Speaker 1: Now on overnights order, the Prime Minister has to call.
Speaker 1: Thanks missus streaker.
Speaker 2: It's the week in Politics with Terry barrs. He's cold
Speaker 2: and he's tired and he wants to get to bed,
Speaker 2: but first there's business to be done. How are you.
Speaker 1: Good morning, Bill? Yes, I am cold and I am tired,
Speaker 1: and the warmest plays I can think of.
Speaker 2: Susan Lee. Is she dragging the Libs to the left?
Speaker 1: Well something? Going from her National Press Club speech yesterday,
Speaker 1: I'd have to say that whenever somebody from the right
Speaker 1: of politics talks about modern Australia, that means taking it
Speaker 1: to the left effectively. She admitted that that Liberals were
Speaker 1: smashed in the mayfiederal election. That's not that's the truth.
Speaker 1: But her solution, as far as I can see, is
Speaker 1: that she wants to talk about modern Australia and modern
Speaker 1: Australian values and not timeless Liberal party values, or timeless
Speaker 1: center right or conservative or even well liberal well well
Speaker 1: liberal value is She lost me when she gave the
Speaker 1: acknowledgment of country right at the beginning, not because that's
Speaker 1: wrong in itself, but it sent a very clear coded
Speaker 1: message that she is not going to fight the culture wars.
Speaker 1: She's not going to actually talk to a base. She's
Speaker 1: going to talk to well, she's going to talk to
Speaker 1: the rest of the country I think, And of course
Speaker 1: if they want to regain government, the littles have to
Speaker 1: do that. They actually have to respect their base as well.
Speaker 1: I get the sneaking feeling that as a moderate Liberal MP,
Speaker 1: she respects the moderate part of the Liberal Party that
Speaker 1: doesn't have much time with the conservative part and that's
Speaker 1: going to be a very interesting, well battle to be
Speaker 1: fought internally over the next couple of years if she
Speaker 1: survived that long.
Speaker 2: What wasn't this the issue at the last election? You
Speaker 2: had all these factions inside the party pulling it to
Speaker 2: the left and that's how they ended up in so
Speaker 2: much disarray.
Speaker 1: Well that's very very true, and I think the support
Speaker 1: that she got to become leader by not many it's
Speaker 1: over Angus Taylor, who is seen as being on the
Speaker 1: conservative wing, sort of highlights that and then certainly some
Speaker 1: of her key shadow cabinet appointments has highlighted that as well.
Speaker 1: My sense is, yes, I think the Liberals have to
Speaker 1: look at the reality of modern Australia and what it is,
Speaker 1: what Australian's aspirations are, but I think they also need
Speaker 1: to explain to to many people, particularly the young, that
Speaker 1: the Times values that Bob Benzies stood up or that
Speaker 1: Liberals had stood up or since the founding of the
Speaker 1: party eighty years ago, in terms of smaller government, in
Speaker 1: terms of greater personal sospils, in terms of the role
Speaker 1: of the family in the community, the sense that people
Speaker 1: determine their own destinies and that don't have to well
Speaker 1: co live their lives with government. I mean those things
Speaker 1: mattered to to civil society in mindview. I think people
Speaker 1: on the right not very good at communicating that too,
Speaker 1: particularly younger people who have been educated I think in
Speaker 1: a very progressive for education culture all the way from
Speaker 1: kindergarten to university and really have been for decades now.
Speaker 1: And my sense his Liberals have lost those and they're
Speaker 1: struggling him to actually make any ground with them. However,
Speaker 1: I don't think by simply saying, well, look, they didn't
Speaker 1: like who we were in May, I like who we
Speaker 1: are in June. If we basically talk like them, it's
Speaker 1: not going to work.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I see that Tony Abbott has voiced strong support
Speaker 2: for the US bombing campaign against Iran. He's been quite
Speaker 2: vocal lately. Is it too late for Abbot because he
Speaker 2: really could be the man of the moment now, especially
Speaker 2: given the current climate.
