Good evening.
We're coming up tonight exclusive new details about the scandal at the Nine network, with fresh allegations about a Christmas party incident involving their top news chief. This as the company is accused of a major cover up, plus the bizarre push to ban groups of men. But first tonight to the International Criminal Courts disgraceful decision that Israeli Prime Minister Benjaminette and Yahoo should be arrested alongside the hamas terrorists.
It's a ruling that's a perverse in its logic, that reeks of ideology, not facts, and that punishes Israel for daring to defend itself. Such a morally corrupt decision that yet again wages war on the Jewish homeland at the very time it's under siege from Iran, has Below and Hermas, when it's still fighting to bring its stolen children, even
babies home from rapists and barbarians in dark tunnels. The ICC also fans the flames of anti Semitism by promoting false claims that Israel is starving Palestinians and deliberately targeting civilians when the facts show that the opposite is true.
As I'll explain in a.
Minute, Well, who was there to sell this appalling judgment, but celebrities like Amaal Clooney. The decision is a clear disgrace. The idea that you could equate Hermas's barbaric atrocities with Netanyahu defending Jewish citizens from terrorists, well, it confuses reason and it confuses what's right and wrong. Joe Biden's administration strongly and unequivocally denounced the ICC's ruling. Biden himself called it outrage and he said, there's no equivalence between Israel and Hamas.
Let me be clear, we reject the ICC's application for rest warrants against a Walla Adia, so when one of these warrants may imply there is no equivalence between Israel and Hamas.
Secretary of State Anthony Blincoln described the ICC decision as shameful, and he said in a statement that Hamas is a brutal terrorist organization that carried out the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. So Joe Biden said it's outrageous. Anthony Blincoln said it's shameful, and there were similar statements from the UK, Germany, Austria and other countries around the world. But Anthony Albanesi nothing, no spine, no morals, no courage.
Just like with the vote at the United Nations, Albinizi was yet again at odds with how our closest ally the United States, and once again our prime minister was pathetic, alb and easy deflected questions, showing no intellect, no moral compass, and he was only outmatched in his ignorance by Chris Bowen.
You are put in Joey Biden seeing your restlance on this relatives is outrageous.
You agree, well, I don't comment on court processes in Australia.
Let a line court processes globally, which Australia is not a party.
Highly irresponsible, but by Peter Dutton to drag this through a domestic political debate. We respect the work of the International Criminal Court. International law must always be observed and nobody gets a free pass from that.
How sad it is for all of us that this is the leadership we have in Australia during this crisis. Well, the Coalition called out Albanese's pathetic, weak lack of leadership.
It's an abomination and it needs to be ceized. This action is anti Semitic and it is against the interests of peace in the Middle East. Either the prominence is not across the detail, or he's trying to please a domestic audience here for political purposes.
Well, now let's look at the reasons why the ICC decision is wrong. In an exceptional Wall Street Journal editorial, the board rights that the International Criminal Court has lost sight of the crucial distinction between the death squad and the bomber pilot. They say that the ruling is a subordination of the law in pursuit of Israel. They write that on one side are are israel It's democratic leaders waging a war to reclaim hostages.
And root out terrorists in Gaza.
On the other side is HERMAS, which precipitated the war with its mass murder, rape and kidnapping on October seven, and whose officials pledged to do it again and again. Lumping them together is a slander for the history books, they write. Imagine some international body prosecuting tojo and Roosevelt or Hitler and Churchill amid World War II. And on the claims of starvation, the Wall Street Journal responds that Hermas lists thirty one Gazans who it claims died of
malnutrition or starvation. They say Israel has facilitated the entry of over five hundred and forty two thousand tons of AID and over twenty eight thousand AID trucks in an unprecedented effort to supply an enemy civilians, even while her Musk steals the aid and tries to frustrate the delivery. Israel has begged Egypt for two weeks to let in aid at Ratha, while Egypt refuses. Is this the behavior of an Israeli government bent on starving Ghazans?
Obviously it's not.
Now.
The Times in the UK also reports that it is Hamas that's been obstructing delivery of aid and stealing supplies for its own use and also to sell on the black market at inflated prices. And The Times reports that defensively, the prosecutor Khan says he has consulted an impartial panel, yet it is stuffed with radical.
Human rights lawyers who are no friends of Israel.
