Live on Sky News.
This is Sharry.
Good Evening.
Welcome to the show tonight bombshell revelations about how Palestinian visas were issued without any manual checks at all. Security insiders tell me visitor visas have been approved in an automated process, with intelligence agencies later scrambling those exclusive details in a moment.
The Prime Minister.
Today under pressure over questions around national security. Shadow Immigration Minister Dan Tian will be on the show a bit later and will cross live to the US after the first day of the Democratic National Convention. I'll get Republican US Acting Attorney General Matthew Whittaker's take on the star studded show later on, But first tonight to our exclusive revelation that visas to Palestinians have been approved without any
manual security checks at all. Concerned security insiders told me today that visitor visas have been approved for Gazans in an automated process. This has left intelligence agencies later scrambling to ensure that none pose a risk to national security. This shocking revelation comes as figures show Australia is taking more Palestinians from Gaza than almost anywhere in the developed world, and far more than surrounding Islamic countries. Yet the Albanezi
government security process is weaker than other nations. Data shows Australia has issued visas to two nine hundred and twenty two Palestinians, one thy five hundred are already in the country. By contrast, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway and Spain were among thirty five countries not to take in any Palestinians since octob seven. Of our five Eyes allies, the US accepted only seventeen one hundred and sixty eight to the UK, twenty seven to New Zealand, and forty one to Canada.
Neighboring Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia have taken in none, according to data compiled by the Coalition, and Spain is fascinating. It's one of the leading pro Palestinian countries politically, it's already recognized Palestine as an independent country. Yet it's taken in no Palestinians since October seven. And there's a reason. The intense security risk. It's something the powerful chair of the United States Congressional Foreign Affairs Committee spoke to me
about on Thursday. Michael McColl said that her mask sympathizers could be ticking time bombs.
You have to properly vet individuals before you bring them in to your country, otherwise you could be bringing in, you know, ticking time bonds, hamas or other terrorists that could cause problems.
Now, these guasans were given visitor visas, as ad Husick said, because it's faster. Well Inside has told me today that the visitor visa process is clunky and out of date. It involves an online questionnaire where an electronic assessment classifies people into.
Different risk categories.
There would be a ping an alert if a person's name hits a watch list, an Interpol red notice or Australia's Movement Alert list. But unless someone's name is flagged on a watch list, then they're not referred for a manual security assessment, no manual checks. I'm told there's a bias in the system to grant the visa because these visas are usually for people visiting family members, not for people coming from.
A terrorist hotspot.
If there's no red flag based on someone's name or their own answers to the online questionnaire, then the visa is automatically granted. And this can happen as we know in as little as one hour.
Now.
I asked Home Affairs about this today. They said they couldn't respond to my questions until tomorrow, and I'll bring you their answers if I have them tomorrow night. But we know that a visa was granted in just one hour after an online application filled out by this man am Endlan for his mother. And as you know, DEFAT officials have admitted that visas are coming through in one hour.
Taken look globally, a very large number of.
Visit of visas would be done inside. And now.
This follows the admission by the AZO Director General, Mike Burgess that security checks for Palace Indians were only done if certain triggers were established, and that was the line that the Prime Minister misquoted and misled Australians over. Now it's actually a fraudulent use of the visa system to give Gazans visitor visas.
Are they here in a holiday?
Well no, because Tony Burke, the Minister, has said that he's not going to send anyone back to Gaza. The Coalition hounded the Albanese government in parliament again today about why our security process is weaker than other countries Today.
It was reported that before approving visas for people coming from the terrorist controlled gars of war zone, Canada requires applicants to submit to face to face interviews and biometric testing in a third country, Egypt. Why didn't the government have a similar arrangement in place before granting more than two nine hundred tourist visas.
Well.
In response to the Prime Minister says, not all Palestinians support Hamas.
People are from Gaza or the West Bank for that matter, certainly not automatically Hamas supporters and shouldn't be set still as boys.
And that's right. Of course.
