 3: has a big exposure to China in terms of exporting resources.
Speaker 3: But how are you feeling about the broader sense that
Speaker 3: this government is taking with China, that it's all about
Speaker 3: trade and nothing else, and that we can separate the
Speaker 3: very different values in our between our two systems. What
Speaker 3: did you make of the way the Prime Minister conducted
Speaker 3: himself today.
Speaker 6: Well, it sickens me to see Albanesi embracing gigiping while okay,
Speaker 6: Harvey Bay's got their while watching happening at the moment
Speaker 6: here off central Queensland. Because we've got the Talisman Saber
Speaker 6: operation just happening about fifty to one hundred kilometers north
Speaker 6: of me. We've got effectively we could be running commercial
Speaker 6: ships out of here for effectively what I would call
Speaker 6: Chinese spy watching ships. You know, that's what we could
Speaker 6: go and visit out of our waters, not the whales,
Speaker 6: forget them. Chinese spy ships is sitting off out coast
Speaker 6: and Albaniz. He thinks that he's in the good company
Speaker 6: of a friend over there in China. I don't see
Speaker 6: that We've got thirty five thousand troops training for something
Speaker 6: very serious in what I think will happened within certainly
Speaker 6: my lifetime. China's made it very clear they want dominance
Speaker 6: across the globe and.
Speaker 1: Australia is part of that.
Speaker 6: So you know, the bloke he's embracing is the very
Speaker 6: man we're probably going to go to war with over
Speaker 6: the next few years.
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, and I just said, you know, as I
Speaker 3: said to my editorial a few moments ago, I really
Speaker 3: feel like the Prime Minister is kind of walking into
Speaker 3: a trap here, is being so flattered and being told,
Speaker 3: you know, you're wonderful. You get us the previous guy, Morris,
Speaker 3: and he didn't get us at all. And I would
Speaker 3: have thought that being praised in the China Daily, which
Speaker 3: is basically the kind of official mouthpiece for the CCP,
Speaker 3: that would be ringing alarm bells and saying, hey, hang on,
Speaker 3: maybe we're getting a little too cozy here.
Speaker 6: Well, Scott Morrison put it quite bluntly today, he never
Speaker 6: aspired to appear in that newspaper for obvious reasons. It
Speaker 6: is a mouthpiece of the communist China propaganda m and
Speaker 6: that's precisely why no Australian should be proud of that.
Speaker 6: Alban Easy on the other hand, he's bought thirty copies
Speaker 6: and intends to send it to the Canberra frame its
Speaker 6: he wants it in every ministerial office. That news article,
Speaker 6: it's not something to be proud of. Look, I understand
Speaker 6: the relationship Australia has to have for trade, but getting
Speaker 6: cozy with China when they've made it abundantly clear that
Speaker 6: they want world dominance. They're prepared to buy favor in
Speaker 6: countries just off our coastline here throughout the Pacific regions,
Speaker 6: and in actual fact they're trying to buy their way
Speaker 6: into this country.
Speaker 1: We had to pass legislation in twenty twenty one.
Speaker 6: Scott Morrison, to his credit, discovered that China was trying
Speaker 6: to nuzzle its way into Australia with the Belton Roade initiative,
Speaker 6: something that the Victorian government had signed on to. And
Speaker 6: I think unless that legislation had passed on a federal
Speaker 6: level blocking the Belton Rode initiative, I think other states
Speaker 6: probably would have taken up borrowings from what is DMed
Speaker 6: a developing nation, and yet they've got more than one
Speaker 6: point two trillion dollars invested in loans across the globe
Speaker 6: to desperate nations who can't borrow from other parts of
Speaker 6: the world.
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, that's exactly right, James, and I just want
Speaker 3: to bring in now former Labor advisor Darren Barnett. He's
Speaker 3: also joining us this evening here. Darren, we've seen the
Speaker 3: Prime Minister in China. He's been praised by China daily.
Speaker 3: He seems to be rather enjoying the flattery and thinking
Speaker 3: that he can keep this all about trade and not
Speaker 3: the different value systems that these two governmental systems hours
Speaker 3: of theirs have. Are you a little concerned? And I
Speaker 3: know that you're coming from the labor side, but do
Speaker 3: you think the Prime Minister needs to be wary about
Speaker 3: walking into a trap of flattery here?
