Speaker 1: Now on overnight order order the Prime Minister as the call.
Speaker 2: Thanks missus speak It's for the week in Politics with
Speaker 2: Terry Barnes. How are you good morning, Phil?
Speaker 1: Do you think the G seven was worth it?
Speaker 2: I think G seven is a waste of time and
Speaker 2: it's a lot of way to go to get a
Speaker 2: group photo of seven people or actually a thick of
Speaker 2: one or two more, including the head of the European Union.
Speaker 1: But really, what.
Speaker 2: Did they achieve in those couple of days? Absolutely bloody
Speaker 2: I think, I mean the time, the effort, the cost
Speaker 2: of doing all of that and actually having the number
Speaker 2: one attendee, Nikoff a day early before they could reach
Speaker 2: an agreement on a communicate. We reach an agreement on anything,
Speaker 2: certainly not reach an agreement on Israel and Iran, and
Speaker 2: of course the hangars on like our Prime Minister Anthony
Speaker 2: ALBERNIZI who were there? Really, I think almost the decoration
Speaker 2: except for the possibility of these sideline meetings. It really
Speaker 2: just seems to me that it delivered some good pictures
Speaker 2: for the TV nears. It delivered that family photo, But
Speaker 2: beyond that, I mean, what's the point? I think I
Speaker 2: think the time has come or to actually quietly put
Speaker 2: to sleep. I mean, it was started fifty years ago
Speaker 2: as a way of the Western great powers to have
Speaker 2: a bit of a chat once a year at leader level,
Speaker 2: but really it's just become simply a talking shop, a gapfest,
Speaker 2: but with no clear agenda and no clear decisive leadership
Speaker 2: coming out of it.
Speaker 3: Whenever I see Australia popping up to the G seven,
Speaker 3: I think, well, it's just like them going to Eurovision
Speaker 3: as well.
Speaker 1: It's a case of why.
Speaker 2: Again, well, yeah, that's a good, good description. Actually it's
Speaker 2: political Eurovision where everybody gets dull points. But certainly I think,
Speaker 2: you know, we're talking about the use of scarce political
Speaker 2: and diplomatic time and resources. And if it was a
Speaker 2: genuine forum for solving major global problems like the war
Speaker 2: in Ukraine, like Gaza and Israel, like Israel and Iran,
Speaker 2: then maybe, just maybe it's got a purpose. But really
Speaker 2: what we saw was a couple of a couple of
Speaker 2: what do they call them pit facts in terms of opportunity,
Speaker 2: and a few meetings that all seem to revolve around
Speaker 2: one certain leader. And my sense is that while Donald
Speaker 2: Trump is President of the United States, the G seven
Speaker 2: is always going to be the G one and everybody
Speaker 2: else is living in Trump World. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Man, we were talking about this last night. If you
Speaker 3: were to advise Anthony Albanezi, would you advise him to
Speaker 3: keep ringing Donald Trump? Are you going to come off
Speaker 3: a little bit desperate? And we all well, I mean
Speaker 3: the general consensus among the listeners who rang in and
Speaker 3: texted was, Yeah, you've got to keep on his case,
Speaker 3: even though you do seem to be coming across as
Speaker 3: a bit desperate. What would be your advice if you
Speaker 3: had to give any two albow in terms of getting
Speaker 3: hold of Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: Look, I think the way things are rolling, with the
Speaker 2: issues that we're concerned about around towers, around Ucus, they're
Speaker 2: rolling on anyway. The review, the American review of Orcus
Speaker 2: has started. It's not going to be stopped. That was
Speaker 2: encouraging actually the G seven. One of the few things
Speaker 2: that was encouraging the G seven was that when British
Speaker 2: Prime Minister Kirs Starmer and Trump got together, they both
Speaker 2: agreed that Orcus is a good thing. So Donald Trump
Speaker 2: has actually learnt since earlier in the year when he
Speaker 2: didn't seem to have a clue about it what Orcus
Speaker 2: actually is. But certainly. I think you don't want to
Speaker 2: look desperate, but you don't want to look daptless. My
Speaker 2: sense is that if I was advising the Prime Minister,
Speaker 2: I'd be saying, well, just go yourself, don't look desperate,
Speaker 2: don't try and get through the door at the first opportunity.