Not all Palestinians support Hermas, but many do. The government itself has rejected more than seven thousand visa applications from Gaza on security grounds, and there were many civilians who took part alongside Hermas in the October seven attacks, and other civilians went in and looted homes, stepping over children and families still lying there warm and bleeding. Civilians also celebrated on the streets of Gaza as bloodied Israeli bodies
were paraded around and hostages dragged in. But Albinizi is right, not all Palestinians support Hermas. And here's the point, what is he doing to ensure that her Musk sympathizers or worse, actual her Musk members aren't coming to Australia. Automated visa visitor visas are not the answer. Security checks that take as little as one hour without any manual assessment is certainly not going to sort through those posing a risk from the refugees.
Well, Peter dartenass today.
If there was a third country where security assessments were being completed.
Processing a visa application, or somebody is offshore in a third country like Jordan, means a person of concern can be stopped before getting to Australia. The last government used this process when bringing people in from Syria. The Prime Minister says the process for granting twenty nine hundred tourist visas to those coming from the terrorist control of Gaza
zone followed the same process. Can the Prime Minister advise in which third party country these people were sent to for screening before they come to Australia.
There's not now, Dante and who'll be on my show A bit later, he asked five times how many of the two nine hundred visas from Gaza have been counseled five times. The Prime Minister wouldn't answer and instead attack to the coalition for asking questions about this instead of other topics.
I could have asked a question about the cost of living, could have asked a question about order from about the visit of the president elective Indonesia promised to doesn't.
He think national security is important to worry about. It's so utterly confusing to see this lack of regard for our safety, for our children's safety. It's so utterly confusing that the Albanezy government and even Asio think it's okay for people to come here who support Humus, because Mike Burgess has said as much.
If it's just rhetorical report and they don't have a ideology or support for a violent extream as an ideology, then that's not a problem.
Well.
Foreign Affairs editor Greg Sheridan said today that in his forty five years of journalism he can't recall any minister or official saying that it was okay to rhetorically support a terror group, let alone someone who was seeking to come to Australia. Greg Sheridan asks, is it okay to give verbal support to al Qaeda or Islamic State or even the Ku Klux Klan. He says, Jimas is not only a terrorist organization, its charter contains the most foul and vicious traditional anti Semitism.
He says.
The government must clarify what it means to say some degree.
Of support for Hamas is no problem.
He says, the Opposition would be failing its duty to the nation to leave this matter unresolved, and it is a good point. Is the Prime Minister not concerned that he's bringing people potentially to our country who hate Jews?
Doesn't this change.
Australia's social fabric? It seems the Prime Minister has quickly forgotten the barbarities inflicted by Hermas on October seven. He must have forgotten, or perhaps he doesn't care, because as the data shows, Australia is taking in a near record number of Palestinians from Gaza without any adequate security checks. All right, let's bring in tonight's panel, former Speaker of the House Bronwyn Bishop and Menzies Research Center executive director David Hughes.
Welcome to you both. Great to see you. Brown.
The Prime Minister today five times refused to say whether any Palestinians who'd already arrived in Australia have now had their visas revoked.
Is this good enough?
What is first becoming our cover up? Isn't it?
The denials and the pathetic way in which Albanezi today tried to avoid answering those questions was made face of the political process. And you can only say that he's continually covering up of the issue.
Means there's something to hide. What is it? We need to know, we need to be told.
We hear the old adage that you know, to make a mistake is one thing, but to try and cover it up there's entirely another.
And that's what's happening now. So when you.
Look at the seriousness of national security, you realize that Albanezi removed the head of ASIO from the Security Committee of Cabinet, had to put him back.
But who do you replace him with?
Bowen with his climate change rubbish. You realize that there was the question of national security doesn't matter to him. He's like the kid who was still at university with his megaphone yelling out pro Palestinian stuff. Then he hasn't changed I say again again, he hasn't changed his spot he hasn't.
David, the government tried to say today that the Coalition had a similar process when they accepted people from other dangerous parts of the world.
Do you think that argument stands up to scrutiny.
Well, I can assure you that's not the case. I was there in a senior role in the government at the time, and there's a number of visa pathways that governments can use, and those other nations that you mentioned that have taken less than one hundred people from Gaza are clearly using the humanitarian pathway, and there's two conditions that need to be met, and it's a lengthy process.
