Life sharing well tonight, we haven't seen a budget reply speech. Peter Dutton has delivered a pitch for Australia if he were the Prime minister. There have been major policy announcements tonight, including a two year ban on foreign investors from buying Ozsie Holmes and slashing immigration levels to just one hundred and forty thousand a year. This is a bold speech and Dutton is unapologetic as he announces controversial and tough measures in housing, immigration, energy and crime.
This is because this Labor government has made life so much tougher for Australians, because this Labor government has set our country on a very dangerous course.
Dutton will fight the next election from this platform. He's got nineteen seats that he needs to win to get into majority government. It is a tough ask. He won't get close without a point of difference. His vision tonight clearly sets the coalition apart from Labour's vision for Australia. You think back to rud howard two thousand and seven election. The policies were virtually identical, but Peter Dutton and Anthony Albanesi's vision for Australia couldn't be further apart.
Today, millions of Australians are struggling to pay their bills. Even going to the supermarket and petrol station has become stressful for so many. Prime Minister, Australians are genuinely hurting under your government.
Here tonight, in the past half an hour, Peter Dutton has given a speech playing to the coalition's strengths and brutally exposing Labour's areas of weakness and vulnerability. He's outlined major policies in the area of domestic violence, immigration, housing.
Health and energy.
He knows that in this cost of crisis, with social cohesion at breaking point, plus the scandal of detainees released onto the streets without monitoring only to allegedly bash.
A grandmother in one case.
With this backdrop, Dutton knows the public are looking to his opposition and wondering if they've got the credibility, the substance and the policies.
To be in office.
Well, here were the key points from Dutton's Budget reply speech that we've just heard. On immigration, Dutton tied this closely to home ownership. In a major policy announcement, Dutton said he'll ban for two years foreign investors and temporary residents from buying existing homes in Australia have a listener.
We believe that by rebalancing the migration program and taking decisive action on the housing crisis, the Coalition can free up almost forty thousand additional homes in the first year and well over one hundred thousand homes in the first five years. First, we will implement a two year ban on foreign investors and temporary residents purchasing existing homes in Australia.
A ban for two years. That's a big policy announcement. He'll also cut immigration to one hundred and forty thousand for the first two years, he says, to recognize the urgency of the home ownership crisis. He says then permanent migration levels will increase to one hundred and fifty thousand in the third year and one sixty thousand in the fourth year. Now, what we've seen under Labor is that immigration levels have soared to over half a million a year.
Dutton's moved to slash it to.
Just one hundred and forty thousand for the first two years is likely to be a popular policy. The high number of immigrants has put extreme pressure on housing, particularly in the rental market and it's pushed up inflation and thus contributed to rate rises. Now, home ownership, as we heard tonight, it was a major pledge of Dutton's and this will be his mantra in the lead up to
the next election. He says the dream of home ownership has turned into a nightmare, and he says even finding somewhere to rent is nearly impossible.
Now.
It's wonderful that parents in some circumstances with financial means can help their kids into a home, but I will never accept a situation where the only people who can afford to buy a home in our country are those with the support of their parents.
Now, energy was another area we heard a lot from Peter Dutton tonight on energy. In an announcement that will upset the likes of billionaire Twiggy Forest, Dutton said he'd pull the proposed thirteen billion dollar mega giveaway to green hydrogen and critical minerals. He says these projects should stand on their own without taxpayer subsidies. He also said he'd defund the Environmental Defender's Office, which is blocking projects, and he'll unlocked gas in key basins.
There's little chance of labor bringing new gas supply to the system because it's ideologically opposed to guess and it's more worried about winning votes from the Greens inter city seats that it is worried about people living in suburbs or in regional towns around the country.