Speaker 2: Don't take it personally that you did not get stuck
Speaker 2: by Donald Trump leaving. I mean Donald Trump left for
Speaker 2: good reason. I mean I'm not a great trump Man,
Speaker 2: as you know. Look, I think we're dealing with a
Speaker 2: global crisis here, and potentially, if it's mismanaged or miscalculations happened,
Speaker 2: we could be on the brink of something really catastrophic.
Speaker 2: So I think it was quite reasonable for him to
Speaker 2: go back to the White House in the situation Room
Speaker 2: to work it through.
Speaker 3: And the other thing, it wasn't just Albot, it was
Speaker 3: also the Indian Prime Minister, it was Zelenski. Although Zelenski
Speaker 3: squaed up with him a few times, but he didn't
Speaker 3: get the opportunity either. Okay, let's talk about what you
Speaker 3: just mentioned there, Iran and Israel.
Speaker 1: Where do you start?
Speaker 2: There are so many things to talk about, but really
Speaker 2: I think the question is what are the Americans actually
Speaker 2: going to do. I mean Donald Trump with his social
Speaker 2: media commentary, with his well very enigmatic remarks when he
Speaker 2: left the G seven about to watch this space, particularly
Speaker 2: the way he slapped down the French President Emmanuel Macron
Speaker 2: in relation to Macron's suggesting he was going back to
Speaker 2: Washington to work on a ceasefire, and he basically said
Speaker 2: a ceasepuy of his stuff got bigger fish to Fries
Speaker 2: than that. So my sense, and I'm not a strategic
Speaker 2: or a defense expert in any sense, but certainly as
Speaker 2: a political watcher, I have to say that all the
Speaker 2: indications are that President Trump is actually gearing up to
Speaker 2: bring the United States into this militarily in some way.
Speaker 2: And I would think it is probably in relation to
Speaker 2: the pressure from Israel to support their nuclear facility busting
Speaker 2: effort by bringing in the big bunker busting bombs that
Speaker 2: the American has. Americans have that the Israelis.
Speaker 3: Don't, and of course they've got. I mentioned this a
Speaker 3: couple of days ago, USS and limits heading in that direction.
Speaker 3: The fact that Trump went back met with his security
Speaker 3: council straight away once he got back to the White House,
Speaker 3: I mean, you know, something's going on here. The extent
Speaker 3: of it, I guess we'll have to wait and find out.
Speaker 2: Well, that's right, and don't forget there's another US carrier
Speaker 2: group going in there as well as the USS Carl Vincent.
Speaker 2: So there are two huge aircraft carriers with fighters and
Speaker 2: fighter bombers. But one thing that Israel doesn't have with
Speaker 2: its air force are large bombers. It lacks those. It
Speaker 2: has very good fighter bombers, top top notch fighter bombers,
Speaker 2: and they have bunker busting bombs of their own, but
Speaker 2: the only bunker bust to the depth of six meters,
Speaker 2: whereas the American bunker busting bombs actually can very smart
Speaker 2: and they can drill down sixty meters or more. And
Speaker 2: that's in the mounts of Iran where the chief Uranium
Speaker 2: Richmond facility is. That's the type of bomb that is
Speaker 2: needed to actually destroy it as opposed to merely damage it.
Speaker 1: The other thing is, I don't know if you knew
Speaker 1: about this.
Speaker 3: Over the last two days, there've been something like thirty
Speaker 3: US military aerial refueling tankers being dispatched to the Middle East, too,
Speaker 3: So the tankers aren't there to support Israeli fighter jet missions.
Speaker 3: Against Iran, but also to help with the mid air
Speaker 3: refueling capabilities, so maybe also to help out the American
Speaker 3: Air Force if more of them get involved.
Speaker 2: Well, that's exactly right, And certainly, yes, they have been
Speaker 2: brought up into the towards closer to Iran and closer
Speaker 2: to the scene scene of the action. But they could
Speaker 2: service Israeli aeroplanes, they could service American aeroplanes, and I
Speaker 2: guess if they did service Israeli aeroplanes, the Uranians may
Speaker 2: will say that the Americans are involved anyway. So it's
Speaker 2: a really delicate situation where and regardless of what you
Speaker 2: think about the players in it, if there is a mistake,
Speaker 2: if there is a miscalculation here, it can be catastrophic
Speaker 2: for all of us. So it's absolutely essential. It's imperative
Speaker 2: that particularly Benjamin Yahou and Donald Trump, but I think
Speaker 2: all all Western leaders who are involved in this in
Speaker 2: one way or another, actually well move carefully.