Speaker 1: Well, certainly, I think I'm sure. In fact, I'm pretty
Speaker 1: certain that Tony Abbott misses the opportunity to influence Australia's
Speaker 1: place in the world and the only way he could
Speaker 1: as Prime minister.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's pretty much like all ex prime ministers.
Speaker 1: Well, indeed, there's something more exce than ex prime minister,
Speaker 1: as they say. But look, I think the one thing
Speaker 1: about Tony Abbott, whether you agree with him or like
Speaker 1: him or not, is that you knew what he's still for,
Speaker 1: what he believed in. He did make any bones about that.
Speaker 1: And I think, actually, funnily enough and ironically enough for Tony,
Speaker 1: and I'm talking to somebody who's worked with him and
Speaker 1: known him for a long time and consider him a friend,
Speaker 1: is that he's probably learned how to communicate and talk
Speaker 1: about ideas and values and international politics, particularly much more
Speaker 1: effectively than when he was in Parliament when he was
Speaker 1: Prime Minister. And in that sense, I think he's become
Speaker 1: very comfortable as an elder statesman and I think earned
Speaker 1: a lot of respect from even people who opposed him
Speaker 1: when he was in well certainly when he's Prime Minister.
Speaker 1: So I think in the twenty odd years he was
Speaker 1: in politics.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's just a couple of silly decisions there. So
Speaker 2: could he get back in and be a player again
Speaker 2: or is it too late for that now?
Speaker 1: Well, look he is well into his sixties now, so
Speaker 1: probably it is too late. And if there's nothing more
Speaker 1: X than an X, going back and being an ex
Speaker 1: in parliament is probably not the best way to use
Speaker 1: his influence, I mean, and that's the thing. He does
Speaker 1: have influence now, just like John Howard has influence in
Speaker 1: a way that perhaps he wouldn't have done if he
Speaker 1: were still in Parliament, were in office. But we need
Speaker 1: those elder statesmen, but we also need, I think the
Speaker 1: current generation to actually step up and perform. And part
Speaker 1: of the problem that the federal Liverpool, scott and that
Speaker 1: state level around the country is a desperate problem is
Speaker 1: the depth of the talent pool MPs as well muddy
Speaker 1: puddlers of that, the size of it. So the best
Speaker 1: people are not going into politics, not just talking about
Speaker 1: women at Susan Lee was at the Press Club yesterday.
Speaker 1: I think we're talking about men and women of capability,
Speaker 1: of talent, of experience, expertise who just art attracted by
Speaker 1: a political career, probably because people like you and I
Speaker 1: talk about and the slings about narrows of public life
Speaker 1: a really quite nice these days, and social media has
Speaker 1: made them a hell of a lot worse than it was,
Speaker 1: say even in John Howard's time.
Speaker 2: Well, that's right, but it doesn't just pertain to politics.
Speaker 2: It pertains to every area of life. If you're on Facebook,
Speaker 2: you're a target.
Speaker 1: Well, look at our civil discourse is coarsening.
Speaker 2: Absolutely can't.
Speaker 1: I can't agree with that more, you know, and I
Speaker 1: think in our politics is reflecting that, and that's that's
Speaker 1: not good for the country. It's and it's not just here,
Speaker 1: it's around the world. I mean, we'll talk about certain
Speaker 1: man of Orange and.
Speaker 2: You know, I knew you as soon as you paused there,
Speaker 2: I knew where you were going to go. So let's
Speaker 2: talk about never say never again. What Donald Trump made
Speaker 2: a good comeback. He's gone to NATO, He's had one
Speaker 2: hell of a week. He dropped the dropped the F bomb,
Speaker 2: which some people have said, well, it's on brand. So
Speaker 2: now there's the NATO sucking up text. Let's talk about that.
Speaker 1: Well, the NATO sucking up text, and it's actually not
Speaker 1: only private. Donald Trump leaked it because he obviously loved it.
Speaker 1: It's i mean, the Secretary General of NOTAO from the
Speaker 1: Dutch Prime Minister Mark Ruther really laid on with the troal.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just amazing that the brown nosing. I mean,
Speaker 1: he brown nosed so much that I think I don't
Speaker 1: think you can see his head, but certainly he texted
Speaker 1: Donald Trump while he was flying over and well it's
Speaker 1: a longish text, but I'll just quote a bit of it.
