Live on Sky News. This is Sharry Good Evening. I'm kylab Bond and Will Kingston. I'd say the kids love playing Minecraft on the computer, so maybe they enjoyed in the real minds. He's what's coming up tonight? Why the coalition breakup may end up being the best thing for both parties. I'll give you my thoughts in a moment. The Reserve Bank cuts rates again. But would it have
happened if not for Trump's tariffs? I'll talk to experienced economist Warren Hogan, and questions mount about senior Democrats and what they knew about Joe Biden's health as he goes public with his cancer diagnosis. Well, what an extraordinary day in Australian political history. The Liberal and National Party coalition splitting for the first time in nearly forty years, and only the third time since they came together in nineteen
forty nine. Now, those two other breaks and the coalition were in seventy two after Goff Whitlam beat Billy McMahon. They came back together before the seventy four election and for four months in nineteen eighty seven over the Joe for Canberra campaign. Now, in some ways this could be good, but obviously in the short term it weakened conservative politics
in this country. You have the crazy situation of the Albanese government holding ninety four seats and the Liberal opposition now the official opposition, holding just twenty eight, even though the Liberals and Nationals will still largely work in tandem. Without a formal coalition, you have a huge government and
a tiny opposition. It deprives the official Opposition of course, of experienced talent in the Nationals, and it means Lee Susan Lee will have to construct her shadow ministry entirely from the Liberal party room sorry, which is diminished now. Some of the details around how and why this happened are quite sensational. National's leader David Little Proud gave Susan Lee half an hour's notice that he was going to
kill the coalition agreement. The major reason for that split was that the Nats wanted a guarantee on policy positions. The Australian reported today that the four policy demands confirmed by National MP senators and key officials at a meeting last Friday, focused on nuclear energy, forced a vestiture of supermarkets that recently announced twenty billion dollar Regional Future Fund and enforced universal service obligations, ensuring reliable mobile phone coverage
in the regions. The problem with that is that Lee has been explicit in not yet committing to a policy agenda.
The Nationals sought specific commitments on certain policies, and they've talked about that this morning. And our perspective is not about the individual policies themselves, but the approach that we said we would take to our party room about policies. Nothing adopted and nothing abandoned. So at this point in time I asked the Nationals to respect those party room processes.
Lee proposed a little proud that they form a shadow cabinet of both Liberal and National members, as is the standard for the coalition. Then both parties should go away and sort out their respective policy positions and come back to discuss. Now. I can understand why the Nationals might be uncomfortable with that, because even though the Liberals and Nationals are allowed a conscience vote, members of the shadow cabinet a duty bound to support the coalition's policy and leadership.
And if you don't yet have a cohesive policy plan, it's difficult to understand what you're signing up for. So the Nationals requested that any of their shadow cabinet members be given a free vote, which would allow them to oppose it zero for instance, even if the Liberals stayed with the policy. But that kind of situation simply isn't tenable. You can't have different members of cabinet singing from separate
hymn books. Otherwise there isn't much point in cabinet. So to some degree they both been as unreasonable as each other, and it will in the short term at least be a free kick to the government.
Now.
Both Lee and Little Proud were clear today that they are open to reforming the Coalition, and Little Proud more or less said he wants to. He described it as a breakup to have some time apart.
What this is.
About is about taking a deep breath to be able to say to the Australian people that this is a time of part for us to be better, to be better, to focus on them. Now we have a clear focus on the people we know we want to represent.
Now.
I want to allow Susan the time for her leadership to shine, to be able to give her the opportunity to go and be able to demonstrate that, but to design that and be able to come back together. This is a healthy part of our democracy. Though that was too proud of.
He even said Lee could be the next prime minister.
The commitment both Susan and I made is that we will work together to give her the space. You got to understand, Susan has been given an enviewable position to actually try and restore AHI have faith in her. I actually think it is conceivable that she can win the.
