Live on Sky News.
This is Shari Good Evening. Calib Bond in for Shari tonight. Coming up on the program, Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek under more pressure over her dodgy decision to hold a billion dollar gold mine. Now one of the biggest labor affiliated unions has spoken out. Gary Hartgrave and Darren Barnett will join me to talk about that. Also on the show, a teenager who attacked the office of a Jewish MP
won't be given a criminal record. Peter Wertheim from the Executive Council of Australian Jury will be on the show. And are you over the age of fifty and drive well, you might be in a bit of trouble because a new report is suggesting that you should be forced to refresh your memory with some mandatory lessons. Car Expert founder
Paul Marrick. We'll discuss that with me later now. Tanya Plibiseik, of course, as I said before, pressure is mounting on her, the Environment Minister, over her decision to stop the mcphillamy's gold mine in New South Wales after the biggest union
in the country sorry condemned her reasoning. The Australian Workers' Union, of course, inextricably linked to the Labor Party, has voted to censium as Plibasik for blocking the billion dollar min and over concerns its tailing dam would be detrimental to Aboriginal heritage. The Daily Telegraph reported today that the AWU members passed the motion at the union's national conference in Perth yesterday, accusing her of not providing any real evidence
to support her decision. The motion read quote the minister's declaration relies on a little used provision that affords the Minister wide discretion to make a decision regarding an area after receiving a report seeking to preserve that area from injury or desecration. However, in issuing the declaration blocking the mcphillamy's mind, the Minister failed to produce any evidence used
to justify their decision. This amounts to a lack of transparency transparency sorry, and gives rise to uestions around rigor and fairness in the decision making process. AWU New South Wales Secretary Tony Callanan also told The Daily Telegraph that the decision to block the mcphillamy's mine without a shred of evidence is an insult to the workers of Blaney and every community that depends on mining. When six hundred livelihoods are on the line, the least the government can
do is be transparent. AWU members and the entire mining community deserve better than decisions made in the dark. The AWU stands with the people of Blaney and demands a fair process. The Minister should put all the evidence on the table for all to see. The workers of Blaney deserve far better. The AWU won't stand by while six hundred jobs are lost because of political games played behind
closed doors. And that's the real point here. Was the decision to block a billion dollar mine on the Bay of Aboriginal Heritage, even though it wasn't opposed by the local Aboriginal Land Council a decision based in fact and what is best for the environment, or would it be because it would best appeal to the voters of miss Pipersix,
inner city seat of Sydney. We know, as I just said that the local Aboriginal Land Council, the body authorized to advise on matters of cultural heritage and the like, was not opposed to the project. His former New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council Chairman Roy RC.
Just for the record, PRIs the Orange Low Abage Land Council wasn't opposed to the mind exactly right.
There wasn't opposed.
So what that says to me is that obviously they were happy with the surveys, the side assessments, etc.
Etc.
So what's happened here is the Minister at the Commonwealth level as listened to another group and that's very very concerning.
We know that one of the indigenous people whose submission helped inform Miss pliber SC's decision, artist Nai Reynolds, sent in a series of her own paintings to explain why
the mine should not be allowed to go ahead. We know that the artists who painted the blue Banded Bee Dreaming story mural that was used in Miss Plibertsex's evidence to halt the mine was a member of the main group that fought against the mine, and that the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council had never previously heard of this story.
Miss Plibersek, in her reasons, said she was satisfied that the proprietary and pecuniary impacts to the proponent and others do not outweigh the irreversible damage and permanent loss to the Aboriginal cultural heritage in the declared area, despite the fact that supposed cultural heritage is disputed. She also said, as I'm sure you know that the mining company Regis should just find another way to do the project.
I haven't blocked a gold mine. I've said that the tailing stam that's proposed for the Goal mine can't be built on the headwaters and springs of the Belubula River. My decision applies to sixteen percent of a two and a half thousand hectare site, and I've made very clear that if the company goes ahead and moves the tailing stam, and they've said they've investigated thirty different design options for the tailing stam, then the project can go ahead.
But Regis has now gone to the federal court to have the decision overturned because it says the mine is now unviable. MSS Blibisk still hasn't truly answered why this decision was made. She hasn't given any real evidence. She hasn't answered the competing stories between Aboriginal groups, or why she took the word of artists over the local Aboriginal Land Council and now the biggest union in the country, Labor Aligned Union says that she is playing political games.
Is she the environment minister or the Minister for sandbagging life votes against the Greens. Well, it's now been confirmed that next year cigarettes will need to have a health warning, not only printed on the packet with that lovely baby pooh green color, but on the cigarettes themselves. By April, every cigarette has to have a warning on it. This is some of what you can expect.