This impartial panel is actually a hanging jury from the Salem School of Law. Verdict first evidence Nowhere, they write, the Khan's preposterous move is part of the agenda for Israel's destruction through a pincer movement of genocide or terror, brainwashed street insurrection and human rights law fare, and the beneficiary will only be humus. The victims will be Israel, the rule of law and civilization itself. It's a truly
terrific peace. And the Time says correctly that this ruling has destroyed what was left.
Of the ICC's credibility.
Now, the claim by the ICC that Israel is deliberately targeting civilians simply isn't supported by evidence. No government engaging in war has done more to protect civilian life. Israeli soldiers have even stayed on the phone to residence waiting for them to get out of apartment buildings before an attack.
Israel is treating wounded Palestinians in their own hospitals, and Israeli soldiers drop leaflets and flyers in Arabic asking civilians to evacuate before going into an area, even though this means they lose the advantage of a surprise attack. The death toll figures produced by Himas have been so unrealistic that even the United Nations was forced to revise.
Them down by half recently. Half.
And if you think it's surprising that the ICC ignored all of this evidence. It's because they didn't set foot on the ground in Israel, there was no proper investigation, and.
They've been accused of ignoring due process.
This was a political, ideological, and quite frankly racist ruling that does not reflect reality. Right Tonight's panel joins me now former Speaker of the House Bronwin Bishop and Sky News host James Morrow.
Thank you both for joining me. Runwin, what do you make of the ICC decision?
But also, perhaps more importantly for all of us, Anthony Alberanesi's response.
Anthony Albernesi's response is predictable. He's a man with no morals. As he said, he's weak, he's pathetic, he remains albo the trot. Hasn't changed his views since he was a university student and a demonstrated a university. But as for the ICC, when it came up in two thousand and two, as to whether Australia should sign this treaty, I fought
it tooth and nail. I fought it with every fiber in my body because I knew it would be a political court, if the people appointed to it would not be proper, would not give justice, and I fought hard against Alexander Danna and and it was all for it. I see today. It broke his heart to see it such a mess, But it broke my heart when we signed on because it was predictable. There is a provision in that for us, for Australia, we can give twelve months notice.
And get out of it.
And we should immediately give that notice and get out of it the way that has been brought down in your editorial. You explained it chapter and verse. But you've got a partisan prosecutor who clearly isn't on the side of Israel, and it is clearly on the side of Amas. So we've got to see justice and give notice to get out of the ICC.
James Morrow, you know you cover federal politics for the Daily Telegraph as.
Well as for Sky News.
What do you think of Anthony Albinezi here? I mean, it would have been the most easy statement in the world to say, no cot in the land can possibly draw an equivalents between Hamas and Israel. How couldn't he even come to articulate such a basic statement.
Well, I mean, there's a few things to unpack here. Number one, of course, is that this is just indicative of the latest way in which Albinizi is trying to have it both ways when it comes to Israel. You know, one day he's saying, oh, no, no, we can't have anybody saying the river to the sea and all of that stuff. Another day he's saying, I'm not going to condemn the ICC for their obviously biased ruling on this, And Sherry, I think there's more to this that we
also need to understand. This is part of a concerted international effort, not even just about Israel, but specifically about the government of Benjamin itt Yahoo. You know, Joe Biden said, oh, well, I don't accept this ruling. It's not really he didn't agree with it. But at the same time, you know, you can feel behind the scenes that this is part of a broader push to delegitimize the net Yahoo government
and pressure him out. Because the thing that Biden doesn't want, and the thing that the international left doesn't want, is for bb to be successful in prosecuting his war against Hamas and eliminating Hamas, because that then destroys the entire sort of foreign policy that they have, which is about empowering Iran as a regional power through its proxies.
That's a very interesting take.
I agree that there's been a lot of international pressure on the Netin Yahu government. I think they see him as this kind of Trump like figure, when in fact Israel is a democracy it should be entitled to have its elections. He is divisive within Israel, but it's a democracy. We have to respect the decisions they make. And you know, you can't confuse not supporting netin Yahoo, and many people.
Don't with not supporting Israel.
You have to support Israel even if you don't like the current prime minister. We all support Australia, even if many of you watching at home might not like so much our current prime minister. Speaking of which, the Albert Eezy government has been in office for two years now and most would be wondering what is the verdict?
Two years on? What do they have to show for it?
We've seen the failed Voice referendum, there's a cost of living crisis, a detainee and migration nightmare. More recently, a controversial budget and steadily declining holes Runman. Two years on, how do you think Elbow's gone?