Speaker 12: He does. That's true. Look, I think it was a
Speaker 12: very kind of glorious day in terms of prestige and
Speaker 12: pomp and ceremony and the like, so there is a
Speaker 12: danger of that. I note that in his press conference
Speaker 12: there are a couple of questions came on human rights matters.
Speaker 12: There are a couple about other behaviors of China, whether
Speaker 12: it be their live fire exercises in the team or
Speaker 12: c for example. Strangely, the port of Darwin apparently did
Speaker 12: not come up during the conversation with Premier See. However,
Speaker 12: the trade relationship is important and it's difficult to get
Speaker 12: the balance right that I know. James spoke of Scott Morrison.
Speaker 12: He did have a very strong view on China. But
Speaker 12: the downside of that there were some trade tariffs and
Speaker 12: sanctions put in place on various industries and it's taken
Speaker 12: a few years to unwind, so it's a difficult path
Speaker 12: to walk. I think Anthony Albanezi actually I thought he
Speaker 12: did pretty well in his press conference today, to be honest.
Speaker 12: He coped very well with the questions. He seemed in
Speaker 12: control of it. But equally these are the questions about
Speaker 12: human rights and other military matters. Those questions won't go away.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no, they won't. And you know the other question,
Speaker 3: of course it's not going to go away, is how
Speaker 3: prepared are we for any potential future conflict chat Defence
Speaker 3: Minister Angus Taylor had some words today about our defense spending.
Speaker 3: Let's have a listen to that.
Speaker 13: Anthony Alberineze has put himself in an impossible position because
Speaker 13: he's not worth spending what is necessary to make sure
Speaker 13: that we have the defense force we need for what
Speaker 13: he had himself has said is the most challenging strategic
Speaker 13: environment since the Second World War.
Speaker 3: And James Ashby, I mean, he's right. And if you
Speaker 3: even if you take Donald Trump and his demands for
Speaker 3: the increases in defense spending out of the equation, your
Speaker 3: pretend he didn't exist. You know, there's still the whole
Speaker 3: Defense Services Review that Labor commissioned last year, which has
Speaker 3: a whole swag of things that we need to be
Speaker 3: doing that we're not doing. And yet I find that
Speaker 3: there's this real reluctance on the par of Labor to
Speaker 3: admit that even we should be doing what their old
Speaker 3: review said they should be doing.
Speaker 1: It's funny.
Speaker 6: This is a government that has no problem increasing year
Speaker 6: upon year the ndies by eight percent, and yet cannot
Speaker 6: come to terms with the idea of raising the defense
Speaker 6: of this nation with a mere three percent. It is
Speaker 6: something I just scratched my head over All the time
Speaker 6: they find money for everything else but not defense.
Speaker 1: They feel as.
Speaker 6: Though, that we're going to have these friends like America and.
Speaker 1: The UK come to our defense.
Speaker 6: I'm not so sure America will be there if China
Speaker 6: does strike. I certainly, you know, I can't blame President
Speaker 6: Trump for suggesting that we have to review our spending.
Speaker 1: Three percent is.
Speaker 6: A small amount of in comparison to some of the
Speaker 6: other cost blowouts that we're seeing across the country. And
Speaker 6: at the end of the day, it is for the
Speaker 6: protection of every single person in this country.
Speaker 3: Well, and you know it is true too. You know again,
Speaker 3: I always say sometimes when there's these contentious matters, don't
Speaker 3: think about Donald Trump, think about the broader situation here.
Speaker 3: Presidents at least as far back as Obama and probably
Speaker 3: before that, have all been concerned about allies, particularly NATO
Speaker 3: free riding off the United States not spending enough. Darren Barnett,
Speaker 3: you know, is there a concern here that we're not
Speaker 3: doing Again, take Trump out of the equation, pretent he
Speaker 3: didn't exist. If Trump didn't exist, would you be in
Speaker 3: favor baby of saying, yeah, actually, two percent, that's too
Speaker 3: low here because there is this deteriorating security situation in
Speaker 3: the Pacific.
Speaker 12: Yeah, I agree with you. I think you will see
Speaker 12: an increase in defense spinning. I don't think anyone can
Speaker 12: who's not inside the tent can reliably put their finger
Speaker 12: on number, but sure, I think it will happen, particularly
Speaker 12: given the AU have gone to five percent, it's gonna happen.
Speaker 12: I can understand why they wouldn't have made that announcement
Speaker 12: just before going on a trip to China. So I
Speaker 12: think in the fullness of time, you'll say that number increase.
Speaker 12: It's just difficult to say what that number will be.