Some examples of the messages that might be used or that are open for public consultation are toxic addiction poisons in every puff causes sixteen cancers, damages your lungs.
Can we just take a moment to acknowledge just how stupid that is? Does anyone in government, in public health anywhere believe this is actually going to stop anyone from smoking? Seriously, if you've managed to get past the decades of public health education, the anti smoking ads, the fact that cigarette adds are banned, the brow beating from the health teachers at school, the concern chats from friends and family, Oh, I think you should give up? Have you tried giving up?
That's bad for you? You know? Of course, you know there's the dirty looks from busybodies on the street, the lecture every time you go to the doctor, the fact that you have to huddle in some hidden corner somewhere to smoke in public, and of course those graphic warnings on the front of the packet. And somehow, if you've managed to get past all of that, you open up the packet, you pull out a diarry, You see a trite slogan written on the side of the filter, and
you go, that's it. I can't smoke. I've just realized that it's bad for me. I mean, there are only two reasons anyone is still smoking. They're either thoroughly addicted and no matter how hard they try, they can't give it up, or they thoroughly enjoy it, and no matter how hard you try to make them give it up, they won't. No one is sucked into smoking anymore, a minority activity hated by most people. Writing that death is near on the side of a cigarette isn't going to
turn the dial. Honestly, how can anyone with even half a brain think that this is actually going to do anything except perhaps drive even more people to the illegal tobacco market, which is huge. It's about a third of
the entire tobacco market in Australia on current estimations. Now, that's tax that the government misses out on on those cigarettes, and its money, as I've talked about many times before, that ends up in the hands of organized crime gangs that then use it for their grizzly activities including murder
and sex trafficking, so on and so forth. Now, one of the problems with this new health warning business is that in order for it to be done, manufacturers have to buy new equipment and they have to change their practices to move in line with the new rules. These regulations, by the way, were only sent out at the end of life last month and they come in in April.
It's not all that long, it's less than six months, and shops will be allowed to sell existing stock for three months from April, but after that anything left over will have to be pulped and any new stock will have to have the warnings on them. Now, because of the tight time frames to get all this done, there's concern from retailers that there will be a temporary supply crunch on cigarettes, which would make people even more likely
to seek out the illicit product. Yes, even though it is illegal, you can buy it in pretty much any convenience store or tobagonists in the country. And if you talk to the independent supermarkets and they have, they'll tell you that they are losing money hand over fist on cigarettes, not because fewer people are smoking, but because their customers
are going to illegal shops down the road. And would you believe it, the people who would normally go into a supermarket and buy cigarettes also buy other things in small, local independent supermarkets, losing revenue that they could spend on employing local people. So did the Health Department take into account the illegal market when they made their decision?
I mean, I suppose that whether rubber hits the rona raises before in this committee, is every smoker I know these days buys what's colloquly known as chop chop, not necessarily chopped up, but just buy illegal tobacco. Presumably this is going to play into that market's hands, mayn't it. I mean, has there been an analysis of that that if wholesom manufacturers can't make these legal obligations, the market will just get filled with illegal tobacco. Has that risk been considered?
Senator? I think Australia has one of the strongest records in tobacco control in the world, which I think we're rightly proud of.
But that doesn't answer my question with all respect, because I'm sure I totally agree with that, but everybody would agree with that.
No answer there, so Matt Canavan tried again.
Question is whether or not the Department, as part of good policy making practices, has analyzed the risk of these obligations, especially the accelerated time frame to introduce these regulations, could have an impact on encouraging more tobacco.
Senator, So, I think the role of the Department in terms of the Health portfolio is to continue the best measures possible to avoid people taking up smoking, whether that is legal or illegal tobacco. The best measure against people is dissuading them from smoking in the first place, which has been the focus of this legend.
Can you answer my question with all respect not just.
It's not Health's job to do that. I mean it's not.
Health job to evaluate the risks health comes.
Finance Minister Katie Gallahers says it's not a matter for the Health Department. They wonder that they come up with such hair brained ideas. Now you can take this to the bank. This will do nothing to stop people from smoking. It's all about health. Well, what about the health of people that he's threatened every day by organized crime gangs which, thanks to the ridiculous price of cigarettes caused by the federal government's extortion at taxes, now has a lucrative market
in illicit tobacco. How stupid do they think? We are down in Victoria where more than one hundred tobacconists have been firebombed thanks to gangs fighting over control of the illicit tobacco market. The Allen government is now planning to introduce the strictest tobacco licensing laws in the country to try to shut down illegal sellers. But this shouldn't be the state's problem. This is a mess created by the federal government through extortion at tax and they ought to
be the ones to clean it up. Lots to get through tonight, Let's jump straight into my panel, Sky and News contributor Gary Hardgrave and form of Press Secretary to Julia Gillard, Darren Barnett. First, let's talk about the news from the AWE today. They've had to go at Tanya Plibastique over the decision over the mcphillamy's gold mine. Gary. You know, the longer this goes on, the dodgy it
seems to be Tanua. Pipistick still has not answered why there are discrepancies between the advice she took from one Aboriginal group and the advice that comes from the actual local Aboriginal Land council. Why can't she simply tell us what's going on.