You need to demonstrate that you meet the criteria on humanitarian grounds and you need to undergo a very comprehensive security check. Now that's a pathway that other countries are following that we followed in the past, particularly from people from war zones where it's all the more important. What concerns me here is we're letting people in on tourist visas.
It's very hard once somebody's in the country, if they do found to have said something averse or support for Hamas, effectively need to be deported, which is a very lengthy process if the government goes down that path, and to have the head of our domestic intelligence service to say that somebody can still be allowed in and kind of offered support for a terrorist group is deeply, deeply concerning. So thank you for providing scrutiny on these issues, and.
We'll continue to do so.
And we're going to come back to this topic in the show I've got as I said dantean on a bit later. But now let's have a look at the fiasco in the New Southwle's Liberal Party and in breaking news, the New Southwello's Liberals have abandoned their bid to take the electoral Commission in New South Wales to court Brnwan. This has been a massive internal fiasco, extreme incompetence here that there are dozens of councils which now won't have Liberal.
Candidates, including mine, oh including yours as well. So what do you think needs to happy?
I mean there's questions over Mark Speakman's involvement, what he knew about this, the opposition leader in New South Wales. For people who don't know, he's got a very low profile. Do you think you know he needs to take some responsibility as well?
Look, Cherry, I have never seen a mess like this.
It's unprecedented.
And what needs to happen is the slate has to be wipe clean in order that something can be done to show that the division can in fact run a federal election. There are still people, including in my olef set, which does not have an endorse candidate, despite the fact that requests have.
Been made again and again for preselection.
So we need to have a situation arise whereby there can be not only a competently run division, but it has to be believably competently run. Now there's been a sacrificial lamb in that the Richard Shields has been the sacrificial lamb, but that's not enough.
Because it needs to go as well.
All the people won't until action is taken, and the presidency, under the Constitution as it is now, has a very important role to play in. Certain decisions can't be made without the president, so he really has to consider his position. He really does, because the whole of the division is now a laughing stock and the leadership has to be seen to be in charge and it needs to have a clean fleet.
David.
The Daily Telegraph has reported that the Opposition leader Mark Speakman was warned that the party was headed for an iceberg, so I don't think there's a suggestion that he should step down, but clearly enough people knew that this process wasn't going to be met.
John Howard said earlier in the year that he had concerns with running indoors Liberal candidates local governments because it depletes resources and the main game, of course is Canberra, and of course situations like this do take resources away from the cort responsibility of the Liberal Party, which is
providing a Liberal prime minister in Canberra. Some good news, though, Sharhi, in the last ten minutes or so, I've just seen that Brian Locknae has been appointed to head a review into this situation in New South Wales, and of course no Brian was John Howard's former campaign director, so hopefully he'll steady the ship.
I just think.
It has to be seen by people that responsibility has been taken and it can be a competently run division and.
That can't happen really if Don Harwin remains, if he's still that.
But David, when you say that it takes resources away from focusing on the federal Liberal Party are you saying that perhaps long term the New Southeales Liberal Party or even other state Liberal parties shouldn't be in charge of the local council process.
Well, Dean John Howard's view to an extent, think about it this way, Shari. For a federal election, the New South Wales division has to select fifty fifty candidates for fifty lower House seats. I think it's around ninety three. For state parliament. In this instance there would have been around six hundred applications, so it is a very big drain on resources.
So who would run it than just individual people do it themselves.
To be blunt, that's where it used to be done. Every local government conference ran a lodge its own documentation, and quite frankly, if they'd just said the day before, look we're having probably we can't get it all through the portal, do your own, which some people did because they got win that things weren't doing too well, then they could have been saved. I mean in terms of those people who have missed out. Take my own area for instance, there is.
Nobody to vote for.
We're disenfranchised, and there are the personal stories of people who have already spent money ready to buy core flutes and money on their own credit cards.
But of course it matters not It matters as well for residents, for people who don't want radical policies or prop activism on the street.
And we're in the difficult position where because of the incompetence of the division, then people are disenfranchised.
They have not someone to vote for.