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, of course they did have the budget there
Speaker 3: that they could have had a bit of a chat
Speaker 3: about that too before the election. But anyway, let's put
Speaker 3: that one aside for the moment, because we all seem
Speaker 3: to be in furious agreement. But I don't think we're
Speaker 3: going to be in a furious agreement over this story
Speaker 3: which has just broken on the Australian website. And there's
Speaker 3: a body called the Administrative Review Tribunal. It is the
Speaker 3: successor to this thing called the AAT and it is
Speaker 3: this kind of hearings venue and a lot of things
Speaker 3: have decided. There are a lot of immigration cases, a
Speaker 3: lot of other sort of governmental matter is quite important matters.
Speaker 3: They've got a new head in this new body that
Speaker 3: Labor replaced the old body with, who turns out to
Speaker 3: have been a volunteer for tlmp K. Cheney has said
Speaker 3: all sorts of things online about Scott Morrison, calling him
Speaker 3: a blank wit and said the Liberal Party are a
Speaker 3: bunch of misogynists toe rags James Ashby. You know, they
Speaker 3: said that they were getting rid of the old Administrative
Speaker 3: Appeals Tributa because this was some whey that Conservatives were
Speaker 3: given jobs to each other. This seems like this is
Speaker 3: a complete stitch up where they are now giving this
Speaker 3: whole new Administrative Review Tribunal over to all of their
Speaker 3: pals on the left. Am I wrong?
Speaker 1: No, You're not wrong at all.
Speaker 6: You summed it up really well that the way that
Speaker 6: this AERT is stacked is no different to the way
Speaker 6: that they accused the Coalition of doing it under the
Speaker 6: aat one slight acronym change there. But at the end
Speaker 6: of the day, these positions are determined by the Attorney General,
Speaker 6: it's taken to Cabinet, and Cabinet.
Speaker 1: Just rubber stamps it.
Speaker 6: This woman has clearly had some form of relationship with
Speaker 6: the Labor government. She says she was a former liberal,
Speaker 6: but it's like Matt Kean saying he was, you know,
Speaker 6: he's under the wing of Anthony Albanez in these days,
Speaker 6: some liberal.
Speaker 1: So that's how it happens.
Speaker 6: But the art quite literally for a lot of people
Speaker 6: at home, they've probably never even heard of this organization.
Speaker 6: They overtime, overturn ministerial decisions, and so you know, the
Speaker 6: importance of this organization is there to try and get
Speaker 6: rid of, in particular bad buggers who are in this country.
Speaker 6: You know, they could be illegal asylum seekers, or they
Speaker 6: could have committed.
Speaker 1: Crimes while here and we under the.
Speaker 6: Laws have the right to kick them, our minister has,
Speaker 6: but they can appeal and they go through this organization,
Speaker 6: and they're the ones that are keeping so many feral
Speaker 6: individuals who shouldn't be in this country here. That's purely
Speaker 6: what this organization does. And this woman is an appointee
Speaker 6: of this labor government.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's the thing that I'm concerned about, Darren, is that,
Speaker 3: as James Ashby said, this body does review a lot
Speaker 3: of immigration decisions. I've seen a lot of the cases
Speaker 3: that go through there, you know, and a lot of
Speaker 3: the people who go through they claim asylum, and they
Speaker 3: commit terrible crimes, and then they're allowed to stay often.
Speaker 3: And I feel there's a concern here that even if
Speaker 3: this woman says she's not anti conservative, the bias of
Speaker 3: this body will go towards applicants, towards people wanting to stay,
Speaker 3: towards people we don't want in the country. And how
Speaker 3: is this any better than whatever they claim was going
Speaker 3: wrong with the old Aaight?
Speaker 12: I'm not aware that there's any sort of demonstrable bias
Speaker 12: in the new body, But I agree with James, and
Speaker 12: I agree with you.
Speaker 3: That furious agreement tonight, guys.
Speaker 12: I agree on you in part. I agree that it's
Speaker 12: a bad look that punishing one mob because it's too
Speaker 12: far leaning one way and then going doing the exact
Speaker 12: same in reverse, that will leave a bad taste in
Speaker 12: the mounds of voters and the public. That is absolutely true.