Speaker 3: I was talking to Professor David Flint about this last night,
Speaker 3: and he was drawing parallels to nineteen fourteen and the
Speaker 3: spark that ignited that, and we were saying, you know,
Speaker 3: what's the spyk here, and let's hope it doesn't happen.
Speaker 2: Yes, I said exactly say to John Stanley when I
Speaker 2: was talking to him on Tuesday night. And I think
Speaker 2: there is a feeling a bit like July nineteen fourteen,
Speaker 2: after the assassination of the Artitukee Vans Ferdinand Sarajevo, when
Speaker 2: the events and the decision started cascading and mistakes were
Speaker 2: made in that month as well, And we're not dealing
Speaker 2: that with the type of communications we have now. I
Speaker 2: mean it's almost instantaneous. It was actually much slower than that,
Speaker 2: but even so, I mean it's a lot, but Europe
Speaker 2: the world was waiting back then with the other shooter drop,
Speaker 2: but eventually, in the beginning of August nineteen fourteen it did.
Speaker 2: You could say it's the same as very similar to
Speaker 2: August nineteen thirty nine, the months people the World War
Speaker 2: two started with certainly the doings and throwings between the
Speaker 2: Germans and the Russians that led to the Riven Shrop
Speaker 2: Molotov pacts that actually seed the way for the invasion
Speaker 2: of Poland. I mean, all of these if we're seeing
Speaker 2: something a little similar now, so God help us, hope,
Speaker 2: I hope it never comes to that type of possibility now.
Speaker 3: And the other comparison you could draw as well is
Speaker 3: the Cuban missile crisis nineteen sixty two.
Speaker 2: Well, it's a very good one in the sense because
Speaker 2: effectively John F. Kennedy and his advisors took America to
Speaker 2: the brink of nuclear war with Russia, but kept their heads,
Speaker 2: kept their their calm, and kept there, kept their actions
Speaker 2: to a blockade of Cuba as opposed to military action
Speaker 2: of military invasion, which probably would have led to at
Speaker 2: least some form of nuclear exchange. I don't know if
Speaker 2: President Trump has the temperament to do that, but certainly
Speaker 2: I think he's a realist in the sense that he
Speaker 2: knows that the consequences of any nuclear exchange, any nuclear
Speaker 2: or any nuclear bomb being being used, and he has
Speaker 2: made it very clear that he does not see Iran
Speaker 2: having having that capability, that he wants it stopped. He does,
Speaker 2: he wants it to be blocked. And if he's prepared
Speaker 2: to put his well actions where his words are, you'd
Speaker 2: have to assume that he is gearing up to bring
Speaker 2: the US into supporting Israeli one some way or another.
Speaker 3: And it's not just the temperament of the Kennedys. There
Speaker 3: was also the temperament of khrush Chef as well, where
Speaker 3: people were allowed to save face. That's the thing that's
Speaker 3: going to be really important if we.
Speaker 2: Get to know, well that was actually it was more
Speaker 2: John F. Kennedy. I think if you go back and
Speaker 2: look at what happened in nineteen sixty two, Khrushchoff was
Speaker 2: actually looking for face to be saved. It wasn't him
Speaker 2: trying to save other people's faces. I mean, it was
Speaker 2: actually Kennedy looking after Khrushchov in that sense and giving
Speaker 2: him a decent way out. And they found a comprom
Speaker 2: solution in terms of some nuclear weapons being taken out
Speaker 2: of Turkey by the Americans. So that didn't really matter
Speaker 2: in the biggest scheme of things, but it looked like
Speaker 2: there was something for something deal. But in this case, well, look,
Speaker 2: maybe Donald Trump, he's the deal maker. He could come
Speaker 2: up with something. But really I think we're in a
Speaker 2: very very difficult situation here. But on this one, I
Speaker 2: actually actually back to Donald Trump. If he is prepared
Speaker 2: to actually take some action.
Speaker 1: He may be a mad man, but he's our madman.
Speaker 2: Well that's the point I mean, But I think I
Speaker 2: think on this one his his instincts arise in terms
Speaker 2: of wanting to stop Iran, how he does it and
Speaker 2: how he does it in a way that doesn't lead
Speaker 2: to even more dire consequences. That's his challenge. Whether he's
Speaker 2: up to that challenge, he'll have to prove. Yeah.
Speaker 3: But that whole mad Man analogy which I think was
Speaker 3: attributed to Nixon, wasn't it originally correct?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 3: The whole idea behind that is if you know you've
Speaker 3: got to loose cannon, then you've actually got a bit
Speaker 3: of an advantage. Okay, let's talk about a different truth.