Now, Dutton said in his vision for Australia there is a place for renewable energy as part of the mix, but he says there's no need for fifty eight million solar panels, three five hundred wind farms and twenty eight thousand kilometers of transmission polls and wires now, make no mistake about it. Energy policy will be an area of clear contest between Albanesi and Dutton in the lead up to the next election, and tonight we've heard from Dutton
that he's reiterated his commitment to nuclear. He says Australia has three energy goals cheaper, consistent and cleaner power, and he says that all of these goals can be achieved by including zero emission nuclear power in our energy mix and by ramping up domestic gas production nuclear power.
We can maximize the highest yield of energy per square meter and minimize our environmental damage. We do that by putting new nuclear technologies on or near the brown field sites of decommissioned or retiring coal fire power plants using the existing grid.
Now, Peter Dutton referred to some of Labour's great prime ministers tonight and when he was speaking about nuclear he referred to Bob Hawk and also John Howard as too who've expressed support for nuclear power. He also cited Pole's showing that sixty five percent of Australians aged eighteen.
To thirty four or so back nuclear.
Now tonight we heard Dutton say that he'd tear up Labour's complex IRA agenda. This has been very controversial and unpopular with the business community.
And industry and lobby groups as well.
Now, on national security, Peter Dutton said it's going to take a coalition government to stop the people smugglers. On his past experience here, he says that they will be able to deport criminals. And also he spoke about anti Semitism and he pledged to provide what he described as moral and political leadership to make it abundantly clear that
the law needs to be enforced on university campuses. And he said he'll make sure that the law wouldn't be enforced reluctantly, but readily, as he put it, against those who incite hatred and violence.
Have a look.
Anti Semitism is not just a threat to one segment of our community. It's a threat to our social cohesion and to our democratic values. We will also provide the moral and political leadership which makes it abundantly clear that we expect the law to be enforced readily, not reluctantly, against those inciting hatred and violence.
In law enforcement, Peter Dutton said it will also become a crime to post criminal acts online. He says those convictors will be banned from using digital platforms and even face up to two years in prison. So quite a strong announcement there, and he pledged to work with states and territories to give police the power to stop and
search people for knives using detector ones. He said he'd also work with state and territories to ban the sale and possession of knives, both to minors and dangerous criminals. He also wants to work with the states to tighten bail laws. Now we've seen New Southell's Premier Chris Mins take recent action in this regard, we haven't seen so much from the other states, but Dartan says there are areas of domestic violence that do fall under the Commonwealth Code.
He says it'll be a criminal offense to use a mobile phone or a computer network to cause a family member or an intimate partner to fear for their safety or to engage in coercive behavior. Now the bail laws that relate to these what would be new Commonwealth offenses.
He says those laws will be tough now.
In his speech tonight, just in the past forty minutes, Peter Dutton laid out his vision for Australia.
This is what he wants.
His leadership to look like if he were to become Prime minister. And he spoke very strongly of Australians who've been left behind by the Labor government and who have no longer been able to own their own homes or even have a place to live. And here he referred to another great Labor Prime Minister, Paul Keating and Treasurer when he repeated this phrase of Keatings twice in his speech.
He said when governments change, the country changes, and Darton mounted the argument that Australians are now worse off less safe and less secure than they were two years ago. Now I'm going to bring in my political panel now in a moment for analysis about Peter Dutton's budget reply speech and what this means now for the next election. Matt Canavan and Joe Kelly would join me. But also on the show tonight, we're going to look at the
national domestic violence crisis. It is in the spotlight, but one podcast host, a former ABC host, is highlighting the problem around the way we should speak about it. Josh Zepps would join me live. He's making headlines today. He'll be in studio also tonight, concerns over the ABC's inability to report on the explosion of anti Semitism across Australia.
The former ABC director Joe Gersh will join me live. Shortly, plus officials suspend funding to a US research organization, the EcoHealth Alliance, that was linked to funding at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. I'm going to speak with one Washington federal investigator later in the hour, but now let's bring in National Senator Matt Canavan and The Australian's National Affairs editor Joe Kelly. Welcome to you, both, Joe and Matt. Look, Matt, starting with you, this was a strong pitch from Peter
Darton tonight, particularly on housing, immigration and energy. Do you think this is going to provide a clear option for Australians whether to vote for Albanezi or Darton.