Speaker 12: But I think the bigger cautionary tale here it's a
Speaker 12: bit like a few years ago when there was an
Speaker 12: SBS journalist who express their own view on Twitter. If
Speaker 12: you're going to be working for a body tied to government,
Speaker 12: don't say silly things, don't call people names, don't And
Speaker 12: even if you hold that view privately, private views of
Speaker 12: private views, but you should not expect to be in
Speaker 12: a government funded position. If you start calling people names
Speaker 12: like that, it's not acceptable. And whether it's either pub
Speaker 12: test or a parliamentary test, it's not good enough. So
Speaker 12: people need to lift their game if they want those
Speaker 12: types of jobs.
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, look, I think that's right, and I think
Speaker 3: that if it's some sort of thing where you're going
Speaker 3: to be impartial, like in a judiciary type of thing,
Speaker 3: you especially shouldn't be doing that sort of thing. Gents,
Speaker 3: before I let you go, another fascinating story here. You're
Speaker 3: both political strategists. I want your opinions on this. Here
Speaker 3: Giselle Capterian who was going to almost be the new
Speaker 3: Liberal member for Bradfield. She fell at the last rule
Speaker 3: by twenty six voter to Nicolette Bell. She is going
Speaker 3: to appeal this to the Court of Disputed returns. James Ashby,
Speaker 3: do you think this is a wise course for Zell
Speaker 3: Capitarian and the Liberals or is this something that they
Speaker 3: should just let go and try harder next time?
Speaker 6: Reminds me of Maxwell Smart mister, maybe that much. Look,
Speaker 6: she's obviously got a case. Otherwise you wouldn't go to
Speaker 6: the High Court. It's the Court of Disputed Returns. I've
Speaker 6: obviously got some evidence that they want reviewed by the
Speaker 6: High Court. Look, time will tell. It will be a
Speaker 6: very fast outcome this. It's not going to take months.
Speaker 6: It will be heard very quickly. So I wish you're
Speaker 6: all the best of luck. But at the end of
Speaker 6: the day, you can miss out on these seats by
Speaker 6: one or two votes, and sometimes the recounts can turn
Speaker 6: it all around. And that's precisely what's happened here. So look,
Speaker 6: I'll leave it up to the courts.
Speaker 3: Darren, what do you think very quickly? Why I here
Speaker 3: to take this off.
Speaker 12: It's already we've had teams of scrutinies. Go I have
Speaker 12: all the votes a couple of times, I'd be very
Speaker 12: surprised if there's got to be a change in the result.
Speaker 12: But well, if I've just lost by twenty six votes,
Speaker 12: I'd probably have a crack at some sort of review
Speaker 12: as well.
Speaker 3: Fair enough, and there are some fives and some bases
Speaker 3: they say it could be going one way or the other.
Speaker 3: James Ashby, Darren Barnett, thank you so much for your
Speaker 3: time this evening. Great to see you as always. Now
Speaker 3: stick around, you're not gonna want to miss what's coming
Speaker 3: up next. We have none other than the legendary Nogal
Speaker 3: Farage joining me live from London right here after the break.
Speaker 2: Good time for the man who's never borry.
Speaker 3: Welcome back to the program. James Morrow here sitting in
Speaker 3: for Paul Murray Live. And it's a great honor for
Speaker 3: me to be in the chair tonight because I'm pleased
Speaker 3: to say that I am joined now by none other
Speaker 3: than Reform UK leader Nago Farage. Nigel. Great to see,
Speaker 3: it's been a lot long time. Great to see you.
Speaker 3: Want to have a chat about a lot of things
Speaker 3: here tonight, But one thing here is what's going on
Speaker 3: with President Macraw of France and President Trump of the
Speaker 3: United States. Because it seems that while President macrn was
Speaker 3: given the full royal treatment on his recent stage visit
Speaker 3: to the UK, dining with the King and parading through
Speaker 3: local towns like some sort of visiting royalty and even
Speaker 3: getting to deliver a speech to Parliament, well it appears
Speaker 3: that when the President comes by soon he has been
Speaker 3: given a bit of a downgrade. He's only he's not
Speaker 3: going to be able to address Parliament following Macron's much
Speaker 3: more shall we say, bountiful trip, Nigel, this seems a
Speaker 3: little bit of an embarrassing treatment here what happened in
Speaker 3: the special relationship?
Speaker 2: James had a very good to talk to you again. Yes,
Speaker 2: I mean Macron was here like an emperor, I'd say,
Speaker 2: an emperor an open top carriage sitting next to the
Speaker 2: ca through the streets of windsor grand dinner, as you say,
Speaker 2: addressing Parliament, and then right at the end of press
Speaker 2: conference at which he admonished us and said, how dare
Speaker 2: you vote for Brexit? You stupid people. It's making you poorer,
Speaker 2: it's making your borders more open. I mean literally lecture
Speaker 2: us in the most astonishing way. Yet the Donald, who's
Speaker 2: back on his second visit, will be stuck down in
Speaker 2: windsor he'll get to spend loads of time with the King.
