Live on Sky News. This is Sharry.
Good Evening, Caleb Bond with you, Holly Hughes, goes Bang. Here's what's coming up on the program tonight. The coalition breakup is getting messier now. While this could still be the best thing for both parties, the leaders need to have the right intentions. My analysis in a moment and now that the shock is wearing off, what does the coalition break up mean for the future of the two parties. Well, I'll get the perspectives from National Deputy Leader Kevin Hogan
and Liberal MP Garth Hamilton. And just how long has Biden had prostate cancer. There's just so many questions about this story that still haven't been answered. I'll attempt to answer them for you. I'll speak with both the urologist and Brendan O'Neill later in the show. Now, the differences could not have been more stark today between the federal government and what used to be the opposition.
In the government corner.
You had ALP National Secretary and campaign director Paul Erickson at the National Press Club effectively on his victory lap, and deservedly so, because he ran an excellent campaign.
Albo was in his element connecting with everyday people and enjoying it. And while the Prime Minister was telling a positive story about who we are and where we're going, Peter Dutton was gloomy about the country, downcast about the future, and most animated when he was magnifying the problems facing Australia.
And look, it is a fair criticism, as I wrote in the Advertiser during the campaign, and I said on air here, long term vision just seems to be absent from politics these days. No one is really concerned with the future. No one talked about tomorrow or what the country looked like in a decade's time. Everyone talked about yesterday, maybe today if you were lucky, I mean. In the ABC debate, Anthony Alberanisi and Dutton were both asked what
they wanted their legacy to be. Dutton nominated nuclear power, which is a real vision for the future, but that was conspicuously absent from most of the campaign, and Albanez he said, cheaper childcare, I mean really hardly floating the dollar or creating the GST, and Ericson also identified one of Dutton's other big failures.
The contrast was as clear as night and day. Prime Minister offered authentic, measured and firm leadership and Peter Dutton never missed an opportunity and miss an opportunity.
That just about says it all.
Really a bit like Garth Hamilton wrote the other day, and I've been coming back.
To all week.
The best and worst thing about Dutton was the piece he brought to the Liberal Party because they didn't actually have the fights and put in the work. And I'll talk to Garth more about that later in the show. And again deservedly so, Ericson is feeling a bit cocky.
The fourth factor in our win was the Prime Minister's performance. From the first Monday of January through to election day. The Prime Minister was in the form of a lifetime. Originally I wrote here that the PM didn't put a foot wrong, but this would have summoned the coalition's media che has got to interview the stage from the Marning and Energy Union conference up in Newcastle as part of a feature on Labor lies.
All right, fair cop.
But he did lie about not falling off the stage though. But it seems clear that labor really couldn't believe it's luck.
But in past campaigns a major party might have held back its centerpiece policy commitment until the final five weeks to maximize cut through.
Peter Dutton's campaign.
Took this two absurd extremes with less than two weeks to go on Insiders with David, Michael Sukha said the Coalition was saving up their policies so that they could quote connect with the strains when they're going to switch on. I remember watching that interview and thinking, you haven't got long now, brother.
Now the point is Labor is confident. I mean they were clearly confident at that point as well. They're relaxed and they have every reason to be right now they've been vindicated basically. And the Prime Minister today, fresh from his trip to Indonesia and the Vatican, he looked calm and collected, more so, I think than at any time I saw in his first term. And you can just imagine how he and Ericson must have felt yesterday when
they heard that the coalition had been blown up. No wonder they was so relaxed today, Which brings me to the opposition corner, or what used to be the opposition. Of course, now it's just the Liberal Party, Labor, cool, calm and collected, Liberals and Nationals in turmoil. Now all of yesterday's fun and games have continued.
To play out.
Today more guts have been spilled, and to be honest, it looks like things might get worse before they get better, because yesterday David Little Proud was very much casting it as a little break in the relationships and time apart to find each other again. We'll all be back together soon once we've settled our differences.
But today he was.
Quite explicit in saying they may will not get back together before the next election and instead try to wait until they're in a position where the Libs would need them to form government.
If we get to a juncture after the next election where we can form a government with the Liberal Party, then obviously we're going to support the Liberal Party, but there will be conditions, and the conditions are about those things that are core to making the lives of those people that we represent better and giving them a future.