Because she has no idea what she's doing. This woman is a walking, talking sovereign risk to Australia. She is the member for Sydney. She lives in an isolated view of the world, she thinks, and she's keeping the Greens at bay in her electorate. There's coverning her seat, so to speak. She thinks she knows best. She's morally and intellectually superior to anybody who actually wants to do something
practical like well, create jobs, create mining job. She did the same thing to a marvelous proposal to deal with a Jetty landing area and turn it into a marvelous housing development in the eastern Bayside areas around Brisbane. In Cleveland, she killed off eleven billion dollars worth of likely economic activity in that area alone. It was going to create many thousands of jobs and homes for hundreds, if not more people. I mean, this woman really doesn't get it.
She doesn't understand and I think she's second only to Chris Bowen when it comes to a genuine risk to economic viability. That's a big statement. And it all comes back to the bloke who appointed her, the bloke and the seat next door and the other inner city seat in Sydney, in Gradlar. I mean, this is a government that doesn't know real Australia at all, presumes it does, cherry picks the advice they want to suit the narrative
in their own area. It's a real peril and she's got to go, and I hope the Greens will knock her off and put her out of a misery.
Frankly, well, I'll declare that I live in Graindler and I will personally say that I don't live in real Australia. I've seen some of my neighbors, but Darren, obviously the AWU is aligned to a different faction to Tania plibisk. But how worried should she be about the union movement getting involved in this fight?
It is actually a pretty significant step, Okaylie, I agree with that. And therefore, whether it's through national conference or whether it's through the soft pressure that comes via the union movement into the Labor Party, you don't want affiliated unions being opposed to decisions that are made by government. But a couple of things to unpack. Firstly, the Greens won't win Tanya's seat while she's there, and I don't think the decision is based on any particular view towards
assuaging the voters of her electorate. I think what you'll find, Gary, I hope you agree with me. The EPBA came in early two thousands seek Robert Hill was Environment Minister and I've never heard an environment minister since who loves that act. It's a difficult act to administer. It's a very opaque document. It's a complicated set of rules and criteria, and I think that's part of the reason why Labour's trying to bring in a national EPA and some other new rules.
So I think you can criticize a lot of decisions under the EPBC. Maybe Tanny's got it right, maybe she's got it wrong, and we will see when that pressure comes to her head. Whether the decision remains or whether her argument that sixteen percent of the land in question is what she is trying to protect. Maybe that prevails, we will see she will lose some skin, but I spect she'll dig down on her decision and unless there's new evidence, we're not going to see a change.
And that's a bit it will play out in the courts,
of course. Now there's another ordinary poll result for the Albanezi government that the latest sec Ugate of the Nation survey found that the coalition has overtaken labor on cost of living management for the first time since the election, and seventy two percent of voters also said that cost of living was their top issue, which is no great surprise, but Garia, I think it proves people are losing confidence in the ability of the federal government to actually deliver
any kind of financial benefit to them.
A part of the problem is government is infering in everybody's lives in every possible way these days, and what people really want is for government to get out of their lives. You know, we can trust private citizens to work out what's best for them. We actually don't need to be losing enormous amounts of the wages that our bosses pay in the form of compulsory superannuation. We should be allowing people to actually make use of their money now today to deal with the problems they have today,
to invest into the future. And that means for younger Australians, let them access their super and let them actually get that super in place to buy a house and once that house, if they sell it at a later stage, they can repay their super account at a later point. I mean, why is it that government wants to control all of our actions and I think the cost of
living thing. Every time they put pressure on supermarkets and say we're going to crack down on supermarket pricing, the first person in the supply chain, the farmers or the producers of that item, they're the ones they're going to suffer the most. So again, I think people are able to work this thing out like what they've done in America, where they've gone against woke and stood for the workers. And that's where I think a lot of people's heads
are at right now. I think there's a big wave coming and that's going to swamp this government because it's lost its way. It's just simply lost its way.
Well, I think the Prime Minister should be worried, Darren, because if you look at our western allies, the US, the UK leaders that have presided over cost of living crises have been booted and the one bit of relief that Albo would be hoping for, which is of course, is an interest rate cut, may will not happen by the time he goes to a federal election. I think this is actually starting to be the biggest thorn in his side.