Speaker 3: And this is the Liberal Party in particular New South
Speaker 3: Wales and they got their act together.
Speaker 1: Is everybody getting on?
Speaker 2: Well, no, come on, let's let's let's be real here, Phil.
Speaker 2: I mean basically the South Wales Liberal Parties case, it's
Speaker 2: still as a basket past. It was into it needed
Speaker 2: federal intervention by the federal executive Liberal Party late last year.
Speaker 2: What they don't like is the fact that the executive
Speaker 2: put in a couple of Victorians, Alan Stocker put Jeff
Speaker 2: Kennett's former treasurer and former our minister Richard Austen, and
Speaker 2: really it was what what does come out this week
Speaker 2: is that they've kicked the two Victorians out and they've
Speaker 2: put Nick Griner particularly in their players. But really the
Speaker 2: factional nest vipers that's in the South Wales Liberal Party continues,
Speaker 2: the fact that they they lost they lost seats in
Speaker 2: the recent federal election, the fact that they don't really
Speaker 2: look like they're in a position to be a viable
Speaker 2: alternative government in the upcoming state election in South Wales,
Speaker 2: which has still got a way to come.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 2: This is these are all issues that they really have
Speaker 2: not grappled with. So I mean, the factional hatreds that
Speaker 2: personality politics are still there. It's not going away. They
Speaker 2: haven't solved the problem. Nick Greiner, as respected Liberal elder statesman,
Speaker 2: might be able to go where the Victorians did not
Speaker 2: in terms of trying to bring some sort of peace
Speaker 2: to the party. But the bottom line is that a
Speaker 2: Liberal party these days is a party that nobody wants
Speaker 2: to join. It's not a question of young versus old,
Speaker 2: it's a question of people actually want to be part
Speaker 2: of something that is such a dog's breakfast that is
Speaker 2: becoming increasingly used to losing and not winning that if
Speaker 2: you really want to make a career in politics and
Speaker 2: public service. Is Liberal Party the way to go anymore?
Speaker 2: A lot of people suddenly are thinking maybe it's.
Speaker 3: Not, although Nick Griner has a lot of credibility and
Speaker 3: also I think enough experience and level headedness to brahad unify.
Speaker 3: If you could think of anybody except apart from maybe
Speaker 3: John Howard, you know, grind it's not the bad person
Speaker 3: to have in there in this particular role.
Speaker 2: No, he's not. And I think because of his being
Speaker 2: such a successful premiere in the late eighties and early nineties,
Speaker 2: even though he almost lost office when he sought re election,
Speaker 2: he is well regarded across the faction of the Liberal Party.
Speaker 2: But the reality is that Liberal Party itself is such
Speaker 2: a rotten, rotten organization it really needs to be cleaned out.
Speaker 2: It's parliamentary party needs to be cleaned out of the
Speaker 2: dead wood and the non performers. The organization certainly needs
Speaker 2: to be cleaned out, which is why there was a
Speaker 2: federal intervention of birthplace. I mean, you had a party
Speaker 2: organization that couldn't actually organize its candidates the last year's
Speaker 2: local government elections in New South Wales. That's how messy
Speaker 2: it was. That you really want to have good people
Speaker 2: joining the party and you want to have really good
Speaker 2: people standing for it. At the moment there is well,
Speaker 2: it's just not worth it. It really isn't. And I
Speaker 2: think it's not just the South Wales division of Liberal
Speaker 2: Party that's problem. I think it's a problem in Victoria,
Speaker 2: it's a problem in South Australia, West Australia. Probably the
Speaker 2: only place where it's viable as a party of government
Speaker 2: at the moment is where it is a government. That
Speaker 2: is Queensland. And you noticed I didn't mention Tasmania there,
Speaker 2: although notionally it's got Liberal Party government, because I suspect
Speaker 2: after the nineteenth of July, because of this absolutely pool
Speaker 2: hardy election that they're called, that there won't be a
Speaker 2: Liberal government there either.
Speaker 3: You know what they need to do is they need
Speaker 3: to go back to nineteen sixty seven. There was a
Speaker 3: guy who his name was William Bell, and he wrote
Speaker 3: a song Everybody loves a Winner and everybody loves you
Speaker 3: when you're winning. They need to be playing that every
Speaker 3: time somebody walks in the room, try and buoy the
Speaker 3: team up a little bit.