Next election, but the reality is she can't be prime minister without the Nationals. I mean, the Liberals aren't going to win another fifty seats in their own right, and in the modern world they probably never will. So here's why I think this could and it's a qualified could be a good thing in the long term. The Liberals and the Nationals need each other. If the Libs want to have a Liberal prime minister again, they'll need a
coalition with the Nats. And if the Nationals want to exert rural and regional influence over national policy, they need to join with someone who could help form government. And at the moment it's only the Liberal Party to choose from. So really they'll have to come back together, as they have before on other occasions. Twice they've done this, but this is a shot across the bower message from the Nationals to say to the Liberals that they need to have a serious reckoning as a party, and in that
assessment they are correct. As the lnp's Garth Hamilton wrote in The Australian yesterday, the best thing about Peter Dutton was that he brought peace and stability to our party. The worst thing about Peter Dutton was that he brought peace and stability to our party. We needed to rid ourselves of some of that baggage. We needed to have
a few internal policy fights to test our resolve. Thomas Jefferson believed every generation needs a new revolution, and I believe the new generation of Liberals needs that too, by having a break in their relationship, having time a part to be better. As Little Proud put it today. And let's be honest, many of us have done that in our romantic relationships and friendships before. The Nationals are trying to force those fights, particularly when it comes to net zero,
and their aim in that regard is noble. The Nats haven't lost a Lower House seat at an election since two thousand and seven, so you can't argue that they don't have a blueprint for success. They also managed to turn Bendigo marginal, which has been held by Labor since nineteen ninety eight, with a nine point seven percent swing. The Nationals believe in something, they're clear about it, and electorally it's worked for them in rural and regional parts
of Australia now. The last Liberal leader to deal with a coalition breakup, of course, was John Howard during his first shot at Prime minister.
He said this today, I don't compare today's situation with nineteen eighty seven, although that was pretty painful.
I am very sorry that this.
Has happened, and I urged both parties to work over time to put the coalition back together again, because all the history of Australia suggests that the glory days of the Liberal Party and the National Party, the Old Country Party, are when they are working together in government. My experience as a Liberal leader and as a coalition and prime minister is that if you have a strong coalition and plenty of trust, you can resolve any policy different.
And he's right. They do strengthen each other. They bring different perspectives from different parts of the country, and of course the broad Church that John how it always talked about served the party. Well, I'll repeat what I said on Thursday night. The Liberals need the Nationals now more than ever. Drop net zero, keep nuclear and build a genuine alternative for government. All right, let's stick with the coalitions divorce. I'm joined now by former Speaker of the
House Bronwin Bishop and Liberal Senator Holly Hughes. Bronwin. In the long term, do you think this will all just work out? It's a little lover's tiff.
It'll work out, And I'll tell you why. Because we have a compulsory preferential voting system. It means it's a two party system and the Liberals cannot win without the Nationals. Three times they could have, but saw the sense of not doing it because the next time round they would need it. So when we look at it called a spat or a disagreement. That's going on now Nashwater must have been like between Earl Page and Mensis at the end of the EAP days.
I mean, those people knew how to draw blood.
So I was actually in the Parliament in eighty seven, that's when I was sworn into the Senate, and I was there when the two parties separated it and I knew that'd come back together again because that is the history. We got compulsory voting in nineteen eighteen, and we got or rather we got provisional voting in nineteen eighteen and compulsory in twenty three. So it's been there for a long time and that's our system. Nigel Farage couldn't happen here because of.
Our voting system exactly because they were past.
They were come back together out of sheer survival.
Obviously, for a couple more months you will sit in the.
Senate as not counting down, so you won't.
Have to deal with any of this, and you may will be glad of that.
I think I've dodged a bullet.
But a what do you think the Nationals are playing at here? And be will it affect the Libs?
Some bit perplexed by the timing.
I have to be honest, Susan Lee was elected a week ago, where three weeks out from the last election.
Where three years from the next election.
And there's been a lot of commentary, a lot of commentary from people who have never been in.
The party room.
And the reality is when you go into the party room after an election of particularly an election defeat, everything is on the table, everything is still there, but it is up for review. So it would absolutely have been unacceptable for Susan or in fact anyone else had they been later of the Liberal Party to go into the Nationals and said, yep, okay, we're going to agree to put these four policies, the agenda items absolutely in stone
so that they cannot be changed. It is the Liberal Party processes that need to be respected and one of the things, and to Garth Hamilton's point in what he said, and I said it in an interview earlier today, Peter dudn't run a really unified team. But perhaps that was actually a bit of a mistake. One of the reasons so many of us will call flat footage during the election that the policy work hadn't been done was because it hadn't gone.
Through the party room processes.
It's really important and this is a matter for the next party room that they do fight it out. It is going to be messy, but it's three years till the next election, and if they really want to go to the next election as a unified team all singing from the same song sheet, knowing what they're standing for, and it's it's this isn't a question either of liberal values. You know, I've heard a few other commentators say that
are what they stand for. Liberal values haven't changed, but it's the policies, and policies move with the time and move with the community as they go.
So it's not about changing our values.
Our values are still very much there, but it's making sure that the policy that the party room puts forward lines up. The other thing I just want to touch on that was really important was around the cabinet solidarity. Matt Canavan, to his credit, when we went into opposition, decided not to take on a shadow portfolio, so he was free to sit in the bleachers and throw the jaffers as you wanted, when he wanted, as he is in the coalition, you're allowed to from the back bench.