Well. I think it was a very strong contribution from Peter.
He has correctly diagnosed the situation in this country. The country's clearly not on track and it's kind of off the rails since the Labor government came to power two years ago.
People's grocery bills have gone through the roof.
For mortgage payments, how to control the border doesn't seem to be controlled.
There's just enormous numbers of people coming over here.
People can't find a house, that alone, buy a house just finding a bed. I meaning is something has gone seriously wrong in this country over the past two years. And I think the important thing to know is Peter's not just diagnosed that. He's also outlined some very strong treatments that the coalition would do, like banning foreigners from buying homes for a couple of years, like significantly cutting back on those migration numbers that have been allowed to
grow by too much. Stronger penalties for crime as well. These are the sort of things we do need to
being a government focused on the local issues. I think we've had a government the last couple of years that has been distracted with the global preoccupations of an elite class that want to see massive climate change action, that want to see open borders, that want to drive device of proposals like the Voice, whereas Peter speech is very much pitched I think at the hearth of the home of every Australian's home about giving people opportunity to get into a home, to be able to pay the bills
in that home, to feel safe and secure in that home, and ultimately then build and support a great family in the home as well.
Joe Kelly, you know, I'm really interested in your analysis of this speech because to me, very clearly that wasn't a budget apply speech.
That was a pitch for the Prime ministership.
A Sherry.
I think it was a punchy and political speech from Peter Dutton. I think he's trying to really draw some larger contrasts between himself and Anthony Albanezi his philosophy and Labour's philosophy. Labor is talking about big, sweeping, transformational change. Jim Chalmers is talking about forging an entirely new economy, turning Australia into a renewable energy superpower. They're saying the changes the world are going through are the most significant
since the Industrial Revolution. Peter Dutton is thinking smaller and simpler in a way, and as Matt said, he's thinking more about the issues that a family would be talking about around the kitchen table. This is the cost of living, energy, migration, housing, law and order, and so that's what he's focused on in the budget reply. I think we got a little more detail on housing and migration. But the other thing is he's really called out the budget with a very
strong attack. He says it fails two tests. Essentially, he's saying it's wrong for the times. He's saying fails the inflation challenge. But secondly he's put a big stake right through the heart of the Future Made in Australia agenda, rejecting those thirteen point six billion dollars for production tax credits for green hydrogen and critical minerals. So those political battle lines have been really emphasized and entrenched tonight by Peter Dutton.
I mean Matt Canavan.
Dutton has put energy firmly on the table, you know, he said, yes, renewables have a place, but he's not interested in there's thirteen billion dollars the subsidies for the lack of green hydrogen and cleaner minerals.
And he's also said that.
We need nuclear in the mix and we need more gas production. Do you think this is going to open up again, particularly in the teal seats there's climate change battle.
Well, shure, I think most people around the country are just worried about paying their bills right now, and they would include lots of people in the teal seats too. Yes, those seats tend to have higher than average incomes. But everybody has been feeling the pinch across Australia in the past couple of years. I mean, real wages under this government have gone backwards ten years over ten just over ten years. We're back to levels of wages we haven't
seen since twenty eleven. And so everybody is feeling the pinch right now. And I'll riff off what Joe said as well, that Future made an Australia program. It's really been designed in the boardrooms, the corporate boardrooms of this country directly gives subsidies to some of the largest corporations in our nation. Whereas what Peter's trying to design here, only what the coalition will take the next selection, is something that helps people around their kitchen table pay their
power bills. Because what good is installing eighty two percent of renewables in Australia if people can't afford to pay for it.
That's the path we're on right now. We need to get a better balance into our energy system.
And even myself, I mean I'll be doing mischaracterized lots, but I've always said there's a role for renewables in our system. It's just about finding the right balance. An eighty two percent of our power system coming from types of power that dependent on the weather is not the right approach. We have to install power options which can be there all the time so that people's bills can be lower all of the time as well.