What would you give his prime ministership so far?
One and a half serious surprise that's that high. Seriously, I mean, ask yourself the question, are you better off or worse off than you were two years ago. We've seen twelve interstrate hikes. We've seen a huge jump in immigration levels, which has caused enormous pressure on housing for Australians. We have seen the cost of living, which he promised to bring down through the roof you're seeing today, Telster,
it's going to sack nearly three thousand people. That is the first telling of how bad things really are.
Now.
You know, we talked about Albanesi and his weakness with regard to the ICC ruling, and I think I said that the ICC prosecutor was on her Massa's side. I meant to say, he's really on the side of the Palasidenian side. I don't know about hermas.
But I do know, yes, I noticed you said that. But in equating Israel with her mask that is furthering there. Yes it is.
And for Albanesi not to speak out, not to speak out and say that there is no moral equivalence, and to simply think, oh, I do desperately need this pile of voters who won't vote for me if I say nice things about Israel. It is just pathetic and there are at least a dozen things you could say about why we're worse off and when the voter comes to think of it, it is this insane drive for so called renewable power. When Aimo comes out today and said, we're never going to make We're going out.
We're going to but we're going to get to the blackouts in a moment. But James, you know, as a political reporter, you follow all of this closely. How do you judge the first two years of the alban Easy government and.
What's your view on whether they could go to an early election.
Yeah, look, I mean maybe it'll be a tiny bit more generous than Bram and Megham a c you know, just to be nice. But the thing is that what we have seen in the last couple of years has really been just a dramatic decline in Australian's stands of livings, our fortunes here. You know, our real GDP is down
per person. We're in a per capita recession. A lot of that is due to the fact that, as Brodwin mentions, you know, high immigration levels mean that we can have more economic activity that hides that it's a sugar hit. But of course, you know the cost of social hithesion, infrastructure, everything else massive. You know, our living standards, our household
income all backwards on his watch. And the thing that I'm really concerned about, you know, people talked about this budget that just got handed down last week is kind of big nothing, but in a lot of ways too, it sets some really worrisome precedents. You know, it really fully undoes all of the hawk Keating Howard reforms, you know, and instead sets up the government as again this sort of intermediating force between big business, big unions and big government.
Government spending of course now expanding to twenty six or more percent of GDP, which is insane, and at the same time, you know, now deciding to direct capital where it's going to go, you know, money to millionaires for green hydrogen. This this future brand in Australia stuff which is complete nonsense industry policy. I mean, somebody had the comment today they said, you know, what's decks, We're going to resubsidize holding in Kodeact come back and it just
it doesn't make any sense. But it shows the ethic of this government is all about growing government and growing the role of government in the economy and in people's lives. And the thing I'm really worried about, Sherry, is that as we go forward, this is going to continue to make us poorer relative to a where we were, but also poorer relative to other countries that we're competing against.
I mean, look, it's a very controversial policy the future made in Australia. Like you, I don't know why the government has to subsidize industries and pick companies to invest in, you know, when venture capital gets it wrong so often. But the Treasurer does argue that in fact he is being reformists like the hot Keating era. He says, creating an entire new green industry is being a reforming government.
Now let's turn to an exclusive that James Murray that you broke today in the Daily Telegraph that more than sixty thousand of the eighty thousand failed asylum seekers are still somehow in Australia and allowed to work or study. And you report that only seventeen of these people who claim to be refugees but were found not to be have actually been removed either voluntary or involuntarily over the
past two months. Ron when look how is this the case that people are found not to be genuine asylum seekers but they're allowed to still work and study here.
Of course this is the policy of this left wing government. They want them to stay, They want them to become voters because they think that'll entrench them in the government that they wish to change Australia. The statement the Keyping once made that you change the government, you changed the country is quite right. And this snake charmer of the Treasurer who's trying to bring about a reinvented capitalism I think you said it was, really has no idea of
the damage he's doing. I don't think his doctorate is in I studied eating. I mean, it's pathetic the ir laws that come in on the twenty sixth of August, which are going to hit industry, like you have no idea how bad they are. I've taken a look at them because to keep a current practicing certificate I have to go and do a course and do my ten points. So I chose I. Ah, it's horrendous and it hits on the twenty sixth of August.
That's good to know you're still studying, Bradwan James.
We're nearly out of time, but I've got to quickly go to you because this was your big story today.