But solidarity of a cabinet is really important. And the requests that they could not agree with cabinet colleagues still hold the positions, still have the staff and the extra pay, but then go out and throw their own bombs is in my view, completely unacceptable and untenable.
It's a good try, let's be honest.
Yeah, it's a try very Marrian.
Let and that was that would never ever fly.
And the other point that you made wholly about no discussion, no animosity, no challenges in the party whom It's true, and that's exactly what happened under John Houston when I was there too, he too had a steady ship, but no disagreements going. You need disagreements, absolutely, You've got to be able to have Vista band. You know. I have a lot of respect for Peter Dutton. I think he's given great contribution to the country. But I've never been
in the worst campaign. I think the Houston campaign was pretty bad, but this one was pretty.
Just very quickly.
The Unity ticket continues quickly before we moved on, Holly, how much do you think just into price, just into an empertyper price, joining your party room may have effected.
Look, it was mentioned today. I think it's definitely an underlying issue. I have heard from National Party colleagues and their fury is palpable, absolutely palpable, and particularly in the center where they have now lost party status in the Senate. I think it is a myth for anyone to think that somehow Angus Taylor and Enterprise would have kept the
coalition together. I think that would have been a bomb that would have blown it up, maybe irrevtly because they are there is a lot of anger there, but that it is very welcome in our party.
Of that justificate, there is a lot of anger in the National Party.
She was elected from the Country Liberal Party, yes, and there's a bit of a hipocracy in there. The LNP is technically part of the Liberal Parties, but by convention members can elect to sit in the National Party Room and despite the fact they're really under the Liberal Party banner, so it's no different from the country.
I've been a party president. You know how all of this works, I do think.
And I personally have negotiated and all of those I have personally negotiated those agreements and the party agreement and where the funding goes and so on. And I know I said had to drivee a very hard bargain. I think I probably did.
So we'll get further into all of this stuff a little later with Michael McCormick moving on to some other news today. Labour's under pressure to end at six point eight billion dollar power bill rebates, so I'll come back to why in a moment. But the Treasurer, for his part, won't rule out extending them.
We've budgeted for it to end at the end of this year, that's clear in the budget papers. But what we do each budget in this room next door is we sit down with the Expenditure Review Committee and we work out whether we can afford to provide more assistance and if so, what form that, what assistance would take. That will be our approach.
Now that's call to end them is coming from the Prime Minister's Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, which is the fancy term for his welfare working group. They say it should instead be spent on solar panels and batteries for low income households. So you know, they're not exactly saying we should save some money here, but they do have a point in the fact that the rebates need to end because they do not fix the actual problem, which is of course the cost the energy. The rebate simply changes
what it says on the bill. It doesn't change anything in reality in terms of what it costs to get it to.
But once they embarked on renewables, only their policy and rebuild it rewiring the nation astronomical costs. The single most expensive power you can have in the world. That's what they're giving us. They promised two hundred and seventy five dollars of production. No, they can't deliver it, but with
a three hundred dollars rebate, they're bringing it down. They're reducing their inflationary pressure, which is what they've done with it is their bank to make the first cut, nicely timed for the election, of course, so why wouldn't they give it up.
Well, it's a good point. Obviously it did worked electorally, but I mean, you know, we just wanted add two hundred and seventy five dollars. Are I think that's what we were promised, wasn't it.
Well, I think the unicorn farmers that they've got on some of these economic advisory you know, solar panels and batteries, when a lot of people in low income housing are actually in apartments so don't have the options to solar panels. You know, these people actually need to out. I did
notice the Brotherhood of Saint Lawrence. They had a representative on there and he was talking about at least making some of these rebates means tested rather than just universal, which makes it like you to do it.
No, you've got to understand. I know we don't have time.
There's another very special side to the way that rebate is paid. It's actually paid to the power the energy Power Company exactly so, and if you're going to start being says you can't do that.
Can't do that, and so I have the so called inflationary introduction because it's not coming.
Off the ban.
And that's the point. It's not a rebate to you. We're not stand out to the power company. Thousands of firefighters and farmers protested outside Melbourne's Parliament House this morning against, of course, the Allen Government's Emergency Services leavy, which is part of today's state budget. I mean, farmers will copy insane one hundred and fifty percent tax hike. But of course many of these farmers are the volunteer firefighters who
will supposedly benefit from this increased tax. So they're now cutting crook. They're saying they won't put their uniforms on anymore. There's been vision going around to people burning their uniforms. They're turning their pages off and saying, we'll bugger you. Why would we help out if you're going to charge us to do the work that you won't pay someone to do. Victorian oppositionally to brad Batten said they would repeal this if they win in government.
