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