Well tell us about it. What's the government's excuse for this?
Well, you know, they just say that they blame everything on you know, the system that they inherited and so on and so forth. But they're not doing anything really to fix this huge situation. We're talking eighty thousand people have had their applications rejected. Most of these come from people who come from countries, you know, like India is one of the top sources of these applications. When you know, nobody is really found to be a genuine refugee from there.
It's a democracy, there are allies. It's just a nonsense. We have so many students who then convert their student visas to asylum visas, and then once they've got that, they can stay for ten years while the process plays out. They establish a life here and they never get kicked out. The entire refugee system is broken because it's destroying the chances of people who are genuine refugees to get a quick decision, and so many people are abusing it. It's a real shame and it needs to be fixed.
I think yeah, all right, James ma Bron and Bishop Broun. I have to say, you give the government one and a half out of ten and yet they're still probably going to be re elected.
I mean that's what we're that's the reality. That's what we're looking on.
Trusting that won't o good.
All right, we'll see, Thank you Bright so much for your time.
Now still to come, fresh revelations about the departure of the top news trief at Channel nine and the network's attempt to cover it up, plus the fallout from the budget.
Continue use as voters reveal what they'll.
Be spending Charmers energy rebate on that's all coming up next, Welcome back.
Well.
Some of Channel nine's biggest.
Stars are speaking about the blokey culture of working under former legendary news guru Darren Wick and their concern that his conduct is now being swept under the carpet. The nine network stands accused of covering up allegations that it's former director of News and Current Affairs behaved inappropriately towards women on several occasions, with claims nine is even using
non disclosure agreements to keep this scandal secret. There are several allegations of inappropriate behavior involving Wick.
Over the years, yet he kept his job.
This included an alleged incident at the Logis after party on the Gold Coast in twenty nineteen. Channel nine stars have also spoken to me today about another incident at a network Christmas party where Wick was described as hansy. It was the talk of the newsroom afterwards, but it was put down to the television boss having had too much to drink.
Yet Wick was given a warm send.
Off when he left the network on March fifteen, with glowing remarks from some executives. Well nine staff was shocked to see him back in the newsroom on April twenty fourth.
Several women told us.
Today they felt uncomfortable as he walked around the newsroom for a large part of the day. Well of the culture at Channel nine under Darren Wick, one Channel nine star told me and I quote, it was really just the norm. He would get very drunk and the next day in the newsroom all the girls would swap stories in the ways in which he would be inappropriate towards them.
Environment was very toxic.
Women constantly felt pitted against each other and you felt like you were on eggshells all the time. Another woman said there were concerns about his behavior because he manipulated young women and undermined senior women.
Well.
Another employee said nine Corporate Affairs is very defensive of him. As I exclusively revealed last night, a female employee in the television news division made a recent complaint about an alleged incident involving Darren Wick that occurred some years ago. An external legal firm were brought in to investigate while Wick remained on leave.
While the firm did not.
Substantiate the claims, the decision was made at the highest levels to let him go given his alleged pattern of behavior. But now there's unrest inside Channel nine. Employees are accusing the board of a cover up. The board knew about
the complaint, yet there's been no transparency. There are questions now being asked also about wicks severance package, how large it was and how does it compare to how the female employee who made the complaint or how she was treated Handling the fallout of all of this is Wick's long term friend, Victoria Buckan, the head.
Of nine's corporate affairs. Now.
The Daily Telegraph has also covered this story tomorrow. The editor Ben English has sent me the front page. This is going to be the front page of the Daily Telegraph tomorrow. As you can see there, Darren Wick is on the front page. TV stars unload on departing newsboss. That's the headline and I can read you at least one comment from this story that's been written by journalist
Jonathan Morray. One of the women who spoke to Jonathan Moran, one of the television stars, said that he Darren Wick has been very divisive.
It has been.
Difficult for women to work with and under him. They've not been happy. At one stage we were calling him a cockroach and saying he's impossible to metaphorically kill.
The metaphoricles in bracket so he was impossible to kill. Calling him a cockroach.
One television star said he was just someone we had to work around in our professional lives.
So that's in the Daily Telegraph tomorrow as well. Were the Australians.
Media writer Sophie Ellsworth has also been following this story and she joins me now from Melbourne.
Sophie, thank you so.
Much for your time. What can you tell us about what the board knew about this fresh complaint? That led to Darren Wick's departure.