I will make the commitment to you that if we are elected on November next year.
The Victorian Liberals will scrap that tax and land that money.
Back to Victoria.
Now, look, if you're a landowner in Victoria, Bronwin, you are essentially an enemy of the state because what they've done to land tax down there is ridiculous. But this is effectively just another land tax based Still, we'll just get some more money out of you. And funnily enough, the money they're going to pull in from this is very similar to the surplus today. They said they would post.
Funny about that, isn't it. But this is what socialists do. We often hear the expression that they tax and spend. Uh ah, they spend a tax because they hand out the money. What they want to do is make people dependent on the government. And if they rip it off a particular group of people, they don't care about that. They simply want more and more people to be depended on them so they can keep their nice little spot of power. So I don't think that's going to work.
This time, well, it kind of at least we've got an opposition.
Now, Well, that's.
Said that elections have consequences, and this has been the consequence of consistently electing a labor government in Victoria has been this astronomical growth in state debt that they're now trying to get on top of. It's also the reason why strong oppositions are important. And hopefully with brad Batten and some of the other more fringe issues they were concerned with more recently behind them, and the Liberal Party in Victoria can get its act together to actually put up an opposition.
Because elections have consequences.
And when you elect people who have no economic understanding and they just keep spending and keep spending and keep spending, they are going to come for it at some stage.
And this is what they're saying in Victoria. And we could stay nationally sooner than we all think.
You'd like to think so. And of course, you know, as I said when she became the Premiere of Victoria to sin Heer Allen, ain't no Daniel Andrews. And it's very difficult to hold together what Andrews put together if you're not Andrews himself. Now Labour's supertext is so unpopular even Tier independent Manique Ryan has criticized what she called
the poorly considered an harmful and unfair policy. She said the government's plan to increase tax on high balances shouldn't include taxation of unrealized games, just common sense stuff and it must be indexed if it does happen. I know Kate Cheney in Wa has come out against it too. Now, of course some bronwin that the Teals might realize that they have people in their seats who may will fall into the category, so they know what side their breed
is battered on. But what they say is correct. I mean the idea that the concept of taxing unrealized capital gains from Biden.
It is it is workamala.
It is insane because once you say you can tax someone on a profit that they haven't cashed in their super where does it go next?
Well, it's called theft. Actually all taxation is theft.
Well, no, some.
Taxation is quite legitimate, but this is theft. And they regard the Labor Party regards that four trillion dollars of superannuation money is their money, not the foregone wages that the people who earned it. It belongs to individuals. It's not a corporate ownership or a collective ownership. It's an individual ownership. But they don't acknowledge that and this principle. If they get it up, what should spread. And that's
the really evil nature of it. But if a few interesting enough in the campaigning that I did during the campaign, that's what I talked about the evilness of this tax and the people that would really hit other millennials.
Yeah, so the time they get up here, two year old today on an average wage for the rest of them, and yet.
The snake charmer, the treasurer has the audacity to say, oh, well, in the US ahead, some government might choose to index it.
What happens.
And it's you could just index it yourself. We only got twenty seconds.
Hold, But this is something.
Because they're going to get a small reduction on the heck, stead are going to pay that and more into the future, whether it's their superannuation, capital gains on their parents' family home, the banker. Mum and dad just got a whole lot more if these guys get their way, and it's going to be not our generation. Well, actually, you are still a child Caleb, just.
You make us Caroline, Caroline, thanks, you are going I know, and the coalition should be able to soft coalition anymore. Federal Party should be going hard on this as your policy. Anyway. I'm sorry, we've run out of time. Bronwin Holy thank you so much for joining me now. The Prime Minister was cheering for more than just the coalition breaking up. Today, the Reserve Bank, of course, handed down its decision to cut the official cash rate by twenty five basis points
that takes it to three point eight five percent. Governor Michelle Bullock said it wasn't an easy decision with so many unpredictable factors like trade wars flying around.
The key point about the situation wherein is it's not just uncertain, it's actually unpredictable. I'm not putting a strong possibility on a really, really bad outcome, but I think we have to be alert that there might be.
I'm joined now by a Judo Bank chief economist, Warren Hogan. Warren, if we didn't have the Trump tariffs, would we have had this rate cut? Do you think?
Look, I think the global scene has certainly made it a lot easier for the board today. You look back at the last rate cut and the guidance they gave then the way the domestic economy has played out, if anything, it's probably a little strong, a little bit more employment, and it would have made it a more lineball decision
for sure. But it's quite clear from both the statement on monetary policy, their forecasts, and then the commentary from the governor that they are very worried about something going wrong in the global economy and getting caught with an interest rate that's above what they think is neutral or still in a restrictive setting.