Look, the numbers are not the trend is not his friend. I think it's fair to say. And the numbers it's still close thirty to twenty nine percent, but equally that margin was much greater as little as a few months ago. So there is work to do for the Albanesi government, that's for sure. And I think that rate cut is an important part of their re election strategy, that that's what they're waiting for before they pulled the trigger for
an election. I look through that poll. They do say that sixty six percent of voters or two thirds of voters, that it would not impact their vote if there was a rate cut. I'm not sure about that. I think if people thought we had turned the corner economically, the support would be much stronger. So it's to me it's very much a question of when will we get a rate cut and will it be in time ahead of the election.
They'll certainly be begging for a rape cut. And I mean I said more than a year ago that if you had a rape cut there would be an early election. Now I don't know that we're actually going to get her an early election, but you know, I would have thought that was the easiest thing to do very quickly before we go. I don't know whether you saw this story today. I couldn't get over it. Some people need
to get it through their heads. I think that Donald Trump is actually the president the majority of American voters just chose. I mean, you think putting a Maga hat on would be pretty safe thing to do now, Not for singer a Hailey Mary. She's an Australian singer, lead singer of the Jezebels. They had a bit of success. She put a photo up online of herself in a Maga hat in a post opposing the Misinformation Bill, and she's now effectively been canceled. She told The Herald's son
that the fallout was everything you could imagine. I probably no longer have a music career in the way that I knew it. I've lost some friends, though I hope that's temporary. I've lost some of the infrastructure of my business, publicity, band members, room members, a show, my album launch revenue, and quite a few followers. You know, Gary, this wouldn't happen if you put on a Waltz Harris hat. Apart from looking like a loser, you wouldn't get this kind of response.
I got three Make America Great hats at home, and I was thinking about wearing them out, but I've been warned that maybe I might not get good service or someone wants to shout me at coffee. And by the way, I think that Donald Trump will be a revelation that will reshape the world for good. And I'm really excited about what's to come. The announcements he's made today. The way people are dissing Pete Hexseth as the new Defense Secretary's got me where this bloke actually cares about veterans,
loves his country. I think he's a fantastic, from the troops up kind of Defense secretary, and he's not part of the Washington swamp. We need people like that in Australia, and somebody said to me before we see today, the only person they can think of that would stare down wasting government like Elon Musk has challenged to do and Ramaswami would be Gina Reinhart. You think Peter Dunn't got offer the gig? I don't think so.
Gary Darren, thank you so much for your time. All right, let's move on, shall we? Cop twenty nine? The big climate conflab in Azerbaijan seems to be going well because China has demanded that developed countries, including Australia, cough up one point eight trillion dollars a year to help out developing nations with climate change. And the best bit, China wouldn't have to contribute a cent because it is still
considered a developing country. So we and the UK and the US, et cetera, would have to pay China, one of the biggest economies in the world, to fix the global temperature NPMP and former Speaker Andrew Wallace joins me, Now you know I actually have to kind of hand it to jijingping here with this idea that we would be giving money to them. I'm sorry, I think we've just lost Andrew there, We'll go to a quick break and come back. Don't go away. My apologies for that
brief interruption. It would see Andrew Wallace has lost power. I believe he's on the phone to Blackout Bowen right now, trying to sort that out so we can get him back later. Now it sounds like racing cars might be saved for a little while longer. Willowbank Raceway near Brisbane has banned electric vehicles from the track because it says they're too dangerous to compete.
Now.
This has happened at racetracks in the US and the UK too. Willowbank Raceway said one of the big problems with evs was that batteries released toxic and flammable gas after a collision, and there was no guarantee that a car could be completely off after a crash, so the chassis could essentially be electrified and kill medics if they were trying to pull a driver from a car. To discuss this further, I'm joined by the founder of car
expert dot com, Paul Marrick. Paul lad to see it happening, because I mean, hell, imagine going along to a racetrack and watching an electric vehicle go down a drag strip or something. I don't think it would have quite the same effect, but it does raise questions that should then be applied to the road, I think. I mean, if they're concerned that on a racetrack they can't ensure that the car is not live after a crash and that it could potentially harm or electrocute first responders, that would
presumably be the same on the road too. Yeah.
Absolutely, And what we're seeing as well is a lot of apartments, apartment building owners and body corporates are actually banning the installation of electric vehicle charges. A lot of this has stemmed as well from e scooters and other sort of lithium powered devices catching fire and hurting people.
And it's the same story here at racetracks. They just don't know how to deal with these things, and as a result of that, insurance costs are going through the roof and it's forcing a lot of these racetracks a just banned electric vehicles entiring.