Speaker 1: Mister President did Donald congratulations and thank you for your
Speaker 1: decisive action in around that was truly extraordinary and something
Speaker 1: no one else did to do. It makes us all safer.
Speaker 1: You are flying into another big success in the Hague
Speaker 1: this evening. It was not easy, but we've got them
Speaker 1: all signed on to five percent. That's GDP on defense. Donalds,
Speaker 1: you have driven us to a really really important moment
Speaker 1: for America and Europe. And he just goes on and on.
Speaker 1: But he also did this publicly. He did this publicly,
Speaker 1: yet at the DATO meeting where he had his bilateral
Speaker 1: with the president and talk similar amage. He used that
Speaker 1: that that phrase at the start of his text, mister President,
Speaker 1: dear Donald. Then he talked about daddy talking tusks looking children.
Speaker 1: It was extraordinary.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I just again, I go back to two thoughts. One,
Speaker 2: head your bets and secondly, in the words of Nixon,
Speaker 2: he might be a mad man, but he's our mad man.
Speaker 1: Well, I think I think there was a back in
Speaker 1: the day. I think it was FDR who talked about
Speaker 1: a certain South American dictator and said that he made
Speaker 1: a son of that. You know what, but he's our
Speaker 1: son of you.
Speaker 2: That's the thing about Donald Trump. He would have said
Speaker 2: the full expletive. Jim Chalmers dismissing NATO's defense spending policy,
Speaker 2: let's talk about that. Where are we at with that?
Speaker 2: What are your thoughts?
Speaker 1: Well, certainly we just talked about Mark Ruther of NATO
Speaker 1: is saying that, oh there, I signed up to five percent.
Speaker 1: Isn't that wonderful? Whereas a Treasury yesterday made it very
Speaker 1: clear that, particularly in the discussion that he started about
Speaker 1: tax and tax reformers, that we're doing quite fine, very much,
Speaker 1: thank you, very with our two and a bit percent
Speaker 1: over the next few years, thank you very much. We
Speaker 1: don't see any need to change that. I mean, effectively,
Speaker 1: he was being very dismissive, brushed it off, effectively saying
Speaker 1: that any debate about our defense spending is off the table.
Speaker 1: And that's really reinforcing comments that the Prime Minister made
Speaker 1: off the cuff a week or so ago. We've effectively said,
Speaker 1: we decided what we spend our money on circumstances in
Speaker 1: which we spend it. But certainly, I think given that
Speaker 1: the US is driving the NATO, all lies to increase
Speaker 1: their defense spending, no matter how much fawning and flattery
Speaker 1: goes with it. The fact that even the Canadians, who
Speaker 1: have underperformed compared to even Australia in terms of their
Speaker 1: ben spending and prepared to up it to three percent
Speaker 1: more of GDP, we're starting to be lagged. If we
Speaker 1: want to have if we want to have the influence
Speaker 1: not just with the President Trump, but in terms of
Speaker 1: the regional security and world security, we actually have to
Speaker 1: put our money on the table. We have to put
Speaker 1: our willingness to play our part on the table. And
Speaker 1: we've had this well, we've had this shadow game conning
Speaker 1: over last fortnight. Haven't we about Donald Trump? Meeting has
Speaker 1: now been easy? But really, why should the president meet
Speaker 1: mister Alben easy when Australia is not just in terms
Speaker 1: of being wishy washy and merely mouthed in terms of
Speaker 1: its foreign policy, but certainly being absolutely totally unwilling and
Speaker 1: refusing to come to the party when it comes to
Speaker 1: contributing more to our ownness.
Speaker 2: That's funny. If you wanted to take the pulse of
Speaker 2: the nation, you could listen to this radio station and
Speaker 2: the listeners and they would tell you straight away, above
Speaker 2: cost of living, above trying to buy a house, first
Speaker 2: and foremost is defense spending with all of our listeners
Speaker 2: pretty much, and it's strange that they're just not being
Speaker 2: listened to.