So on that basis, should we expect further well.
I think that's the guidance that they've given. I think the governors made it pretty soft guidance in the sense that they're forecasting inflation pretty much from now being close to target, and they're factoring in the market expectation for the cash rate to come at least three more times, and they're sort of giving some credence to that. So I think in the back of their mind they think, if all goes well, they can cut at least one
more time, if not two. And of course the Governor's clear message is if things go badly wrong in the global economy, they will be cutting more than that, and the market will continue to price that as a risk.
Well, exactly how hard and fast would they cut, because, of course the risk is last time we ended up in a global problem, which of course was COVID, we cut really hard and then ended up with large inflation.
Well, that's it.
We are in a very different inflationary setting to anything we've seen in the last twenty years.
We're really having to go back to the.
Nineteen eighties and nineteen to seventies to be in that kind of world where if you get this wrong, you're going to get a pretty severe inflation consequence. So look, I think they're going to be limited in how much they can cut unless it is a very dire situation. And when I mean dire, I mean we are going to have to be seeing people losing their jobs in unemployment going up, which at this stage there's no sign of that. In fact, everything has settled down it remarkably
well in the last three weeks. And of course we still do have this inflation, and we have an economy producing jobs or beeat a lot of them in public sector, but that is income out there. So I think for the time being, the best way to think about interest rates is they can come down a little bit more, but the Reserve Bank's ready to move more aggressively if things go wrong.
I'm sure of youers at home happy to hear that. Warren Hogan, thank you so much for your time. Still to come. Trump's announced that Ukraine and Russia are ready to negotiate a cease fire deal. But did putin get the MIMO Malcolm Davis coming up soon and first we'll get some insider information as to why the Nationals broke up with the Liberals and what it could take to win them back. Michael McCormick will fill us in on
what's happened from his perspective soon. All right, let's return to the biggest breakup in Australia at the moment, the coalition breakup. Of course, we've me now hopefully to provide some insider information is National ZMP Michael McCormick. Michael, thank you for joining me. I explained to the top of the show that I think this could ultimately the best be the best thing for the coalition. Did you back this split?
Well, I'm a coalitionist first and foremost, and the situation is that Party Ram has taken a decision based on what we believe is the right path for us and the Liberals to take. We put several propositions to the Liberal Party, Universal Service Obligation so more mobile coverage, more towers to vestiture hows, cheaper groceries, nuclear, more affordable reliable energy, and the Regional Australia Future Fund, which meant more infrastructure
for country areas. But the Liberal Party, through Susan Lee, didn't want to sign off on those immediately. They were dying the ditch issues for the Nationals and so we've decided to take this break, hopefully only temporary, but we'll work through it. I know that David Little Prowd went to the Liberals in good faith, and I know that Susan Lee as.
Well also listened.
In fact, we haven't.
Been able to break an arrangement and agreement this time.
Doesn't mean to say that we can't get back together and continue the coalition in the future.
I mean you call it a break. But if these are die in the ditch issues and the Liberal Party doesn't come to the table, does the break become a full blown break up?
Well, time will tell, but I'd like to think that we can get back together. John Howard always said that the Australian nation is best serve and we've got a coalition.
Liberal and Nationals in government united together.
We've very much taken that sort of conciliatory and pragmatic approach to the Liberal Party. Just remembering we won all of our fifteen Lower House seats in the recent election.
We transitioned three seats parks Line and indeed Hinkler in Queensland, and we retained the other twelve seats which were incumbents we're running in the Liberal Party did not do so well, and we've now for four for under four leaders, six elections in a row, retained each and every one of our House and representative seats.
So other parties could learn a thing or three from the.
Nationals and the way we represent our people, the way we turn up, the way we take the people's voices to Canberra, and we at the moment we will be taking a bit of a temporary break and we'll see what happens.
I don't disagree with those points. I suppose the other thing though, is putting aside the policy requests that were put to the Liberal Party, the idea of not habit having cabinet solidarity. Do you think that was reasonable?
Well, I've crossed the floor, across the floor and moved to disallowance on the Murray Darling basin, and I know how you get sent to Coventry for doing that. In a shadow cabinet or a cabinet, you've got to maintain that impromata of the rumor. I understand that, but on some of these issues. Will remember the wheat arrangement where the Australi and wheat marketing was ripped asunder when the Liberals sided with Labor the Liberals in opposition back in
two thousand and eight. I believe it was you know, the the Nationals were given the right to veto that, and I think it was the wrong move to make at the time, and we're still seeing the effects of that. But look, if you cross the floor or if you don't agree with Labor Party policy, you get expelled from the party.