All right, let's quickly turn to the RBA, because the minutes from their meeting on August fifth to six, the two day meeting, have just been released and they put more cold water on any chance of a rate cut before next year, saying it would result in inflation remaining persistent. David, though we keep hearing that there might be rate cuts. I mean, this talk, especially politically, won't let up despite.
The minutes being there in black and white.
It's extraordinary. Shari Anthony Alberanezi might be the first Prime Minister to never preside over an inflation rate within the RBA's target since they started setting target rates in the nineteen nineties. So their target for inflation ideally should be between two and three percent. At the moment, it's running close to four percent, and there's no likelihood of that being down for another two years.
What do you think, Brian Wan, are you expecting we might see a rate cut at the start of next year or are you pessimistic given the level of both state and federal government spending, that inflation just might not come down enough to even have a rate cut at the start of next year.
While the particularly the snake Darmer the Treasurer refuses to acknowledge that he's spending policies and that of other labor state governments US keeping those rates high and pleasure rates high, the Reserve Bank has no option but to keep saying that we are thinking about putting them up. If you don't get your wreck together, government, we will put them up to try and make them stop the outrageous extra spending that they're doing.
All right from Bishop David Hughes, Great to see you both again. Now let's cross to the United States, where the Democratic National Convention kicked off in Chicago, and for day one, the Democrats brought out the who's who of the party to speak, including Hillary Clinton.
Kamla cares cares about kids and families, cares about America. Donald only cares about himself. So it is no surprise, is it that he is lying about Kamala's record. He's mocking her name and her laugh sounds familiar. But we have him on the run now.
And eyes were also on Joe Biden, who was trying to salvage his own life. I see just as much as he was speaking about Kamala.
COVID no longer controls our lives. But God from economic crisis to the strongest economy in the entire world. Record sixty million new jobs, record, small business growth, record high, stock market record high far one case wages up, inflation down, way down, and continue to go down.
It can talk up the US economy all he wants, but the truth is there are concerns about a recession. Well let's bring in now former US Acting Attorney General Matthew Whittaker. Thank you, great to see you again. Look, what were your main takeouts from the first day of this convention.
Well, I think the Democrats going to be with you, Shari. I think the Democrats feel that the more you say things, even if they're not true, the more it might resonate. Because what's happening is is that the things that were being said from the stage last night are just not what the ordinary Americans are experienced in places you know that I travel all the time, and places where I you know, where I spend a large majority of my time. I just I see, for example, a lot of discussion
about Kamala Harris and her policies. She hasn't announced any policies except price controls, which is kind of a failed socialist idea that that ultimately has never worked, and it's a cover up for when overspending by the government inflates the goods and services that people use on an everyday basis. So I think, you know, this was a way for them to get some of those folks on the stage
and then off the stage. I think you're going to see much more messaging about policy, I hope, but you know, at the same time time, Kamala Harris hasn't really announced any policies except price controls.
At this point, well, it seems to be that the Democrats are running a campaign mostly based on personality not policy, as you say, because the attacks on Trump came thick and fast. He was called a loser, a plague on the American conscience, a scab, even chance saying.
Lock him up.
So perhaps we are headed for what do you think a campaign that's more based ony on personality, on attacking Trump personally, rather than on key policy planks.
I think that is the case. You know, I was at the Republican National Convention as a delegate, and I don't remember that many speakers worrying about or addressing Joe Biden, who is the nominee at the time before they did their you know, switch out a month ago. But you know you were going to see. I think the left continue to not be honest about what they stand for. This is kind of the what I would call the Obama strat know, he very much ran as a centrist. He very much ran as as kind of this idea
of hope and change without any really policy provisions. And I think that's what they're trying to do with Kamala Harris is not allow her to talk about what she would do and her policies at least based on how she ran in twenty twenty and what her core philosophies are as a California Liberal, I think you're going to see her want to be very much a left wing radical in her policy approach.
Yeah, we'll speaking of left wing radicals.
I mean we saw I say up there endorsing Kamala, which should have many people worried. We also saw Joy Biden again have problems with his teleprompter.
I have a look at this quote.
Women are not without electrical not allowed, not without electoral, electoral or political power.
Us women, we can be electric of it. Matthew, what did you make of that moment to and Biden's speech.