Speaker 1: Well, I think that's right, and I think we have
Speaker 1: to debate about the level of defense spending. We also
Speaker 1: have to talk about quantity quality as well as quantity,
Speaker 1: that we're actually buying stuff that is actually going to
Speaker 1: make us safe, that is actually going to do what
Speaker 1: we need to do, is fit for purpose for what
Speaker 1: we needed to do, and certainly, and we've got to
Speaker 1: put orcus into that equation. Yet put it aside, look
Speaker 1: at the rest of what we do in terms of
Speaker 1: our defense forces, our defense structure, our defense personnel, and
Speaker 1: certainly we do need to make sure that whatever we
Speaker 1: do is not only affordable, but it is effective, and
Speaker 1: that's going to be a challenge. But we tend not
Speaker 1: to have these conversations. They're too difficult. And the political
Speaker 1: problem for the Labor government is after the election where
Speaker 1: they really put so much money into social spending, whether
Speaker 1: it there's Medicare and eis student that's whatever it happened
Speaker 1: to be. I mean, these commitments that they have made
Speaker 1: on the domestic side are so big and so budget
Speaker 1: consuming that it actually doesn't leave much room to do
Speaker 1: more in defense unless unless you actually raise taxes in
Speaker 1: a significant way. That seems to be the message that
Speaker 1: Jim Charlmons is making in terms of taxes from the
Speaker 1: last couple of days. It's all about raising more revenue.
Speaker 1: It's not about using what revenue we have more efficiently
Speaker 1: in terms of the programs or services, not just defense,
Speaker 1: but domestic services as well. That my sense is we
Speaker 1: do need tax reform. We do need to actually look
Speaker 1: at our tax base. We need to look at making
Speaker 1: sure it works as fairly as possible and as efficiently
Speaker 1: as possible. That we've also got to make sure that
Speaker 1: we don't we don't basically raise money to waste it.
Speaker 1: That's the other side of it. So doctor Chalmers was
Speaker 1: prepared to say, we do need to look at what
Speaker 1: we spend our money on, we do need to look
Speaker 1: at things, doing things better and smarter. But that also
Speaker 1: may mean we do less, that we might actually have
Speaker 1: to cut some things we can't know. That's binding the
Speaker 1: bullet on. The tough stuff is what government's all about.
Speaker 1: And this government and so I come from the other
Speaker 1: side of politics, but this government seems very much into
Speaker 1: wanting to talk good views, but not talking about the
Speaker 1: fact that there is a cost to everything they do.
Speaker 2: That's it. And one more thing, because I know you
Speaker 2: want to go to bed, and I mentioned getting the
Speaker 2: pulse of the nation. We've got in your notes here
Speaker 2: to talk about Antoinette Latooth receiving the seventy thousand dollars
Speaker 2: from the ABC over the sacking. I'm really surprised that
Speaker 2: you wanted to talk about this. I'm also surprised at
Speaker 2: how much traction this story is getting and how many
Speaker 2: people are talking about it. Why is that?
Speaker 1: Well, look, I think it's something actually although she is
Speaker 1: coming from the left and particularly on the gaza issue
Speaker 1: at the two, I've got to pick on the ABC
Speaker 1: for the wrong reasons that yeah, she expressed the political view,
Speaker 1: but if you look at it, I mean, how many
Speaker 1: of their key people, how many of their their names,
Speaker 1: actually do exactly the same thing and get away with it.
Speaker 1: I mean, look what Laura Tingle for instance, said about
Speaker 1: Scott Morrison a few years ago in terms of videological
Speaker 1: bastard trick. Look at their investigator, get investigative journalist Louise
Speaker 1: Milligan who has taken to court the deafination in terms
Speaker 1: of things that she had said printed and basically they
Speaker 1: were okay. But Anthrooninetteletu, who is a casual contractors entered
Speaker 1: for one week while somebody else is on leave. She
Speaker 1: made a comment about guard which I think showed that
Speaker 1: very much where she came from politically. That compared to well,
Speaker 1: compared to some of those other cases, you just wonder
Speaker 1: what the fuss was about. I mean, it was one
Speaker 1: of those things that's the ABC management should have blown over.