Yeah, look, it's going to be a fascinating fight. This gives us a fight, gives us something to talk about. Matt Canavan, Joe Kelly, thank you very much for joining me with that analysis.
There.
Now, don't go anywhere. We've got a Big Show tonight. I've still got Steve Price, I've got Jason Morrison coming up. Josh Zepp's, the former ABC host, will join me live, plus the former ABC director Joe Gersh and he's scathing about why it's taken Sky News to do a documentary Josh Fridenberg into antisemitism and not the public broadcaster. Stay tuned, Big Show this hour, Welcome back. Okay, we're going to come back to the budget reply speech in a moment.
Josh Zepp's will also join me live. But first now to our public broadcaster. Now, we've seen sickening displays of anti Semitism in Australia on campuses, in companies and on the streets. It's a major story unfolding in our country right now at crisis point. Yet the ABC has failed to cover it in any meaningful way. Instead, the public broadcaster is happy to delve into the subject of Islamophobia and provide a platform to people like Anthony Lowenstein, who has called for a one state solution.
Seeing what has happened to Gaza since October seventh has been heartbreaking.
I'm so ashamed. I'm so ashamed because it's been done in my.
Name and I think it's important that Jews or non Jews are really challenged on what they're backing.
The ABC also produced a four corners piece on the war, led by John Lyons, who's been very critical of Israel, including claiming that Australia's support of Israel is illogical and unhealthy.
If you were a Palestinian living in the West Bank or Gaza, what would your view be of Israel?
I would fight against Israel in order to achieve my liberty?
How would you fight?
How dirty?
I will do everything in order to achieve my liberty. And that's it.
So where's the ABC's documentary on anti Semitism that's risen and by over seven hundred percent since October the seventh.
As Peter Dutton just spoke about tonight.
It's shameful that the public broadcaster hasn't examined this topic and it's left to us at Sky News and former Treasurer Josh Fredenberg to produce the only substantial documentary on this subject to date. Now I put questions to the ABC on this. I asked them that separate from Islamophobia, and separate from whether anti Semitism and anti Zionism are indistinguishable because.
They have covered that.
Has the ABC covered the story of the explosion in anti semitism in Australia this year on any of their flagship programs. Now they just directed me to the search results page on the ABC's news website, which showed nothing of substance. Now, the former ABC director Joe Gersh is calling this out and he joins me, Now, Joe, what do you think of the ABC failing to properly examin this crisis that we're seeing in Australia.
Well, good evening, Shari. As you know, I'm a supporter of the ABC, or at least the supporter of a strong, independent and impartial ABC as a critical part of our national conversation. I was a director for a period of five years. I saw the promotion that you had last week of Josh Friedenberg's documentary and the commentary that you've made at that time and subsequently, and I observed independently of you and put on social media. My concern, which is why has it fallen to Sky News and Josh.
That's not a criticism of Sky News or Josh, but it is a matter of deep concern to me as a member of the Jewish community, as a former ABC director and as an Australian citizen, that our national broadcaster has not fully understood and dealt with what I believe has reached crisis proportion, which is anti Semitism in this country.
But Charie, I might just say that I think that even since you announced Josh's documentary and called this to light, I think we've reached an inflection point in the public conversation about anti Semitism. The Prime Minister said this week that this is the worst that he's seen in his lifetime. We had the Leader of the Opposition's speech tonight which
you referred to earlier. You had the Senate today passer motion, a bipartisan motion which said that from the River to the Sea, which is the mantra of the Harmas supporters and many of the Palestinian supporters, is offensive, is anti Semitic, and is out of place. We've had Vice chancellors some come out and say what's going on on campus is outrageous and unacceptable. So the conversation is moving and moving quickly.
But I find it deeply disappointing that the ABC didn't lead this conversation and hasn't really joined in.
On it.
Now, Joe.
Look, we've spoken and done interviews a lot of times in the past, and you were often on the other side defending the ABC from accusations of vias.