More broadly, well, I mean, you see again someone he's trying as hard as he can, and I think that's kind of his biggest undoing and why he's not their nominee and why this isn't a convention about Joe Biden, as I think, you know, he did not instill confidence
that he even understood what he was talking about. I mean, but you know, at the same time, I think the American people are really wanting authentic You know, you see, for example, Donald Trump stand up and do press conferences and take questions from a hostile press that is not
in favor of him being elected. And then at the same time you see Kamala Harris and Joe Biden and really all of these politicians speak from teleprompters with remarks that they didn't even write themselves about policies and about ideas and issues that they don't even know what they stand for. So but yeah, she could still with to start contrast. Yeah, there's no doubt. There is no doubt. It is a coin flip election right now, and it's going to all depend on who shows up to vote.
All right, Matthew Whittaker, thank you very much for your time now after the break, Shadow Immigration Minister Dan Tian hounded Albinizi today about how many guards and visas have been canceled after they were already issued. And I'm going to ask him what he knows about this when he's on the show next and still coming up. Will America step in to defend Taiwan if China invades and.
Could this spark a world war?
Well, an influential US congressman gives me his view. Welcome back with Shadow Immigration Minister Dan tin pursued the Prime Minister in question time today about how many Palestinian visas had been canceled after they were issued. Refuse to answer the question five times. You think this would be a critical question to answer. Has the government brought people into Australia who pose a risk to our national security and if their visas have been revoked.
Well, what has happened to them?
Home Affairs figures show that forty three visitor visas were canceled between October seven and August this year. Twenty were then restored on appeal. Well, who was the appeal made to and where are those twenty three who've had their visas counceled to discuss? I spoke with Dantean a little earlier. Dantein thank you very much for your time. You asked the Prime Minister five times today how many visas had
been canceled. Is it your understanding that people were already here in Australia when their visas were canceled.
Well, we're not quite sure, Sharhi, but we think that that information is incredibly important for the Australian people to know. And what we saw from the Prime Minister today was him being slippery and evasive to the most basic of questions and that these questions fundamentally go to the security of Australia. And I think this is really now becoming a character test of the Prime Minister, the fact that he's looking slippery and evasive, the fact that he won't
provide this information to the Australian people. I think starts to raise big question marks about his character.
Look at the Prime Minister, as you say, he wouldn't answer the question five times you asked it. If your proposition is accurate, and Palestinians from Harmas controlled Gaza were here in Australia when their visas were canceled, well what would happen to these people if they didn't have visas?
Would they have to go into detention?
Well it's a very good question and maybe one of the reasons why the Prime Minister refuses to answer this question because we don't know whether proper security checks were done before people came here. As a matter of fact, it seems that some people weren't given proper security checks. We don't know whether Azio was consulted before the government decided to issue tourist visas to these people coming from the Gaza war zone, because we asked that question yesterday
and the government wouldn't answer it. So everywhere we go the government is just refusing to answer these most basic of questions. There has to be something that they are hiding. The PM has been slippery and evasive and it's beginning to smell. But we just don't know why he's doing this, but in the end he's going to have to come clean because it's important that the Australian people know this information, and we're going to keep asking the questions.
Look, we know that nearly three thousand powers Estinians have been given visas by the Australian government. Around one thy five hundred are already in Australia for those that were given visitor visas to fast track the process. Look, these are not designed for security screening. They're meant for visitors, you know, people who were coming here to visit family members for example. So the security screening isn't as thorough
for electronic applications. My understanding is, and I've been briefed by people who have been involved in this process from.
A security perspective, is.
That applicants can fill out a form online, it can be approved without any manual processing at all. So if the person's name doesn't hit a terror watch list or any other watch lists, it would simply be approved. This is why visas have been approved in as little as one hour. Does this sound adequate to you for the her Musk controlled wall zone.
No, it doesn't, and that's why we've been asking the government these questions and that's why today one of the five questions that I asked the Prime Minister that once again he refused to answer, was were there any cancelations from people on shore? And he refused to answer that question. So there is something going on here. The Prime Minister
has been slippery and evasive. And there's only one reason that we can think of that he's been slippery and evasive, and that is that him and Andrew Giles cooked up some scheme in a rush and now it's come back to bite them because what they're now having to do is chase their tails to make sure that the security of the Australian people has been looked after, and the Prime Minister doesn't seem to want to admit that, he doesn't want.
