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