Well, Sharry, the board knew there was a complaint regarding inappropriate conduct by Wick towards a female staff member, and it was discussed among them. And just to remind you, as Sharry, this is the most These are the most senior people at nine. The board at nine is chaired by Peter Costello and it includes members of the Liking
of nine Entertainment CEO Mike Sneezeby. Now it's understood the matter has gone also to nine's human resources department, and this was all prior to Wick's departure.
Now, I've spoken to many sources at nine about this issue, where employees view it as a very clear cover up by the board. And this is what people are saying, that it's a cover up by the board, that there's been no transparency and the issue of non disclosure agreements, the use of non disclosure agreements has shocked many.
What can you tell us about this, Well, yes, there are non disclosure agreements involved, and shary when organizedas media or otherwise are not transparent, it often leads to further problems when information does come to light. Now nine should be transparent because we the Australian repeatedly asked the network of wis whereabouts and up until five days before he announced his resignation in March, we were told Charry that there were no discussions about his departure.
Now.
I was also told a little as about a fortnight before Darren Wick announced he was leaving, that he was actually coming back.
He was just on leave.
I was told this by Nine And then suddenly about six thirty pm on a Friday, the March fifteen, the day that the email went out from Channel nine, releasing a statement, said he'd quit. Now, Sharry, you and I know, when you want a story to be buried and not to be covered, you put it out on a Friday night when all the journalists have signed off, the papers.
Have been put to bed, and the news bulletins have gone.
And this timing definitely raised eyebrows.
Yeah, now do you think nine is being hypocritical here? This is another key accusation. At the very same time as nine was misleading you about Wick's absence, they were pursuing their commercial rival Channel seven about the scandal that was at the time unfolding at Spotlight.
Well, yes, it is hypocritical.
They certainly at nine throw all their resources into chasing stories involving high profile people, Sharry, whether it's journalists, other networks.
Or well known people in the community.
And as you said this on your show last night, so where are the editorial resources at nine Entertainment right now being thrown into this? You've got to remind people here, Shary, this is the network's most senior news director and he suddenly left. And in the lead up to mister Wick's departure, as I have said, there were also many people talking internally about where he was, and we were reporting this in The Australian. But then Chari suddenly this email came
out on a Friday night and he was gone. So I'm waiting very anxiously or curiously, should I say, for nine to follow up both the Australian and Sky and the Daily Telegraph stories on this.
Yeah, well let's see if they do. What about this issue about the board?
Do you think this could turn into a major corporate issue for nine if the accusations against the board escalate and if shareholders start to question why there hasn't been transparency.
Well it's fair enough, Shari, if they do.
But time will tell, and I can tell you there are plenty people, as you know yourself, talking about this situation inside nine at the moment, and there's more questions that need to be answered on this now. Nine releases their financial results in August and they have an AGM in November, so there's quite a lot of time between now and then, but let's wait and.
See, all right, Sophie Alsware, thank you so much for joining me to break that down for us. And if you missed my story either last night or tonight on this issue, you can head to the Sky News website. Also the Daily Telegraph big story as well on the front page tomorrow. Now, the budget feedback is rolling in and the major concern for voters is that the government's at cash splash will cause inflation and rates to rise.
This is according to the latest A Freshwater Strategy poll, where nearly forty percent of voters think that the budget will force the RBA's hand. Another forty six percent didn't think it would have any effect on household finances. So to discuss this, let's bring in now Director of Freshwater Strategy, Leo Shanahan. Leo, great to see you again.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Can you tell us about how because you looked at.
You know, there is tax relief for Australians in the budget, both in the form of the three hundred dollar energy rebate also the tax cuts that take effect from the first of July. What does your polling tell you about how Australians are planning to spend this money?
Yes, and I don't think that three hundred dollars was an accident even either, given the promise to reduce cost of living by two hundred and seventy five dollars and it's convenient amount obviously, But yes, what do people do with this money? Sharry and combining that with tax cuts, The shorter answer is most people are going to spend it. How quickly they spend it and what they spend it on is the key.
Now.