I can't imagine how you could potentially have electric race cars. I mean, I know they go fast, but surely a large part of what attracts people to a racetrack and to cars in general is the noise that they make.
Now.
I know they'll say I will put a computer in it that makes a noise through a speaker or something, But to me, it's just not the same. It can't be the same. People wouldn't want to watch I wouldn't think electric cars going silently around Bathurst, would they? Yeah?
Look, I mean it'd be a safe environment for babies, you'd be able to sleep, not not having to worry too much about that, But definitely for petrol head you've got to have noise. I mean, it is just not the same to have these things as quiet as they are. There was actually a video released yesterday on the Internet of Geomi, which is a smartphone manufacturer that's now got into making cars. One of their cars had a major break failure on a racetrack and had this catastrophic crash.
And to me, it's just one of these things that just baffles logic. If you can't hear it, it's not exciting. It should be putting yourself at risk.
I'm sure the great Paul Murray, who is back in the Man Cave tonight, by the way, would have some thoughts about that. Some other driving news, a controversial reporter suggested that Australians aged over fifty should be subjected to mandatory driving lessons. This is a study from the University
of New South Wales in Sydney. It suggests that drivers with or without clean driving records should be re examined in order to make the road safer in Australia and make sure that their skills are still up to scratch or what do you think of that for an idea.
Look, I know it's going to be a little cheap coming from me who's just under fifty, but to me, it's just like a pilot. If you told me that the pilot at the front of the plane last died his pilot's test fifteen twenty thirty years ago, I go, I don't think I want to be on this plane. And I think for all drivers, let alone people over fifty, you really should be getting reassessed more regularly because it is one of these things. Road rules change constantly, and
you want to be on top of it. You want to know what's going on. And I think it's only fair that we are having more and more regular testing, especially for older Australians who may have first got their licenses decades ago.
Yeah, I agree. I don't think it particularly matters about age either. To be perfectly honest, if it was a rule that you had to have another assessment every ten years when you renew your license or something, I think that would be perfectly reasonable, because you know, you do tend to get stuck in your habits and forget a few rules and whatever, and surely you want everyone to be as safe as possible on the road. Paul, thank
you for coming on the program. Now back to where I was before we had the power outage, COP twenty nine. The big climate conflict going on in Azerbaijan is going well, apparently because China has demanded that developed countries, including Australia, cough up one point eight trillion dollars a year to
help out developing nations with climate change. And of course China wouldn't have to contribute a cent because it's still considered a quote unquote developing country, So we, the UK, the US, et cetera, would have to pay China, one of the biggest economies in the world, to apparently fix the global temperature LNPMP, and former Speaker Andrew Wallace joins me, Now you've made it out of the power outage.
Mate, I have chailed that was very wild and will we here, I got to tell you that much.
Good. Now, I've actually got to give Jijiping a little bit of credit here because I think he's just gently needling the Western world about the way that they are carrying on about climate change, saying, you know, why don't you put your money where your mouth is. You've got to pay us, you know, one of the biggest emitters in the world if you want climate change to be fixed.
In a funny way, I think it actually shows up how ridiculous a lot of the response to climate change at a governmental level is.
Yeah, Lookail, this is a country that is classifying as developing, and yet it has a hundred satellites.
You're gonna have many satellites Australia owns and operates. Go on, I'll tell you none. None. None.
So we've got a developing country that's so called developing country China, that has a very very mature space industry, and Australia is regarded as a developed country, and yet the federal government continues to rip funding out of the space program in Australia such that we have zero zero satellites, So.
You tell me.
Can anyone explain to me why we are still having to consider China as developing Australia as developed and we are having the.
Fund and prop up.
It just makes no seeds, Absolutely, it makes no sense.
That's ridiculous. So you may as well call it a coal rebate because of coause we sell our coal to China because we can't burn it here that it'd be bad for the world. But it's okay if China burns it so they can give us the money for the coal and then we can give it back to them in some sort of climate subsidy. Great idea. Now, labor social media legislation. It's probably one of the only bills
that will be passed between now and Christmas. The opposition has a course back to ban for under sixteens, and on the face of it, you know, I'd have to say it's hard to oppose. Who isn't sympathetic to the idea that kids shouldn't be on social media. We know the harms, but I feel like this has been rushed. There's no clear idea of how it will work. The planned trial hasn't even happened yet. You've got serious concerns that have emerged out of Senate estimates about how verification
systems would work. I think we're all sympathetic to the idea. I'm just not sure the government has gone about it the right way.
Well, Caleb, I don't think the government has gone about it the right way.
On that, I agree.
With you, But I am a big supporter of increasing the age to sixteen.
In fact, I was.