To run up to it.
Have to remember that Andrew Giles and the PM are from the left wing of the factions in the Labor Party. Andrew Giles was obviously a lawyer that did a lot in the humanitarian space, so we knew where his heart lay when he was appointed. And it seems like him and the Prime Minister have heard in this case. And Minister Giles might have been removed, but the Prime Minister is still there, and I think we've got every right to keep pursuing him and keep asking these questions of it.
Just finally, we've seen data today that Australia has been more generous, if you can put it that way, or you risking national security is another way to put it. But Australia has taken more people from Gaza than any other virtually any other developed country around the world. Even pro Palestinian countries like Spain have taken no one from Gaza. What has this said say to you about our approach to national security under alban Easy.
I think the big question that this raises is was that a vision that was taken by Prime Minister Albanesi at the time with the then former Immigration Minister Andrew Giles more about politics than about a humanitarian solution or about trying to do something that was in our national interests. So I think what it keeps pointing to is that this was a political decision, it was made in political haste, and it has jeopardized our national security. That seems to
me what these figures show. Now, if the Prime Minister would come clean, we might be able to say, well, maybe it wasn't all about politics. But the fact that he won't come clean I think points to the fact that this was all about politics and national security was a secondary consideration in the haste. We know that they're being attacked by the Greens constantly on this issue. I think they've panicked and I think that's what we're starting
to get to the bottom of. And you know, I think if we keep pursuing this, sadly, I think we're going to see that the Prime Minister and Anthony Albana easy, sorry, the Prime Minister and Anthony Andrew Giles were up to their eyeballs in this again and it's a calamity.
Yeah, all right, Dante, and really appreciate your time.
Thank you very much, Thanks Shari.
And after the break, a powerful US politician tells me whether he thinks America would step in to defend Taiwan.
Unlike Ukraine, Taiwan cannot win this by themselves.
And if former intelligence officer will also join me to discuss what a potential Chinese invasion would mean for Australia.
That's coming up.
Well.
China's aggression in our region is sparking concern both here and in the US. As Foreign affairs experts prepare for how they would respond to a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
But when I sat down with.
The United States Congressional Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Michael McCall on Thursday, I asked him about this very topic. We haven't played these remarks before.
Here's what he had to say.
There are concerns about China invading or reunification with Taiwan. What time frame do you expect this could happen in And I know you confident that the US would intervene and come to Taiwan's defense or aid in the event that that should happen.
It's a great question. I mean, unlike Ukraine, Taiwan cannot win this by themselves. That you would need to help in the United States, in the allies in the Pacific. And I think the people of the United States will have to answer that question the people Australia.
But I will tell you the one thing that.
Gives me some hope in the last year and a half are these alliances we've seen take place between Japan South Korea, who were bitter enemies, the Philippines all being allies reaching out to Vietnam, and now Indonesia and now recently August the United States, UK and Australia coming together in an alliance to basically deter this Malayan influence that
we're seeing from China. Remember, we don't have a NATO in the Pacific like we have in Europe, and so the alliances are so important and that has come.
Together rather well.
In addition to the supplemental bill that I helped get passed provided funding for the region and for protection, and then the final piece that I got passed in the Congress was.
The August But just to clarify that answer, when you say it would be up to the American people and the Australian people whether America would come to the aid of Taiwan, given as you just said, it wouldn't be able to defend itself without that help.
So do you think it's not.
We don't know for certain whether the US would step in, that's an open question at this point.
Well, I think I think deterrence is key.
You project power of strength, you get peace, you project weakness, you invite aggression.
Conflict and war.
And I think that's where we're seeing ourselves today, whether it be in Ukraine and Eastern Europe, Middle East, and now that I call it two hot wars and.
One hot zone, you know right here.
I think ultimately the American people would because they don't want to see an aggressive communist China, but they also would need to be educated as to why and isle off the coast of China is so important. And we can talk about freedom and democracy. But you know TSM st at a recent tour, that's ninety percent of the advanced global manufacturing of semi connector chips for the world.