About thirty five percent of people said they were likely to save that money. About another thirty three percent so they'll pay down debt and spend it. Another twenty said they'll spend it on things they usually buy. Now the inflationary, really inflationary stuff is to invest it or spend it on things they wouldn't have thought otherwise. Now, the government might have a point here in the sense that it's not inherently inflationary to pay down debt or to spend
it on things well, to save it. It is not inflationary to spend it on things you usually buy. However, that's when we're yeah, where that's where we're kind of entering the zone where we're already in a hyperinflation or very inflationary environment, and then we're really dealing with people who are kind of just kind of escaping that wave and letting them continue on in the manner in which they are that is in an inflationary way. But they have the government has to do this dance of you know,
giving cost of living in relief. They said they would, they've done it, but the extent to which, and there's that key question will it increase the chance of an interest rate rise? And most people think it will, or at least the majority of respondents at around forty percent.
Although you're polling on how people plan to spend it. You know, if it's followed through, that would be good news and that might mean that it's not as inflationary. Look, let's look at you know, how Australians feel about energy sources.
You know that this is going to be a key.
Issue in the lead up to the next election, Peter Dutton's put nuclear on the table.
You know, what does your research tell us?
Well, look, I think from the get go you see solar having supporter of about eighty one percent of people. So solar is the kind of Koala bear at the moment in energy that everybody still loves. Yeah, eighty one percent. But natural gas has made a huge breakthrough at around fifty six percent in terms of support. That beats wind now. Winds support has really dropped off both offshore onshore wind by about ten percent.
Now.
There's obviously a lot of concern, especially in regional areas about the role of wind now and gas. Despite those activist proponents who are coming out, you know, increasingly against that gas, trying to compare it with coal, it is
increasingly popular about fifty six percent now. The bad news for Peter Dutton is that nuclear is consistently pretty low at about thirty six percent in terms of support and thirty one percent of people who actually oppose it, So you've actually got a pretty entrenched opposition to it as well. Coal thirty three percent thirty four percent similarly divisive. But the difference with coal is it's in the system. It's there. We rely on it and at the moment we certainly
need it. Nuclear doesn't have that benefit at the moment.
And what about your overall polling.
You know, in the overall political figures in the primary vote, Labor gained one point I understand, to thirty two percent.
The Coalition remained unchanged at forty percent.
So it told us through these figures and what it says about how the prime minister is going.
Yeah, look, there's no budget bounce. These are kind of overstated, but you know, they haven't gone backwards, which is good for the government, but Liberal and National parties SPA having.
Billions not to go backwards as well.
When well, will you know, Labor government on thirty two percent primary vote, that's still relatively low compared to what we have the coalition on which is forty percent. Obviously on a two pp basis. The Greens really pushed them up. The Greens have gone up slightly to forteen percent. So
now we're pretty much at status quo on fifty to fifty. Now, if an election were held tomorrow on these numbers, it's more than likely that Labor would form government with about seventy three seats Greens with four Liberal National Coalition about sixty three and then independence but this would be would slip into a minority government. And then this of course, the College managed to.
Get a forty percent primary, they'd have a good shot at being in government themselves.
But well, yeah, that if they can out, that would be a remarkable attempt.
If they if they managed to get forty percent, that would be a very surprising us.
Yeah, the trend is down for the government and that's clear. And the real question is, you know, how long do they want to risk that trend before going to election. Al analysis says there will be an early election. This will be the last budget under this government.
Yeah, I understand the PM has no intention of going early.
So he says, all right, go if you can win.
Thank you so much for your time.
Thanks Now after the break, the bizarre proposal for a manvan. Well, there's no man ban on this show with two gentlemen, Kayler Bond and Nick Cata joining me. Next, plus why mediation between Linda Reynolds and Britney Higgles. Brittney Higgins has fallen apart for a second time. Welcome back, Well Ambulance ramping is back in the spotlight with a Gold Coast man dying after waiting hours for hospital access.
He eventually had a heart attack.
Ambulance ramping and long wait times when you call Triplo, even if Triplo knows the situation is urgent.
Well, this is a.
Problem right across the country. Not enough is being done to fix this crucial issue. If you're having a medical episode, if you're having a heart attack or a stroke, you need urgent attention.
Not being left in a queue for hours.
Well to discuss, let's bring in Sky News host kayleb Bond and senior fellow at the Menzies Research Center, Nick cat Neck.
Where in the world are you joining us from tonight?
I'm in Stockholm, Shari, Beautiful Stockholm in springtime, lovely.
Hope you don't have the syndrome, Nick, Well, it looks beautiful.
Not yet, not yet, Caleb.
We know this issue, Caleb.