Pushing for this from as early as twenty twenty one, so I've been working in this space for a long time.
I think it's really important that people understand the dangers and perils that we're seeing.
On social media now, particularly for young people under.
The age of sixteen.
Young people just simply don't have the maturity to be able to be dealing with the sort of pressures that they are that's being brought to bear on them. We saw the Primary School Principles coming out today supporting the increase in age to sixteen. But the reality, Caleb, is that the Prime Minister has been dragged, kicking and screaming
on this. Twelve months ago, Peter Dutton and David Polman moved a Private members bill calling for an age verification trial and the Prime Minister rejected that, Labor rejected that. Now six months ago, Peter again, Peter Dutton again tried to push through a bill which would see and in fact Peter Dutton committed in his first one hundred days to ensuring that age sixteen for social media.
Now I've just finished, or just about to wrap up in the next couple of months, a social media requiry.
I've listened to the testimony of parents talking about some of their kids who have taken their own lives because of this bullying.
And we're talking about very, very young children.
You know, the way the Privacy Act in the US is worded is that and that's the only reason why these platforms is US platforms have an age of thirteen.
Is the US Privacy Act sets that age.
But we know that in Australia and across the world, many parents are basically assisting their kids to fraudulently get access to social media in much younger than thirteen. And it was really heartening to see these principles of the private primary school principles coming out and supporting this lifting the age to sixteen. But it's only because the parents and news corps and the opposition put up such a state that the Prime Minister finally relented. He has been
utterly weak on this. He's been dragged, kicking and screaming, but they haven't.
Put a lot of thought into it. But ultimately it.
Will be the platforms that will have to be satisfied that someone is sixteen. What we're really concerned about in the opposition is these exemptions that Michelle Roland is now talking about. We don't think these exemptions should apply. We don't think that the social media platforms have demonstrated any social license whatsoever. They've really demonstrated that the kids are nothing more than an opportunity to raise money for them.
Andrew, I'm sorry we've got to move on, but to good luck those storms up there. I hope you don't get blown away. Let's bring in now Peter Wertheim, the co CEO of the Executive Council of Australian Jury. Now you're arguing this watered down hate speech bill from the federal government, which of course was a long time coming, doesn't go far enough. You say that the wording of the proposed legislation doesn't include enough forms of hate speech.
Explain what is your issue with the current state of the legislation.
Well, I take myardstick or starting point with some of the events that have occurred in recent times. Cast your mind back to last year October the ninth, twenty twenty twenty three, when we had a major demonstration at the fore court of the Opera House. The rhetoric was violent,
the behavior was menacing and intimidating. In keeping with that rhetoric, I would have thought that, judging by the reaction to it, including on Sky News which did a big exposie of that whole incident, people would have expected that that kind of conduct would already be against the law and should have been prosecuted. And yet there was no prosecution. There was no legal action taken in relation to it at all.
So I guess our starting point has to be do we believe that behavior in that category should be prosecutable? And if the answer is yes, then we have to gauge any potential legislation against that sort of behavior and see whether it would be prosecutable under that legislation. And the current bill does not have a provision in there which would enable a prosecution of that sort of behavior to occur.
So at the moment, the bill is basically suggesting that any that is a direct incitement to violence you are suggesting someone should do something would be considered hate speech, but perhaps a more indirect version of incitement to violence would not be included. Is that correct?
I think that's the way it's advertised, But difficultly with a sort of legislation Caleb, is that it's not always as advertised. The use of the word incitement has a particular meaning in common parlance. Most people would have thought that the behavior we saw at the opera House Forecourt would have fallen within the meaning of incitement, and yet the legal meaning is much narrower and much more constricted.
It's quite technical. I can get into the weeds of it if you like, but it doesn't necessarily correlate to the way most people use the word incitement in common parlance. And so for that reason, when you use the word incitement as the test for whether it's incitement to violence or even incitement to hatred in the criminal context, where you have to prove intention to incite beyond reasonable doubt, you're setting a very high bar, and a bar which
most prosecutors find impossible to overcome. And that's the reason why the sorts of behaviors that we've been discussing have gone unpunished.
Somehow, I suspect this might go the same way as the religious discrimination bill. No one seems to be happy with it. Peter, thank you so much for your time. Coming up after the break, Elon Musk has scored a
huge gig in the Trump administration. What this means for the United States and Australia with former Defense intelligence analyst Paul Munt later, but first, the boat smuggling debarcle is about to rear its ugly head again after another load of foreign and has found their way onto our shores. My political panel Daniel Molino and Keith Pitt join me next. Plenty more headlines to get across. Joining me in that endeavor Labor MP Daniel Molino and Nationals MP Keith Pitt.