At least that's not the case in the Nationals already do the Liberals.
You can have different policy positions, but as a minister or a shadow minister, you are expected to essentially go with what the majority in the room goes.
Just very quickly before we go. Michael, in the event that you don't get back together, how will we ever end up with a conservative government in this country again?
Look, we will end up with a conservative government again.
There's this labor government through the unrealized capital gains, through what they've done with the cost of living, through ignoring the needs of regional Australia where we grow all our food and fiber and all the resources of mine to help keep the lights on.
They will be so bad over the next three is.
If you thought they were bad in the first three years the first term, you ain't seen nothing yet. And I think what's best for Australia will be that the Liberals and Nationals we'll get together.
We'll reach an agreement eventually.
And we'll get back together and hopefully in twenty twenty eight we can show that we are a credible opposition and we can return to government.
Well, as I said earlier, I think if it pulls the Liberal Party that isn't in the right direction, it will have been worth it. Michael McCormick, thank you for your time. So we heard what Michael thought there and his reasons for the Nationals leaving the Liberals, but joining me on the desk now the Daily Telegraph, James willis, what do you make of what Michael says there? That you know this is a grab bag of policies that the Liberal Party have to accede too. There's no ifs
or butts about it. The Liberal Party would say to that, well, we have seen very clearly that everything is on the table and we are going to review absolutely everything. We haven't had time to come to that position yet.
Well, calib I think Michael's middle answer, and he's not the first National MP to make this point.
In the last few.
Days or since the election whitewash. The National Party vote and the number of seats that they have won has held up at the last three or four elections. So if you strip this back and you took away some of the political rumor in innuendo and the future of
a Conservative government. If you had two companies that were involved in a long time agreement and they suffered a disaster like this and one company was to blame, the other company would be doing everything possible for its own shareholders to move away from that company and focus on the issues that matter. And I think the Nationals, despite being small and never being able to hold power themselves. I don't think there's any doubt that the majority of
them stand for the same stuff. They stick up for the Bush. They believe in nuclear power, they're going to push forward with that, whereas the Liberal Party at this point in time have got to sort their own backyard out before they even look at taking you on labor. And the big issue with the Liberal Party is whether we go in the moderate direction, whether we try.
And figure out with this broad churches.
But clearly in the lead up to the poll there were moderates that weren't happy with the direction Peter Dutton was taking. I get the feeling that's why he kept the party room sometimes out of some of these policy issues, because you had a divided party there.
You can't say the same for the Nationals.
So at this point in time, I think it's in the National's best interest to run their own race.
Keep nuclear on the agenda.
The other two policies you mentioned the sound like common sense to me when you talk about national communications coverage for telephone towers and all that sort of thing, cheaper groceries.
Look, let the Liberal already sorted out.
The Nationals can run their own race and let's see what happens and they will get back together. But for now I think that's a good call.
It's hard to see a world in which they don't get back together, because of course the Liberals will want to form government again one day and the Nationals want to get in on the game, so as if they're
not going to get back together. But the game they are playing here is to drag the liberal in the Liberal Party in the direction they want them to go, so potentially to drop knits zero and to definitely back in nuclear because these are serious differences that you create with the Labor government, and that was one of the major problems with Peter Dutton and the opposition he led is that you know, particularly through the campaign, I mean,
Labor put their hand ups, will spend eight billion dollars over here, and then Peter Dutton put his air apples, it will step to spend eight billion over here. The differences were not stack So why would you go with just a slightly different looking version of what you've already got? And many would say, including within the Liberal Party, that you know the Teals are doing all right, come to that in a minute. So we've got to go more
in that teal direction. If you go in that teal direction, look at the seats the Liberal Party lost at this election out of suburban seats. You're not going to win the outer suburbs back by going tea.
Well, that's right, and there were some Liberals today making the point to our Canbra correspondents, Oh, we might do better in the teal seats if we don't have the Nationals involved, just sort of you know, spitballing. I mean, if anyone seriously thinks that that should be the priority. Six or seven seats and one hundred and fifty seed
parliament is madness. If the Liberal Party is faired income and they believe, and they figure out what they can stand for with the Nationals help, they can win government back without some of these teal seats which might have flipped forever. On the other point you made, I think it's refreshing and for people that voted for the Nationals
or people that are watching us in the bush. For a long time, the Nationals were accused under separate leaders of just falling over to the Liberal leader of the day. So if they're going to use this as a bit of a power struggle to take back some control refreshing take. I think David Little Proud has handled this well well and it's shown that the decision to back him in his leader was the right one. Matt Canavan's backed him in today as well, So we'll have to wait and see.