Speaker 2: Perhaps, Oh, they certainly need something that certainly when party
Speaker 2: hacks and factional warlords. I think their song is my way.
Speaker 2: You really have to wonder about the party as a
Speaker 2: party of government. I mean, it's been a natural party
Speaker 2: of government for so long and I think that's made
Speaker 2: many Liberal members, but certain the organizational player is very complacent.
Speaker 2: You know that even losing the twenty twenty two federal
Speaker 2: election has shut the temporary setback. And we saw that
Speaker 2: the consequences of that type of thinking on the third
Speaker 2: of May, didn't.
Speaker 3: We Well, maybe then they could borrow from Donald Trump
Speaker 3: a bit of ymca from the village people, because you
Speaker 3: know that boy's the camp too.
Speaker 2: Well, look, I think he would object to that. I
Speaker 2: don't think he want to be associated with you know
Speaker 2: what he says about losers. I don't think he'd want
Speaker 2: to be associated with the Liberal Party of Australia.
Speaker 3: At the moment, Captain Cook's HMS endeavor is confirmed to
Speaker 3: be in the waters off Rhode Island.
Speaker 1: Why what's this? Why are you interested in this story?
Speaker 2: Well, I think we all should be interested in this story.
Speaker 2: I mean, basically we're talking about the endeavor that Captain
Speaker 2: Cook sales up up the East Coast of Australia. In
Speaker 2: seventeen seventy. I mean it was a great thing for Australia,
Speaker 2: for Australian history. It was the beginning really of our
Speaker 2: European history in terms of the settlement, and that, in
Speaker 2: my view is not a bad thing. Many other people
Speaker 2: these days think it isn't, which is why I think
Speaker 2: if we look at the media at coverage of this
Speaker 2: over the last few days in Australia, it's barely troubled
Speaker 2: to scorers. I mean, I'm old enough to remember. I
Speaker 2: don't know if you are, Phil, I'm sure you're only
Speaker 2: twenty one and a bit. In the late sixties. In
Speaker 2: nineteen sixty nine to nineteen seventy, in the run up
Speaker 2: to the Cook Bison tenary, everybody was avidly following the
Speaker 2: raising of Endeavors canons off the Great Barrier Reef because
Speaker 2: that was seed as getting in touch with Cook relics
Speaker 2: at the time of the Bison tenary. But here we
Speaker 2: are we have the wreckage of the real Endeavor, that
Speaker 2: the actual ship, it's herself, I like to say, herself,
Speaker 2: not itself ship as a sheet, but certainly we have
Speaker 2: the wreckage there. And according to the Australia National Maritime
Speaker 2: Museum that's been a big part of researching this and
Speaker 2: offshore in Newport, Rhode Island. When you think about it,
Speaker 2: Australia too probably sailed over her when she went one.
Speaker 1: That's a third point.
Speaker 2: I like that, But certainly I think if it was
Speaker 2: nineteen seventy we would be absolutely ecstatic about this is
Speaker 2: a big filling out newspages that would be splashed all
Speaker 2: over television radio. But here in twenty twenty five, where
Speaker 2: it's unfashionable to talk about Captain Cook, it's unfashionable to
Speaker 2: talk about his boges of exploration and its implications for
Speaker 2: indigenous peoples in the Pacific, particularly as well as Australia,
Speaker 2: and of course with there's a bit of a downer
Speaker 2: on British colonialism and Britain in general in terms of
Speaker 2: role in the world. So look, it's has had more
Speaker 2: coverage in the US, that's had more coverage in Britain
Speaker 2: than it's had in Australia, and I just think that's
Speaker 2: absolutely surprised. Well, you probably shouldn't be surprised in this
Speaker 2: day and age, but certainly as somebody who was young
Speaker 2: enough or old enough but very young then to remember
Speaker 2: the Cook by centenary and as I say, the example
Speaker 2: of the excitement caused by the raising of Endeavors canons
Speaker 2: then as opposed to the ship itself. Now. Look, I
Speaker 2: just think it's highlights how Australia has changed, how our
Speaker 2: mindset has changed. I don't necessarily think in that sense
Speaker 2: it's change for the better.
Speaker 3: I'm sure that we will get texts about this and
Speaker 3: about your thoughts as well. It's always a pleasure to
Speaker 3: taught to you. Let's see where we're at in a
Speaker 3: week's time.
Speaker 2: Thanks Phil.