We know this issue of ambulance ramping isn't exclusive to Queensland. This is a major issue for state governments right across the country and none of them seem to be able to fix it.
Well, it's everywhere.
I mean, look the words of Peter malinowskis the South Australian premier ring in May is because he was elected very much on a promise that we will fix the ramping crisis in South Australia. Well, two years on, ramping is worse than it has ever been in South Australia. It's bad in Victoria, and that's compounded in Victoria by a really bad triple zero system they have down there.
And when I was at the Herald Sun we did quite a bit of coverage in the Sunday Herald Sun on it was more than thirty people who had died because they weren't having their triple zero calls attended to within the time required. So you add all these things together and you've got to ask yourself the question, how can we trust any state government to look after anything when they can't deal with the most basic issues such
as health and the population keeps going up. We don't get more hospitals, we don't get more beds, we don't get more ambulances, and somehow we expect the system to work. In say, if I use that example again, they built a new hospital. They got to the old Royal Adelaide Hospital, built a new Royal Adelaide Hospital. It had fewer beds than the old one. Make it make sense.
I mean state governments get involved in all sorts of things. You just want them to be on top of service delivery. That's what everyone pays their taxes for, Nick Cata. This is shaping up to be now an issue in the Queensland state election.
How do you think that's going to play out? For labor.
It should be an issue in the Queensland state election, Chari because this is not at its route about a short sortritage of medical services or shortage of ambulances. It's about organization because other states with the same degree of resources manage this better. And I've said this before, but if you put the head of Amazon in charge of ambulances in Queensland, I think he'd fix it within a day.
It's simply a matter of organization. This poor gentleman should have been accelerated and pushed at the front of the queue.
He wasn't.
That's about systems, that's about organization, and I think it's something that the coalition and incoming coalition government should and must fix as a matter of priority. And they can do it because it's been done in other places.
Well, I have to say this issue has been just as bad under Coalition and Labor state governments, at least in New South Wales. And you know if you were that man's family who had died of a heart attack because he wasn't given medical treatment fast enough, because he was just left on an ambulance stretcher, you would be.
Absolutely furious that fury adding to the Greek.
Now, there was a second attempt at mediation talks between Linda Reynolds and Britney Higgins and it's failed yet again to reach a settlement. So this is Linda reynolds defamation suit against her former political staffer. Now, after leaving the West Australian Supreme Court this afternoon, Linda Reynolds said she'd like to reach a settlement.
Have a listen.
Justice Lee made some very comprehensive findings in his judgment and it is time for all parties to accept.
All of his comments and I think that will help us all move forward.
Caleb, you know this now seems the mediation talks have failed twice, so it now seems like it's going to.
Go to trial, set for a six week trial. I mean, you know, you totally.
Understand that Linda Reynolds would feel very hard done by, and just as Michael Lee did find that there was no political cover up, those were the allegations against her.
She ended up with problems in hospital.
But at the same time, we know that Britney Higgins has been suffering quite serious mental health issues under the stress of all of this, So you know, you just hope that they could reach a settlement, that Higgins could apologize for the claims that she didn't that Linda Reynolds didn't handle this properly.
Yeah, and you've sort of ended up with this cat and mouse game where, of course, after the case where Justice Lee laid out that there was no political cover up, David Scharraz, Britney's fiance, made comments online to the effect that, you know, we wish Linda would drop this case. So there's no desire from either side of this defamation case to walk away from it. And I have no doubt that Linda would much prefer to settle because it makes things a lot easier. But it's not going to be
an easy process for either of them. As you say, we know Britney has had mental health issues, and I'm sure a six week trial does nothing to help that, particularly after the trial that just happened with Bruce Lehreman. And we know that Linda had self has had health
issues connected to this case. Like everything that has transpired ever since it all came to like, everyone who has been touched by this case has come out damaged by it, and I don't think we're about to see anything different in that regard.
Yeah, well, Nikita, do you think you know either party should walk away here or do you know do you think both have a responsibility to just compromise a bit to.
Get this settled.
Absolutely, And having been in a media agent session ahead of a defamation case, I can tell you it is not in anybody's interests to go to court except the lawyers. They are the only people who benefit for going to court. It should be settled now. I'm surprised that it hasn't been. I think Linda Rewolds is right to put to justice Lee's findings and say, well, it gets quite straightforward. I
was blamed for something which I didn't do. My repute was damaged severely, possibly my whole political career was damaged because of this. I need some sort of apology and recompense I don't know why they haven't come to it, but I think it's very very foolish for them to go to court, and I really think that it would
seem for an outsider, pretty straightforward. You just acknowledge what Justice Lee has said about Linda Reynolds being entirely blameless in this, and you make clear that her reputation, you make good on her reputation. It's straightforward.