And I think the issue is if you.
Look at any one piece of ABC content that people complain about, it can be defended. You can say, oh, well there was balance in any one piece of content. We gave a voice to this one, and we gave a voice.
To this one.
But I think the issue is the overall subjects that they're covering and what they're not covering. So what we're seeing here is that they're not covering this crisis.
I mean, do you think it's a case I.
Mean you've been there, Joe, You've been in the room, You've sat at the board table, You've pushed back on some of these issues. Do you think it's a case of the people who work at the ABC not caring about the Jewish community? Do you think they are more pro Palestinian?
Is that what it is?
Well, yes, I've been in the room as a director, although as you know, the directors of the ABC don't run editorial content. I've also been in the room my hotel room in Tel Aviv when three hundred cruise missiles, drones and other projectiles were flung at Israel, thankfully unsuccessfully. I visited down south and saw what Hamas got up to.
So I've been in not only in the room at the ABC, but in the room dealing with dealing with the issue on the ground, and with some regret and some trepidation, I would say this that one of the reasons the ABC is not part of the solution here is that it's part of the problem that for the reason that you've identified. You identified John Lyons in your introduction. He's an experienced journalist and he's knowledgeable on the subject.
But he's written a book which makes it very clear where he stands on the question of Israel, but then a monograph in which he roundly attacked the Jewish communities, organizations and advocacy groups for standing up and defending Israel. Now he has a right to his views, obviously, but how can he be the lead spokesman on global affairs at the ABC dealing with this issue with that particular position you've mentioned the Lowenstein He is a stock standard
anti Israel spokesman. The fact that he has Jewish parentage is a curiosity, but not to the point now Compass is the leading religious affairs program and yet it deals with this fringe issue and fringe person. Frankly, instead of asking this question, why is it that, for the first time in living memory, Jews in Australia have been part of the fabric of this society are saying to themselves is Jewish life viable in the medium to long term
in Australia? And that is a very serious consideration. But as I say, even in the week since you've promoted that documentary, which I'm very much looking forward to seeing, I think the conversation has changed. I think that conversation has I think that conversation is changing, and it's not before time. But there's a lot more work to be done. But it begins sharing with one thing, which is recognizing,
acknowledging and addressing the problem. And I would like to see the ABC front and center in that endeavor.
And unfortunately they surely won't be. Joe Gersh, thank you very much for coming on air, for speaking out on Sky News, not on the public broadcaster where you are a director.
Thank you so much for your time.
And of course Anthony Lowenstein also won the Walkley Book of the Year award and the Walkley's had a pro Palestinian activist as a host.
So that's where our media industry is now.
From Molly Tyshost to Hannah Clarke, the horror deaths of women have galvanized the nation and put a spotlight on domestic violence. Former ABC host Josh Zepps, who's got a podcast now called Uncomfortable Conversations, has been in the news today. He was on ben Fordham this morning. He's been in the news because of an episode he did called the Problem with the Conversation about male violence.
Here's a snippet.
Yes, let's try to pursue whatever policies make sense in order to reduce violence. But in order to do so, presumably we want the largest cohort of males to be on board with this mission, not feeling alienated because they're being accused of doing things that they haven't done.
Now and Josh Zepp's joins me in studio. Now, Josh, thank you so much for your time. So you know what has been Why has this episode been so controversial? Do you think I mean you want to You basically are saying that at the moment the conversation that we're having is overly blaming men for the problem when really it's.
Just a few.