But for the meantime, I think the Nats go okay, we've got our House and order, we've got our policies. We're going to focus on these. The Libs can figure out what they stand for. They're a long way behind. We do need them one day, but you want them when they're in a position to win back government, not at the moment they are a rabbel.
Very quickly before we go. Bradfield forty votes in it. Of course in City could fall to the Tea Nicolette Buller. This will be an interesting fart on the recap well, and it's.
Another Liberal blow because Bradfield has always been held by the Liberal Party, Paul Fletcher's longtime seat. The preferences and I found this interesting. But every seat is going through the final preference count this week. If it's under one hundred votes, which it's likely to be, then there will be an automatic recount and we won't know the result for weeks, but at this stage nicolete Bowell is in the lead.
James willis, thank you so much for nicking, ma'am. Coming up after the break, be hasu kis Darma betrayed his voters by doing an economic deal with Europe and what will that mean for reform UK of course garning to take over from the Tories. Brendan O'Neill will join me later to discuss that. Plus is the end of the Ukraine Russia war near? Well? Trump seems to think so. Malcolm Davis will weigh in after this break. Thank you
for bearing with us through some technical difficulties. I didn't actually go all staticy in real life, but personally I think it's the best I've looked on TV in a long time. It really smooths out all those cranks and crevices. Now, Donald Trump has confirmed that Russia and Ukraine will start peace negotiations. At a press conference, he said there was a long way to go still.
Big egos involved.
I'd tell you big egos involved.
But I think something's going to happen, and if it doesn't, I just back away and they're going to have to keep going.
This was Russian President Vladimir Putin.
We have agreed with the President of the United States that Russia will propose and is ready to work with the Ukrainian side on a memorandum on a possible future peace of court, defining a number of positions such as, for example, the principles of settlements, the timing of a possible peace agreement.
Australian Strategic Policy Institute senior analyst Malcolm Davis joins me, Now, Malcolm, is this a breakthrough or not.
It's definitely not a breakthrough. Okay.
What we have seen here is Putin exploiting Trump, playing Trump for a full and basically delaying once again, any serious effort towards peace.
So he can continue the war. So there's no breakthrough here.
How long does this go on for? Right, Because they've been going backwards and thoughts backwards and forts nothing is changing. Trump says we have a breakthrough. Putin then sort of walks away and goes, ah, well, you know, we'll have some peace talks, but not really, they're not actually getting anywhere. Does anything ever change?
Look, I think Putin's strategy is to essentially outlast Trump's patience and resolve so that in the end goes tired of it all and just walks away from negotiations, basically walks away from supporting Ukraine, and that leaves Russia an advantageous position on the battlefield that they then allow themselves to make significant advances and ultimately achieve victory on the
battlefield Trump. So Putin sorry thinks that he can actually win militarily, but he's counting on Trump and the Trump administration to lose interest and give up on supporting Ukraine. That's critical for Putin's theory of victory, and I think if we want to stop the Russians from achieving that outcome, then the US and as allies have to continue to stick with Ukraine and continue to support them at all costs.
Trump obviously has staked a lot, and he was very clear when he was running for president's second time around it he wanted to achieve international peace and he made promises about getting things done within twenty four hours. We know that hasn't happened, and we know it hasn't been achieved in Israel yet either, but he staked a lot on this. So do you think he would actually walk away?
I think eventually he would.
There are forces within the Trump administration that don't want to support Ukraine, and certainly some of the language that Trump has used does raise questions about his genuine.
Willingness to support Ukraine.
At the end of the day, I think what Trump sees in this situation is transactional opportunities to do a deal with Putin that maybe disadvantages Ukraine and disadvantages Europe, but benefits the United States and benefits Russia. And I think that has to be the big concern because Ukraine is merely the opening act for a wider war between Russia and Europe that is brewing in the background and potentially some years off. And I think Putin's long term
aim is not just about Ukraine. It's about dictating the terms of NATO's capitulation to Russia. And that Trump is playing into Putin's trap here by essentially being ready to walk away from the crisis rather than sticking by Ukraine and sticking with Europe and supporting them to deter Russia from engaging in future aggression.
Well, Putin talks about in order to end all of this, they have to eliminate the quote unquote root causes of the war and create a memorandum of a possible future peace agreement, which is all a bit wishy wash. It doesn't exactly fill you with hope. But when he says, you know, eliminate the root causes, well, what are the root causes that he sees?