If China invades.
Taiwan, that facility shuts down and so does ninety percent of the global supply of advanced semi connected chips. Think about the economic downturn, the economic chaos and catastrophe that that would bring to the world.
You are on a bipartisan trip, but do you think there would be a different position should Kamala Harris be in the White House versus Donald Trump when it comes to coming to Taiwan's defense.
Yeah, I can tell you this.
The current administration, I think is responsible for a lot of this aggression we've seen. We haven't led like the United States has in the past, and we've invited aggression. And quite frankly, it started with Afghanistan. I know Donald Trump will tell you this never would have happened under his watch. I personally a grieved that when I talked to him, you know, he said, look, I told Putin, if you invade Ukraine, I'm gonna hit you hard.
And he told, you know, Chairman Chief, excuse me.
If you invade won I'm gonna bomb the you know what, And you know what he meant it. And that's a fear factor of deterrence that we really don't see from this administration.
But we had it then. We don't have that now.
And I think Kamala Harris would just be an extension of the Biden administration.
It's up to China.
It's up to Chairman she if he wants to continue this aggression, if he invades Taiwan, if he threatens the Philippines.
If he takes the China South China Sea. We have to respond to this. We have to be leaders of the freeway.
It's America up to the font.
I believe they would be.
And if you look at not only the principles at stake here and communists China trying to take the Pacific, I think, but also the economics of sixty percent the trade goes through the Taiwan Straits South China Sea and then again shutting down ninety percent with the advanced semi connectors, the world would have an economic.
Shutdown, all right.
And that full interview, if you're interested in looking at it somewhere, will be on the Sky News website a bit later. But joining me to discuss this further is the former head of the China Desk for the Defense Intelligence Organization here in Australia, also an author of Thunder from the Silent Zone Rethinking China, Paul Monk.
Paul, great to have you back on the program.
Look that response, Sure, that response there from the chair of the Foreign Affairs US Congressional Committee. That doesn't fill you with a high degree of confidence that the US necessarily would step in to defend China. What did to defend Taiwan? What did you think of what he just had to say?
Well, it brings to mind remarked by Henry Kissinger made as the Arab Spring unraveled, that being America's enemy is dangerous. Being its friend is likely to be fake because of the nature of US political system and the freedom of speech in the country. It's actually very difficult in many circumstances to sustain a foreign commitment if it becomes costly and drawn out. This has been demonstrated again and again
in the last half century. So what has to be thought through here is what exactly are American options to first, as Michael McCall expressed, a deter China from attempting to invade Taiwan or an event that that begins to do something decisive that requires a lot of thought and.
That deterrence apologies, go ahead, go on, Well, that determines going to say that deterrence is so important. But I think Joe Biden's withdrawal from Afghanistan, the way he did it, the fact that he has withheld weapons from Israel, all of this seems makes it look like the US is weak on a global stage.
So do you think that terrence is there at the moment?
It's being sorely tested because we all know now that Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, Pyongyang, for what it's worth, are increasingly aligned in the belief that if they push hard enough, the US system will crack. And without a strong leadership from the United States and the cloud that it has, the rest of US would be to drive we don't have the independent capacity to deal with the world in which those rogue states are
going becoming openly aggressive. We've more or less held the line to this point in the Middle East and Russia, but it is tenuous in both cases. And if we have an American administration of whatever stripe that says, look, we're jack of this, we don't think there's votes in sustaining these efforts, then it's by no means clear that the line will be held either in Ukraine or in the Middle East.
In Israel.
Yeah, that's seriously drubbling. If in those circumstances she says, right, now's the time to strike, then chaos comes to Asia.
Yeah, indeed, it's very concerning, especially that alliance you speak about between Iran, China, North Korea and Russia. We're seeing the supplying of weapons as well among them.
So all of that.
Next time we will have more time with you. I apologize, but great to see you again. Now up next to New South Wales labor clashes with the Albanezi government over the move to block a mine.
My panel will discuss this next. Welcome back.
Well.