Well, I mean, let's think clearly, the men who deserve blame deserve the blame, and violent men need to be shunned by all of us. And domestic violence is tragic whenever, whenever it happens, and we should do everything we can to try to help people who are in relationship with bullies exit those relationships. The reason why I do uncomfortable conversations the podcast is when I can notice an important issue that I care deeply about being cleaved into two
kind of phony binaries. And in this case, there seems to be a perspective of either men don't care and men are part of the problem, or we have to agree that men need to do more, men need to
step up. Men are killing women at horrifying rates. So I just wanted to break down the data of what those rates actually are see how we're doing in the interest of trying to help create a conversation where young women don't necessarily feel more afraid of walking down the street than they need to, and where the largest cohort of men as possible can be included in the conversation can try to understand why some men are violent and
most aren't. And I mean just this happens so often with these kinds of issues, as you know, you know, whether it's about race, or about feminism or about transgender or something like that, people hunker down into these kind of rival teams. And all I'm trying to do is occupy I suppose the radical center or the sensible middle, and say, hang on, let's just let's just cool it a little bit.
You know, center zony radical if you come from the ABC by the way.
Well, I mean I just I think there's a there's a space, and there's actually a hunger. And one of the reasons for the gratifying success of the podcast so far is that people are thirsty for people who can talk about controversial issues without constantly worrying about treading on eggshells or what trip wise they may trigger with their allies, or how well they can signal their own virtue to people who are on supposedly the right side of history.
I'm about having faired income conversations. So I put out this episode of the podcast.
I didn't know I was going.
To do so well, and I didn't know that it was going to cause the conversations that's caused. But on the one hand, I'll have responses from you know, as many men, as many women as men, saying thank you for talking sense and thank you for trying to bring a spotlight to what is actually going on instead of
engaging in hyperbole on one side or the other. And then I also have the predictable backlash where I had get a lot of feedback from very angry people who are missing the point completely and saying you don't get it. Men need to do better. Men are killing women. You know, I feel safer. They were holding up signs saying I'd feel safer with a bear than I would with a man,
and this kind of rhetoric. I mean, if what you're trying to do is understand a violent cohort, then think about what we've done with something like terrorism, for example, where the you know, extremism experts will say you want a sideline and exclude the people who are violent from the rest of their cohorts. So you want to say, to Muslims, for example, we're not blaming all of you for jihadism. We're trying to understand why ghardists are jihadists, and we want you to be on side in that fight.
And I think there's a similar analogy that can be drawn with the case of violence against women. You want men to be on side. So what we should be saying is, let's understand why there is violence in specifically domestic relationships, and by the way that violence exists in lesbian relationships, it exists in same sex gay relationships. There's something about the dynamic of being in an intimate relationship and foster.
But what we've seen this year very clearly.
You know, the deaths of twenty eight women, and in many of the cases it's a repeat offender. It's it's a partner or an ex partner who the women knew and had complained to authorities was threatening her or stalking her, and the person had been let out on bail. I mean, that's why he was free to commit the attack. So that's what we're seeing at the moment. But then this conversation is happening where all men need to take responsibility for this. So you know, what you're saying is it's
not the case women. And you know in your in your piece, you say there are some women who are walking down the street just afraid of half the population.
Yeah, I don't think it's constructive. Like, I mean, so these these repeat offenders and these and I can honestly say, like I have people say, you know, men need to push back better, and men need to do more at
standing up to the other men in their midst. I can say if you say that the number of times that I've been sitting in a pub and with a bunch of mates and one of them has admitted to abusive or coercive control over an intimate partner, let alone physical violence, is zero, And if that did happen, then everyone else would immediately jump on that person and say, mate,
that is not on. So what is it exactly that I'm supposed to be doing about the other men in our midst except for supporting policies that can identify those people earlier and target those people specifically rather than targeting all males. And I mean, I think we're also conflating here the problem of domestic control and domestic abuse with the supposed threat of women being killed randomly. I mean, one reason why this has all come up at the moment is because last month was a terrible month for
men killing women in Australia. But almost half of the women who were killed by men in Australia last month were in the bond Bi stabbing. So I mean five of the eleven last month were in one very anomalous attack.
Right.
So I don't want.
To foster environment or men are blamed, but that you might still feel unsafe as a woman going for a run by yourself. I don't know many well, I wouldn't go for a run to park by myself.
You know.
So look, there are a few things into isolated.