Now four foreign nationals washed ashore on Croker Island, which is northeast of Darwin on Sunday night. The Northern Land Council confirmed this yesterday. They said the men were found by some local Aboriginal people. We don't know where they came from, only that they are no longer in Australia. Daniel, does this not just prove that our efforts to stop boats coming ashore simply isn't working.
Well, thanks for having me on, Caleb, No, it doesn't show that. The first thing I'd say is that the current government, as with the previous government, doesn't confirm or comment on the details of operational matters, and that's been our stance for a long time. The second thing is that even under the previous government, which had the Operation Sovereign Boarder's Framework, which has continued, voter rivals occurred. For example, there was one in twenty eighteen in Danetree, so voter
rivals occurred under the previous government. Also, the main point is that the policy framework has continued across and there is no way under the current framework that people arriving in Australia in that manner will be able to stay. And that's something which continues under this government and that's why this arrangement will continue to work.
Keith.
Your response to that, well, for those playing long at home, if you're counting Hanny illegal arrivals, there are. In terms of boats, you've run out of fingers and toes. It's twenty three and before the last election we had the albans as anything alban Easi's leader. The opposition say that nothing would change, there won't be any difference, it will all be the same. And yet we've seen that this
has been switched on again by people smugglers. You can't get away from facts twenty three illegal arrivals in terms of votes and in terms of ones when they get here all Unfortunately, when it was minus the Giles, they get let out. This is an ongoing problem. We know what happened last time. No one wants to see death
at sea. And yet in terms of funding and everything else that's needed to make border force successful, we see money pouring into things like as you said earlier, China, they wanted trillion dollars now for climate and don't forget that this government signed up to that. They've signed up to it expecting it to be in the billions and now it's in the trillions.
I think at the very least we should give a big hooray to with the indigenous people up north. I think this is at least the second occasion where they've been the waist to find out that these people have come ashore. Now, in other news, the Albanezy government has set up a National Productivity Fund, which means the states and territories will have to compete for money for plans to boost productivity growth. Nine hundred million dollars is up
for grabs for things like planning and zoning reform. Here's the treasure of Jim Charmers.
We're not seeking productivity growth at the cost of higher unemployment or by insisting Australians work longer for less. We're trying to apply a new thinking to the challenge by broadening our ambitions beyond the tired old slogans on debates central to industrial relations.
Daniel, one of the biggest problems we're facing as a country right now is slow productivity growth. A lot of what you see in terms of employment increasing employment is in the care sector, which happens to be largely funded by the federal government through the Ndis Is this nine hundred million dollars actually going to change anything?
So the first thing I'd say is that look, productivity growth has become harder right around the world in advanced economies. And I think there's a Martin Wolf article in the Financial Times today which goes to the heart of this, which is the productivity growth in the services sector is harder to achieve than in manufacturing and agriculture, and that's something we've seen over decades, so it's not a surprise
that that's something we're seeing here. The second point is I think these payments could make a huge difference and they're really worth exploring. When you go back to the Fred Hillmer reforms in the nineteen eighties and nineteen nineties, when you look at the report that Ian harbohanded down to the previous government on competition, incentive payments to the states were central.
To both of those approaches.
This is something which I think we can probably get bipartisan support on. It's important for two reasons. Firstly, it incentivizes states, and secondly, it recognizes the fact that a lot of the hard lifting in terms of policy change that's required is going to have to be undertaken by state governments. And yet a lot of the increases in revenue through income tax and corporate tax will go to the Commonwealth government. So it's only fair that the Komonwealth
government should pass on some of that benefit. So I think this is very sensible and I think it will help well if.
We want to have that discussion about money going to the Commonwealth government. We could always go back to the pre war set up where the state had control of income tax. For that to discussion for another day. But Keith, I don't quite understand why we the taxpayer need to pay the states to reform things like their planning systems. Shouldn't they just be doing that anyway.
Well, no matter what the question is, Labour's answer is always spend more taxpayers money. And I can tell you where productivity can be improved, and that is in policy settings from the cabinet of the Australian government. You don't need to spend enormous amounts of money to fix this. You need to stop doing things like sending our industrial relations programs back to the nineteen seventies. We've got interest rates which have had twelve increases, We've got electricity and
gas costs out of control. It makes people uncompetitive. The fundamentals of business don't change. For them to be successful, they have to be competitive internationally if they're looking to export. And we have a government that is hell bent on giving the unions everything that they want, spending more taxpayer money, which is driving up inflation. And the RBA and themselves have said this is an issue and yet here we go as another nine hundred million for the states who have thought it.