Yeah, all right, after the break, we're going to talk about the bizarre call for a man ban as I said, no man ban on this program, plus Donald Trump and the fiery appearance outside Cot after break.
Well, as you know, domestic violence has.
Been in the spotlight, but an article suggesting ways to curb it is causing a stir.
The headline reads, is it time to start?
Men?
Congregating in groups?
Could mean no footy training, no group chats, norowdi tables at pub trivia.
Well, Ben Fordham said this morning that the idea was utter madness.
I think we've reached peak madness. And the blokes playing pub trivia or the blokes at footy training, they're probably the same blokes would be first to step.
In and help.
Caleb. What do you think about this.
Do you think the debate about domestic violence is now just going too far when people are suggesting banning groups of men.
Yeah, I mean, look, the suggestion is pretty brainded, isn't it. I understand the objective of the author's column, and all three of us are are columnists at various times, and I understand the idea that you want to provoke a reaction. And if you read through the entire column, the points she is getting at is that women feel unsafe in some situations, So why should women be made to feel unsafe? Perhaps the men should have to take a hit so women feel safe. I get the argument she is making.
But to take something that is as serious as domestic violence and sexual violence, which is referenced in the column, and to then suggest, well, the solution is to ban
men from gathering. You know, come on, if you really want to bring men along with the discussion, and you had this discussion with the Josh Zepps last week, I think it was, it might might have been earlier this week even, But if you want to if you want to bring men along with you, you actually have to bring them to the table and say this is what we need you to do to help, and this is
why you should help. Going down the road of saying, oh, well, you know you're all potentially violent, even though we all know it's not true, it does turn people off, and I don't think that's good for the cause.
I mean, Nickkita, you like a bit of a male gathering. You're a cyclist.
Can you imagine being told you couldn't cycle in with a group of men anymore?
Look, I don't know we do any harm to anybody. There's certainly no women except perhaps you know. The site of the licro maybe a little bit difficult for some, but look, I mean it's absurd, it's absurd chari and this is really a long running campaign beginning with you know, feminists who thought they would say this is all about being a man. It's not about being a man. It's about being it's about behaving in an outrageous and unacceptable
and violent and often criminal way. That's what it's about. It's about criminal behavior. Okay, so some men rob banks, But does that mean to say we stop men going anywhere near banks? I mean, that's the kind of logic we're getting to on this. Instead, we should deal with the with the people themselves that we should make sure that that the police are fully equipped and the law is on their side to come down and hard on men who do cowardly things to women. I should also look at underlying causes.
Okay, we've got to quickly get to Donald Trump.
Now.
His historic hush money trial is nearing its end, and we've seen his farmer fixer from a lawyer, Michael Cohen, admit to stealing tens of thousands of dollars.
From his company.
I don't know if we have time to play you Trump's comments, But Caleb, what did you make of Michael Cohen's evidence?
Oh?
Look, this whole trial has been exactly what we expected it would be, which is a show trial. The point is to try and string Trump up for what purpose we don't really know, except to beat the chests of Democrats and say, look at us, we're trying to get them man and Cohen is no different. It does not make a lick of difference what Cohen or Trump or anyone else says in that courtroom. It is not going
to change a single vote in the United States. If you're going to vote for Trump, you already know you're going to vote for Trump. And if you're not going to vote for Trump. Well, you're already not voting for him. This case ain't changing it. The whole thing has been a joke.
Yeah, Nick Cata, what's your verdict on how this is going to play out for Trump?
Plug out very well because all the polling shows that the less he talks about politics, the higher his ratings go. And so the Democrats or whoever's driving this case has done him a great favor by getting him concentrated on something else. And you know, it is a show trial, as Caleb said, but it's a show title that's really I suppose it does two things. One, it keeps Democrats spirits up because they've got a pretty dismal election ahead
with Biden in charge. But it also brews Trump as we know that this actually has a positive effect.
All right, Nick Cata, enjoy Stockholm, Kay the bind will see you back at ten o'clock. Thanks everyone for your company. I'll see you tomorrow at eight. And here's my great mate, Paul Murray.