There are a few things going into that. Part of it might be the actual risk, and part of it might be that the way we're having the conversation about the stinks, and so you feel unduly concerned when actually the data, you know, I think it was about one hundred and eighteen women in the last financial year, which is where they keep the records, were killed. I mean these are not that this is the third lowest there is.
I wouldn't go for a run, by the way, and I don't run.
He's the third lowest rate in thirty years. And I just want some perspective here, right, I mean, I should be men are killed at more than twice the rate of women in this country, admittedly by other men, but I mean I sort of moderate my concern about being killed by another man on the basis of what the facts are, rather than on the basis of us constantly
whipping up hysteria. I have the benefit of not living in a country that is constantly telling me that men are in danger, even though I am in twice more than twice as much danger as I would be if I was a woman of just randomly being killed by a man on the street. So part of our fear comes from reality, but part of it also comes from this drum beat of relentlessness.
I've going to go.
We're out of time because because Peter Dutton's a fly speech ate into my show. It's night uncomfortable conversation where people can hear more and I really enjoy your podcast.
Thank you so much for joining me, Josh.
Now after the break, Chris Bowens, let's slip the real reason for labors three hundred dollars energy rebate My panel, Steve Price Jason Morrison will join me next.
Welcome back all right.
For further analysis of Peter Dutton's budget reply speech, Let's bring in Sky News host Steve Price and commentator Jason Morrison.
Welcome to you both.
Jason, let's start with you a debate here about energy. How do you think this is going to be received by Australians.
Well, Australians don't just want a debate. They want action, and they want action that is going to push down their prices. And I guess this is the drama at the moment that the fellow running energy in Australia at the moment doesn't think that that's a priority. Yeah, he thinks his band Aid solutions, which today was almost humiliated
by trying to sell it. And yet at the same time the coalition I think it's got a problem because the front man might be into it, but there's a whole lot of snakes all riddle through the Liberal Party at the moment who actually don't agree with it and handbreaks on any progress on energy policy. I think that's a big problem actually, And as much as Dunton's got some great ideas, can he carry the back bench who really have been pretty good at kicking home goals for a long time.
Steve Price, what did you think of Dutton's response tonight? How do you think this frames the run up to the next federal election.
Well, I think when you described it as more of an election speech and a budget speech and reply, you're a spot on. And we're going to have now an election that's going to be fought on some central issues finally migration, nuclear power and energy energy costs, and we're going to find another election on climate change. Luck we have for so many elections going back years and years and years now. But the Liberal Party, and you know, I hope Jason's not right that the snakes come wriggling
out from the background again. But the Liberal Party, the National Party, the Coalition have firmly laid out a difference to Labor and Anthony Albanesi. We haven't had an election where there has been such stark differences for a long time. Had now come Turnble running the joint even Scott Morrison that they did not have the I won't use the word. I was going to the courage perhaps to be different. Dunton has those things and he's going to show the Australian public that he's willing to do it.
Look, we saw today front page of the Daily Telegraph and accusation against Anthony Alberanesi that his tenant living in his investment property in Sydney's Inner West was handed in a viction notice.
Jason Morrison. A lot of people have come out.
Today and said, oh, well, you know, fair enough, if Albanzi wants to Sully's house, he can.
What do you think.
I know why this is a story, because there's a great story, But I also kind of look at this and I think this fella is a damn winger. You've been given three months to vacate. Not many people get three months to vacate, and not many people get rend as cheap as he's had it for as long as he's had it. He should be thankful that he had a landlord who was as tolerant to keep the rate as low as he did for as long as he did, and to give him that amount of flak.
I had someone who's close.
To me who was given three weeks to get out of a place, and you know, three weeks in this climate and a city like Sydney is impossible. What I mean, I actually, you know, we've just been talking about particular kinds of people. I think this fellow fits in the particular kind of people category. I think as a real low thing for him to do because he's had a very good run for a very long time and he ought to be thankful.
Steve Price more than anything.