Now, the PM doesn't seem to think it's worth catching up with Donald Trump before he becomes the US president again. Albaneze hask not back the suggestion from the opposition that he had to stop in Florida to see Trump on his way to the APEC leaders meetings in Rio de Janeiro this week. Daniel ort he, you know, I know he's had a phone call, but aught he actually have a face to face discussion. I don't think there'd be any harm in it, would there.
Well, look, I think it's interesting that some of the people calling for this have also been the same people who roundly criticized the PM for traveling too much. So there's a bit of interest there that brazenly self promoting here. I'm just in the process of finishing up a book on PM president relations back to Federation, and I've actually interviewed all former pms on their relations with presidents, including Turnbull and Morrison's relations.
We've got too much farming heads and my.
Lessons from that are that I think the way to succeed with Trump is going to be firstly to show him on each of the issues that comes up. What's in it for the US, secondly to be straightforward and thirdly to build trust. And so I think that's the approach we need to take as issues come up. I think we need to approach it in that way, and I think we'll do very well. He's very open minded to dealing with Australia in a positive way.
I believe, gents, we're only got ten seconds before the break, Keith. Should he meet.
Him well as soon as possible.
We're supportive.
The best thing Kevin Rudd could do is reach out to Jenna Reinhart make a special.
Enjoying gents, thank you so much for your time. After the break, Donald Trump, we're just talking about him. His cabinet is starting to take shape after a wave of announcements. It includes, of course billionaire buddy Elon Musk and what are we going to do about Kevin Rud all of that with Paulmnk Right after this, let's go back to
the United States. Donald Trump has announced that billionaire richest man in the world, Elon Musk, and of course former GOP presidential candidate Vivic Aswami will have roles in his administration. They're going to lead the Department of Government Efficiency, which the President elect said will dismantle government bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure federal agencies. In other words, the Manhattan Project of our time. Let's bring in our
former defense intelligence analyst Monk Paul. I suspect there are a few bureaucrats in the US tonight who might be quietly changing their underwear at the thought of what's going to happen here. How much would this change the way government operates in the US, do you.
Think, Well, a great deal depends of course, on how precisely and efficiently do I say it's carried out. So let's be in no doubt that party politics and ideology are such a site. The US is running massive deficits, and they're not sustainable, and the real thrust of those deficits, the real cause of them, is unfunded entitlement. So something has to be done. An Elon Musk, in his customary way, is such a visionary and an innovator, says let's do
something about this like we mean it. So I think that he's been appointed to this role, is itself a very interesting development, But the question of precisely how to go about it when he's starting from scratch and doesn't himself have a substantial staff to work with to do the enormous amount of reviewing that would have to go into such a program gives one pause because there are
a lot of ways to get this wrong. I would hope the administration's not intimidated by the scale of the task, and that they set about it in a systematic way that remains to be seen.
And if there's anyone who can do it, I think it's Elon Musk. I just wish we could have one of these here. We've found out today we've spent another five billion dollars on more public servants, one person who is sort of trying to save his career as well under the Trump administration. Of course, our very own Kevin Rudd, one of Trump's senior advisors, Dan Scavino Junior, post to
this on X It's a pretty pointed warning. I would have thought to our ambassador to the United States, the time is running out.
Yes, well, in a sense, it would probably be running out even without Donald Trump winning the election, because Kevin is a labor appointee and we may well have a liberal or coalition government by halfway through next year. But the reality is that Kevin has a bad habit of expressing strong opinions personal opinions out of turn and Kim Beasley made a very sage remark at the time when Kevin is appointed, saying that that Kevin needs to learn the role of an ambassador is not to express opinions,
it is to cultivate relationships. But I think Kevin can't help himself, and the birds or the chickens are coming home to roost. It'll be interesting, therefore, to see what actually falls out of this in the next couple of months.
Yeah, we've got fifty seconds left. I've been surprised by the reaction of some very learned people who've actually said, will there's really nothing much to worry about here, including his defenders has been Tony Abbott, which I was surprised by.
It is interesting. I'm not sure what motivated that. Maybe it's an xpm's club, because Turnbull has been defending him as well, you know, and Turnbull pointedly and I think very correctly, declined to endorse Kevin's desire to become Secretary General of the United nations. Heaven knows, the UNS dysfunctional enough as it is without having Kevin at the steering wheel. So I think it's it's probably fair to say that, whatever one's criticisms of him, Kevin is a high intelligent perts.
And then he's doubtless done some good things while there. One of the things, as you know, he's just done, is he's published on Sidy and Pinion.
Yeah, and I'm sorry we've run out of time. He is knowledgeable on China, but somehow I suspect this is going to be a problem. Thank you for joining me, and thank you all at home for joining me. Scherry will be back tomorrow night. And he's back. Paul Murray is here in the man Cave.