From Putin's perspective the elimination of Ukraine as a sovereign nation state. Essentially, what he wants is to destroy Ukraine as a sovereign nation state, remove the Ukrainian government, impose a Russian public government on the Ukrainian people, and enslave the Ukrainian people under Russian occupation. That's his definition of eliminating the root causes of the problem, because really Putin
has created the problem here. Putin invaded Ukraine first in twenty fourteen when he sees Crimea with the Little Green Men, and then in twenty twenty two with the main invasion that is still underway today. What he wants to do initially is capture those four territories that he partially controls at the moment, but capture the men entirety, and then expand his control across Ukraine itself to ultimately take Kiev.
And I think that there's no intention whatsoever on Putin's part to seek a justin fair peace.
You talk about Putin feeling like he could win this war militarily. Obviously, to this point that hasn't been possible because Ukraine has been continually armed to fight them off.
But we know.
About the relationship, the building relationship between China and Russia. How real is the concern that China could get involved in conflict.
Well, look, there's already been some suggestion that there are Chinese troops involved in the fighting as volunteers, and maybe the PLA has actually dispatched observers to the rare areas to watch how the Russians carry out operations and learn from that. I think the Chinese government has already involved to a degree in terms of supplying militarily relevant technologies to Russia that allow them to develop new military capabilities. At a strategic level, China is also assisting Russia to
circumvent sanctions imposed by the West. It's one of the reasons why the sanctions that have been laid against Russia haven't been that effective. That's allowed Russia to reorient its economy into a wartime mode and thus, as a result, being a much better position to sustain the Ukraine.
War effort and build up for a wider war against NATO.
So I do think that China is involved in this across different levels, but in terms of an actual direct combat role on a large scale, I think we're probably not there yet.
I want to return to the news yesterday that the European Union and our keen to strike a new defense deal with Australia. Obviously, Anthony ALBINIZI going over to meet the Pope, has had these discussions with Ursula von de Lay and she seems keen to do something. They've done a few deals like this of late. What would you be expecting of us?
Look, I think that this is a mutually beneficial opportunity. From Europe's perspective. They want to maintain influence in the Indo Pacific because they don't just face an aggressive expansion
as Russia. They also face a rising China that is backing Russia but also seeking to impose its own interests on European security, and so having allies and partners in the Indo Pacific makes eminent sense for Brussels in the sense that they can then have greater ability to work with the likes of Australia or New Zealand or Japan or other to actually deter and counter China and prevent
them from imposing its will on Europe. And certainly from our perspective, we could gain a lot by having a stronger relationship with Europe as well in terms of defense, industry cooperation and capability development.
Well, I was going to say just quickly, Michael, I mean, we need it as much as they do, right because we can't counter China in the Pacific on our own either.
We can't.
I mean, obviously, we still have a vital and important strategic alliance with the United States. I don't see that going away, irrespective of concerns about President Trump. But in this strategic environment of essentially being in a pre war period, you can never have too many friends, and so I think it makes sense for us to pursue this closer defense relationship with Europe as well as strengthening our relationship with the United States.
Malcolm Davis, thank you so much for your time. As always. Now, look, obviously we spent a lot of time talking about what's happening in Australian politics, and there's certainly been plenty to talk about today. But let's have a look over the ditch for a moment. There's a documentary being released in the US next month called Prime Minister. It's about Cinder Ardune's time as peame of New Zealand and it's largely based on videos her husband took while she was in
the job. Now it premiated at the Sundance Film Festival in January, it's about to be released publicly. Take a look at some of the trailer.
I was fourteen years old when someone first used the term.
Imposter syndrome, and it was just like something clipped. It just had a bit of a fear that I shouldn't be there.
It's hard to switch on the news some days and just think the world is a dumpster fire.
How do we shine a light on the humanity?
I know it's simbair.
You can be anxious, sensitive kind, you can be a mother, a nerd, a crier, you can be all pass and literally just like me.
Oh, isn't it just so touching? And you can see that the Sydney Film Festival coming up too. I really don't understand the international fating of Ardun, particularly given her approval rating was twenty nine percent after five years as PM. She wasn't the Messiah at home like she seemed to be overseas now. This thing has a rating of ninety four percent on Rotten Tomatoes from film critics. I don't know about you. It seems pretty insufferable to me. But
something a bit better from Kiwee politics though. He's Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters taking on a heckler this morning.
Why don't you nap off? Look at you?
Years old now wants to see you.
You look, you look mate?
Jong getting out of here, get out good last and don't bloody get last leave? You're married?
You many Yeah, you're feeling Marina well that men here if you want to okay, thanks guys.
Ah do you swear as well?
Mate? I mean, why can't we get a bit more of that? Winston Peters is eighty, as it's noted in that video, and he's still got plenty of fire in the belly. I know someone who wouldn't take a heckler lying down, someone who does have a lot of fire in the belly, and that is, of course, Paul Murray. Here is