Speaker 2: But that's pretty much about it. It tells you everything
Speaker 2: you need to know about the globalist labor government. They
Speaker 2: might be nice about Trump in public because they want
Speaker 2: to avoid punitive tariffs, which has worked to a certain degree,
Speaker 2: but basically Kirstarmer wants us back in the European Union,
Speaker 2: back as part of the whole Davos international set, and
Speaker 2: really his behavior towards these two says it all. And
Speaker 2: America is our most important ally. Without America we are defenseless.
Speaker 2: And yet labor just don't seem to understand that.
Speaker 3: Well, they don't seem to understand that here in Australia either.
Speaker 3: It does seem shocking to be given the buddy buddy
Speaker 3: image that here. Starmer tried to presented the G seven
Speaker 3: the other week in Canada. But I want to ask
Speaker 3: you about this, Nigel, because apparently you say you're going
Speaker 3: to push for Parliament to be recalled in September to
Speaker 3: let Trump come and address the MPs. What sort of
Speaker 3: response are you getting to this oture?
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, Regular address both houses of Parliament. Clinton address
Speaker 2: both houses of Parliament. Obama addressed both houses of Parliament.
Speaker 2: And this is a president any second term. So Parliament
Speaker 2: is due to go into recess on the sixteenth of September.
Speaker 2: Trump arrives on the seventeenth of September. Not very difficult.
Speaker 2: I would suggest to keep parliament open for one extra day.
Speaker 2: I've made my views on this very clear. I'm awaiting
Speaker 2: a response from the government. I'm not holding my breath,
Speaker 2: but I'm awaiting a response. Yeah, I'm waiting a response.
Speaker 2: Then at once it Yeah, it's look, I doubt it
Speaker 2: will happen, but it's wrong.
Speaker 3: Well, I think you're right to push for it in
Speaker 3: any case. And another thing though, I noticed this in
Speaker 3: the headlines here because I saw this video going around
Speaker 3: social media of a resurface clip of a labor mp
Speaker 3: claiming the UK sho accept refugees until the saturation point.
Speaker 3: Now this has been going on. Have a look at
Speaker 3: the scrab here. Twenty thousand is not enough, thirty thousand
Speaker 3: is not enough.
Speaker 2: Seventy seven percent of the population say we cannot take
Speaker 2: immigration at current levels saturation point. I'm sorry, we simply
Speaker 2: can't accept countless millions.
Speaker 7: Does it matter if we have to wait another week.
Speaker 2: For a hospital visit current accident and emergency crisis that
Speaker 2: we've seen this winter in our hospitals.
Speaker 3: I thought this laborer lady, really, is this how they
Speaker 3: think it doesn't matter if you have to wait for
Speaker 3: you know, a hospital because somebody has just come out
Speaker 3: from overseas. Seriously tell us about this. This must be
Speaker 3: why reform is doing so well at the moment.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it doesn't matter. Your taxes go up. What's the
Speaker 2: problem you have to wait another week for the hospital.
Speaker 2: What's the problem A foreign gang steals your kid's mobile phone.
Speaker 2: Don't worry about it and don't say anything otherwise you're
Speaker 2: a really bad human being. I mean, they are away
Speaker 2: with the fairies, these people. This woman, Rachel Maskell is
Speaker 2: a Labor member of Parliament for the Ancient City of York.
Speaker 2: And I think you saw in that video, you know,
Speaker 2: the two visions, what I think, what she thinks. And
Speaker 2: I think, as you say, that's why reform at the
Speaker 2: moment is doing really rather well, because what we represent
Speaker 2: is plain common sense.
Speaker 3: That's the sort of thing that we could use a
Speaker 3: bit of here in this country. Nigel. But before I'll
Speaker 3: let you go here, another story here about you know,
Speaker 3: because I say to everybody in Austorry that the UK
Speaker 3: is like the early warning system for everything in Australia
Speaker 3: and we just need to pay attention and not do
Speaker 3: this stuff. The Center for Social Justice think tank the UK,
Speaker 3: has reported that now people who are on the full
Speaker 3: whack of benefits in the UK, they get twenty five
Speaker 3: hundred pounds more per year than somebody who's actually going
Speaker 3: to work every day on the minimum wage. No wonder
Speaker 3: the UK's economy is slowing without any productivity or incentive
Speaker 3: to go to work.