Though, doesn't it highlight that the Prime Minister has investment properties while people are and the career mail has in Queensland has covered this really well. Some people are seeing eight hundred properties just to rent them and they're unable to find a place.
Look, we have a rental crisis. I think Jason's been kind on that blow calling him a winder. I think he's a pain in the neck. He got his rent decrease from eight hundred dollars a week to six hundred during COVID and the Prime Minister didn't put it up again after COVID was over. Now the Prime Minister having rental properties, I don't have a problem with that. He's been in Parliament for a long time, he's earned a pretty good salary. He's both's been through a marriage breakdown,
but he's still got some investments. That's okay. He wants to change his private arrangements. He's probably going to buy a bigger house when he gets married to Jody this year. But this bloke has really annoyed me today. As Jason said, he's lucky he's got a roof over his head. We had a rental inspection for a vacant apartment in the block I live in in Melbourne ocasionally and there was
one hundred people queued up out the front. Yes, so the bloke should think he's lucky stars that he's had somewhere to live.
Now, what about this?
Jason Scott Morrison met with Donald Trump overnight posted a picture to Instagram. Anthony Alberinezi didn't exactly welcome the news. Even though Scomo has been able to get a meeting with Kevin Rudd. Sorry Scoma has been able to get a meeting with Trump whereas trump bags.
Actually I think.
Both are right.
Actually, I would imagine Albanezy has struggled to get a meeting with Rudd as well. Look, you know that is Australia's great, big problem in America right now, is Kevin Rudd. Because look, we don't know how it's going to go. It looks like it's going to go Trump way, but whoever knows. But what we do know is that a former prime minister and a former treasurer and thankfully a few others in Australian politics have got a reasonable relationship with She really said it that I don't have a
problem with it all. And good on him, frankly for going and doing it. He's a free citizen to do as he pleases.
Maybe he should be the ambassadator.
What about those awards behind Steve look at they are radio awards reward radio.
Journalist chief Price.
Jason Morrison is great to see you now after the break, a COVID investigator from Washington would join me with a major development.
Stay tuned.
Well.
Major news today that the US government has suspended funding for EcoHealth Alliance. This is the organization that US taxpayer funds to conduct gain a function that's risky research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology before the outbreak of COVID nineteen. To break this down, let's bringing now US federal investigator Diane Cutler. Diane, thank you so much for joining us tonight. I know it's early in the morning where you are, so tell us the significance of this announcement today.
Hi, sure, thanks for having me. It's good to see you. This is a significant development in the COVID origins investigation because EcoHealth Alliance is a nonprofit organization that did funnel money US research money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for dangerous coronavirus research and uh you know, it's been under investigation since well Real licensed the onset of of COVID when we learned when we first learned that Eco Health had grants that were going to the Wuhan Institute
of Virology. So Eco Health has not behaved properly. They have been out of compliance with all of the with the laws and regulations that are required of a US federal grandee, but they were not held accountable. Inn IH, which is one of the primary grant givers to ego Health, continue to even though they originally they suspended NIH suspended Eco Health's grants to to investigate if they had if their research had caused the pandemic. Quite frankly, and.
Diana, it's quite incredible when you think that paida Dajik from Acohealth Alliance was initially one of the investigators that went into Wuhan to try and find out the origins of the virus, and now his very organization has had its funding, it can't get grants anymore.
I mean, this is a massive admission.
Well, it's a suspension I just want to caution that it is a suspension, it's not, which means all of the AHHS grants currently are suspended to Eco Health, So any of the activities or any of the research that they are conducting right now will not be reimbursed pending the outcome of an investigation that now AGHS has to
take on. And they're going to do their due diligence to independently assess whether or not this suspension should be upheld and if it should go further to a debarment of all federal grand times.
Yeah, it's a huge development today. Diane Cautler really appreciate your time. You weren't involved in this particular investigation, but Diane has spent months and months over a year examining EcoHealth Alliance, their grants, their tax.
It's been a lot of work.
Now, thank you so much for your company this week. I'll see you Monday at eight. And here's Paul Mara