Speaker 1: But the other thing is when it comes to it.
Speaker 1: She's got her seventy thousand dollars in COMPETI.
Speaker 2: Well, that's it, not bad for three days work.
Speaker 1: But they're talking about legal fees that in the minions
Speaker 1: the cost that the ABC will be up for hers
Speaker 1: and theirs, and really they realize that this is taxpayers money.
Speaker 2: Well they tell the.
Speaker 1: Shareholders money, it's not private money, it's taxpayers money. Well,
Speaker 1: they're doing the proverbial up against the wall.
Speaker 2: Let me hit you with this scenario. Do you think
Speaker 2: maybe the ABC are reflecting the government's opinion at the moment,
Speaker 2: and that is not to have an opinion about anything.
Speaker 1: Well, in these days, I think that's the safest thing.
Speaker 1: But the ABC charter actually demands that they be impartial
Speaker 1: and they actually look at all points of view. And
Speaker 1: certainly I think from me Antoinette Lato in terms of
Speaker 1: being high in the first place, said, you know, they're
Speaker 1: quite happy to accept people of her who left the
Speaker 1: center perspective, but if the cause of trouble, well they
Speaker 1: scarf it for one hundred miles an hour, but they
Speaker 1: still line up behind their names who might fall into
Speaker 1: the same trap. So I just think there is a
Speaker 1: double standard there that within the ABC culture that allowed
Speaker 1: that to happen. But in terms of in terms of
Speaker 1: her being well effectively given the flick or a tweet,
Speaker 1: I'm not sure that's necessarily a good thing.
Speaker 2: But again, you know, that goes back to what we
Speaker 2: were talking about earlier on about Facebook and about having
Speaker 2: an opinion and everything like that.
Speaker 1: But this is the thing I think, to your professional
Speaker 1: I mean, do you know it's a good thing that
Speaker 1: you have opinionated journalists and commentators who attract listeners and viewers.
Speaker 1: But if they express those years and you actually them
Speaker 1: to express those years, you sort of have to stand
Speaker 1: with them.
Speaker 2: Which it's really and this is a conversation, a longer
Speaker 2: form conversation for another time, but it's very interesting because
Speaker 2: if it's a spoken opinion, it seems to be more
Speaker 2: accepted than if it's a written opinion. If it's especially
Speaker 2: if it's a written opinion on social media, that seems
Speaker 2: to carry more weight and more implications than something you've
Speaker 2: written as an article or something I've said on the radio.
Speaker 1: Why that is. But on the other hand, I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm here because I expressed you know, because you know
Speaker 1: I'm going to express opinions. Of course, reporting the news.
Speaker 1: When you when you're actually covering the news that you're
Speaker 1: expected to tweet your opinions on it, then the line's
Speaker 1: been blurred for quite That's it.
Speaker 2: That's what I'm saying to you. You know that the
Speaker 2: social media opinion Twitter, Facebook and what have you, seems
Speaker 2: to carry more weight and implication again than say the
Speaker 2: written word in something that you may have written in
Speaker 2: the media or something that I would have said on
Speaker 2: the radio. I don't know why that is, but that's just,
Speaker 2: you know, the impression that I get.
Speaker 1: Well, certainly I've written a couple of things on the
Speaker 1: mainstream in mainstream media actually last week or so. It's
Speaker 1: got me spotted bothered out. Okay, look it happens to
Speaker 1: us all.
Speaker 2: But once you get seventy grand, you know who you
Speaker 2: can take to lunch.
Speaker 1: Well, I, well, I don't get anything like seventy grand.
Speaker 1: Don't get anything, but certainly always enjoy talking to you.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much, my friend. You are just too
Speaker 2: well for me. It's two SIPs of coffee. By the
Speaker 2: time I finish those, you'll be fast asleep in your pjs.
Speaker 2: Have a great night.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much to you.