Speaker 2: Yeah yeah, I mean two massive problems. Number one, we've
Speaker 2: frozen threshold which people start paying tax and therefore, yeah,
Speaker 2: being on benefits, on disability benefit is better than working
Speaker 2: on minimum wage. That's absolutely crazy. The other thing is
Speaker 2: a million more people are on disability benefits, which means
Speaker 2: you've got a bit of depression and you've been diagnosed
Speaker 2: on a ten minute zoom call with your local general practitioner.
Speaker 2: We are and let me say this, we are over
Speaker 2: diagnosing mental illness. We are taking issues like mild depression,
Speaker 2: taking issues you know, such as things that are wrong
Speaker 2: in your personal life, and we're classifying that as mental illness.
Speaker 2: We're telling people they're victims, We're putting them on disability
Speaker 2: benefit and they'll probably never work again. And I'm not
Speaker 2: underplaying the seriousness of genuine mental health problems. But it's
Speaker 2: over diagnosis ADHD in kids, you name it. It's a disaster.
Speaker 2: So please learn from.
Speaker 3: Us, Nigel. Is the over pathalization of absolutely everything. We
Speaker 3: have very similar problems in here in Australia. Nigel Roger,
Speaker 3: Thank you so much. Always a pleasure to speak with you.
Speaker 3: Great to see you here. Now, everybody stick around because
Speaker 3: after the break, I want to be back with a
Speaker 3: final thought.
Speaker 1: Good evening.
Speaker 3: James Mara here is sitting in for Paul very live,
Speaker 3: and wasn't that fun having Naja Farage here? He is
Speaker 3: always a hoot. Now I want to just bring you
Speaker 3: this quick thought about this story that's been making the
Speaker 3: rounds before we go. And you know the old expression, well,
Speaker 3: happy wife, happy life. There's a new variation on that,
Speaker 3: of course, it's happy wife, happy Ukraine. Now we've all
Speaker 3: heard about Donald Trump changing his position on valium reputin Russia,
Speaker 3: giving aid to Ukraine and threatening Vladimir Putin with one
Speaker 3: hundred percent tariffs if in fifty days he doesn't settle
Speaker 3: this business in Ukraine and make peace. But the rationale
Speaker 3: for this and why he changed his mind, that's pretty interesting,
Speaker 3: and as I'm going to show you in a minute,
Speaker 3: it has a bit of historical president President. Here's Donald
Speaker 3: Trump saying why he changed his mind on aiding Ukraine
Speaker 3: and putting sanctions on Putin.
Speaker 11: My conversations with him are always very pleasant. I say
Speaker 11: he's not a very lovely conversation, and then the missiles
Speaker 11: go off. That night, I go home, I tell a
Speaker 11: first lady and I spoke of Vladimir today. We had
Speaker 11: a wonderful conversation. She said, Oh really, Uh, another city
Speaker 11: was just headed. So it's like, look, he's uh. I
Speaker 11: don't want to say he's an assassin, but he's a
Speaker 11: tough guy.
Speaker 3: It's funny if it wasn't so serious. It sounds almost
Speaker 3: like a kind of a sitcom there, you know, donaldon
Speaker 3: Melaia and the White House making policy. But here's what
Speaker 3: I thought was really interesting about this. I was watching
Speaker 3: that clip today and I said to myself, this feels
Speaker 3: like something I've heard before. And it turns out, in fact,
Speaker 3: this is not the first time this sort of thing
Speaker 3: has happened, that a first lady has had such profound
Speaker 3: influence on foreign policy. Back in Night nighteen ninety nine,
Speaker 3: Hillary Clinton remember her well. She revealed the reason why
Speaker 3: she started speaking to her husband Bill again after that
Speaker 3: Monica Lewinsky affair, when they had endured eight months of
Speaker 3: marital silence. According to a biography of Clinton published by
Speaker 3: Gail Sheehy, that year, Hillary resumed talking to her husband
Speaker 3: only when she phoned him and urged him in the
Speaker 3: strongest terms to begin bombing Serbia. The President began bombing
Speaker 3: within twenty four hours, and the marriage, to whatever extent
Speaker 3: it was, was saved. Funny how history works. And here's
Speaker 3: the late debate