Chris Mins's labor government in New South Wales is a loggerheads with the Albanesi government and in particular Tanya Plibisek over a new gold mine in New South Wales. Now Tanya Plibiseka the eleventh hour decided to block it under indigenous heritage legislation, and The Daily Telegraph reports that she issued a Section ten statement blocking the site despite the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council not opposing the mine, with the minister instead backing a rival indigenous group who are
against the project. Look, the New Suteas government is very annoyed about this to discuss. Let's bring in tonight's political panel Nationals MP Keith Pitt and Gillard's fromer Presek Darren Barnett.
Welcome to you both.
Keith, Is there a reasonable excuse for this mind.
To be blocked?
Well, sharing not in my mind, and you've seen the New South Wales government approved it and for Aboriginal heritage. The only y my understanding is for the federal government to overrule it using Section ten as the state government has already made a decision which was the opposite of
this one. So we've seen activists get involved with Barossa v. Shaw, We've seen the federal labor government crack down and make changes around the gas sector for L and G after they spent fifty billion dollars over ten years and put market prices in place, and now you have this decision for a gold mine in your South Wales, which received
every single approval that it needed. As far as I'm aware, being rubbed out by Tanya plebisk for one group regarding original heritage, this is sovereign risk, writ large Darren.
There seems to be a repeat pattern of behavior here from Tanya Plebisek.
What do you think.
Look, I think there's a lot of wariness from everyone in Parliament in Canberra regarding any sort of repeat of Juk and Gorge, the disaster that we saw in twenty sixteen, and that's bipartisan. There was lots of activity on that from Susan Lay when she was Environment Minister under the previous government. Now, no one in that environment portfolio wants a repeat of that scenario, and I imagined that that would be why Tania Pilibusek has acted with such caution
in this case. Now, I also think there will have to be a common sense solution that if they are able to change the design of the mind or the tailing stam that there might be a way through, but it does seem an interesting decision, to say the least, if it was to be blocked solely on these grounds. Let's hope there's a middle way and that all the parties can work together to find it.
Keith, do you want a quick response to that.
Absolutely, They've already done the hydrology, the design, the infrastructure, they've costed it, looking for a final investment decision and everything was approved. Why would you invest in this country if you can have tenure plebosec knock your project out when you've done everything right, all right.
From the start of next week, and by the way, we'll keep coming back to that topic this week because it's going to be a very big political story as this war heats up between Men's and al but easy government. Now, from the start of next week, Labour's contentious right to disconnect laws will take effect. This, of course, empowers employees to ignore their bosses outside of work hours. Darren, do you think this is going to change the way businesses operate?
I think it will, but it depends on the type of work that you do and frankly, the level that you are in that company that junior workers who perhaps are not on high wages, they may have a very good case in being able to plan their day and do their work when they get to work, but certainly people in senior positions, you cannot expect to turn your phone off at five pm and go home and nothing else will change before the next morning. The modern world doesn't work that way. So I think it's going to
depend on the workplace and depend on the job. But if it means that some people who are currently expected to do things that are unfair have some form of recourse, then I support it.
It's not even about unfair, it's about that hours, Keith Peter, Are you going to stop contacting your staff after six o'clock even if it's a parliamentary sitting day?
Jari I wouldn't bear that didn't happen, and they get paid allowances for those things. But out in the real world, Shaw, I'll give you a live example. In the sugar cane industry, people drive haulouts. That's where you put the sugar cane in the back and your toilet with a tractor or
truck or whatever you might be doing. And you know they're not super highly paid individuals but almost every single day they start time depends on the weather, crop availability, where you can get on the land, but that something changes overnight, whether you've got bins, and they'll receive a text to say we're starting at five, we're starting at eight,
we're starting at seven. How on earth can you run that business if you can't contact them to change their start date because you've got nothing for them to do. These are the challenges. Labour just wants to plaster things across the country. It doesn't always work.
I'll tell you what the lawsuits related to this legislation are going to be extraordinary or the industrial action all right, Keith Pitt, Darren Bunnett. Great to see you both, Thank you and thanks thanks everyone for watching us. See you tomorrow at eight o'clock. And right now, as always, here's Paul Murray.