That doesn't sound like getting the coalition back together for the sake of reforming a cohesive coalition for the benefit of the country. It sounds like an ultimatum. And Susan Lee, for her part, is also apparently keen to not reform the coalition before the next election so she can keep all the shadow cabinet positions for the Liberals. I mean, that is just stupid, and I get it. As I said last night, I think the Nats have a valid bone to pick with the Liberals, and I can understand
why the Liberals are upset. But the language now today is a little more aggressive than it was yesterday morning. I mean, if the Liberals don't come to the table, and it sounds like the Nationals would just then sit on the back bench indefinitely, I mean, I'm not sure
that's the best thing for anyone. Little Proud has also been more explicit today about where he thinks things went wrong with the election campaign, particularly nuclear energy, which was one of the four policies the Nationals said were non negotiable to keep the coalition going.
Nuclear plus gas plus renewables was three hundred and thirty billion dollars two hundred and sixty three billion dollars ship.
But we couldn't sell that.
We didn't sell that, we weren't agile enough.
He also pointed out the flip flopping on work from home and how labor was essentially able to paint its own narrative. Sorry if Peter Dutton without any pushback.
If in reflection and we look at this, I think we've got to be brutally honest with ourselves about why we lost. When you look at where the polls were Christmas time and you see where they shifted. I think the Labor Party were able to make Peter data Dunton unelectable. And what they couldn't do is put a vote next to him, and they held their eyes and put a vote next to Anthony albanetis.
It's hard to argue with that. Now.
I think the Nats are right to ask for nuclear to stay, etc. I think they've been unreasonable in asking for an end cabinet solidarity that would never fly. And as I said last night, I think this could be the best thing to get the Liberals to wake up to themselves and settle on a policy agenda that creates a real point of difference with Labor and could win them an election. But this talk of them not getting back together at all in this term, seemingly from both
sides of the former coalition, is not good. You know, I'd like to be and I'd like to think most people in both the Liberal and National parties would be optimistic about things going much better than that, because if they don't get back together, it will ostensibly be because the Libs have completely lost their way and dumped policies like nuclear energy, one of the things that he is actually a point of difference, and also because a strong coalition,
as many elder statesmen including John Howard have pointed out, is better for both parties. You have more talent, more experience, more perspective. National ZMP Darren Chester, he was a former minister in the Turnbull government, said this afternoon that to not get back together would be a gift to the Prime Minister. And the longer it goes, the harder it gets.
Given both the leaders have indicated they had respectful conversations that both their doors are still open to further conversations. Well, I'm suggesting let's have those conversations sooner rather than later. The longer this goes on, I think it becomes harder to reconciling differences.
Indeed it does. I hope the Liberal Party can see that. And just for a bit of levity, I'll give the final word on all this to Bob Catter.
It will suggest before the election that you may have.
Come back into the Nationals.
Just explain was that on?
Was that a real thing?
And where does it sit now?
That is as likely to happen as it is that I get to have a night out with Nicole Kittman. Maybe there's strong a knowledgeable rephrase that one.
That's just not going to happen.
All right, Joining me now, Former Victorian Liberal Party president Michael Kroger and Michael Kevin Hogan admitted today that the coalition breakup was not a unanimous vote within the Nationals.
Take a look.
Was the decision unanimous in the party room?
It wasn't unanimous, but it was quite conclusive. And again it's a good point, Kenny. This was I didn't make this decision. David Little Proud didn't make this decision. Bridget McKenzie didn't make this decision. The Nationals federal party room made this s decision.
Of course, so that the party remade the decision. So even if you were against it, it doesn't matter. But clearly there were people within the Nats who thought it would be best to stick with the coalition. Did the Nationals make the wrong decision?
Well, I certainly did, Caleb. This is not helpful to the National Party, it's not helpful to the Liberal Party. It certainly helps alban Easy. One of the many issues going forward. If this coalition doesn't get back together, you split, you know, you split the two parties. There's no cohesion. It's hard to go to an election with the party separate.
What happens, for example, to the joint Senate tick in Victoria and Bridget Mackenzie is the number two on the Joint Senate tike het we won Liberals one, Nationals two, Liberals three. Now we won two spots last time. But at the next election Bridge and Mackenzie, what is she's going to run on her own, not part of the coalition ticket. I think that would make it very hard for it to Winia. So the consequences of running separately are potentially disastrous for both the Liberal Party and the
National Party. And as John Howard says, and you know his rights always know, the sooner they get back together, the better. And it's good to see Darren Chester, the former National Party minister, saying again tonight it's better they get back together sooner or later. Sooner if possible.
Graham Richardson joins us. Now Richo I mean albow. He must be so happy to see this going on. Like I said before, when I saw him today talking to the media, he seemed to be more relaxed and happy and confident than I saw him at any point during his first term.
Well, I think he's got every right to be as think at the moment. I mean, he's sitting there. He doesn't have to do anything. He just watches the Liberals and Nationals destroy themselves.
He doesn't have to do a thing.
So I think this Elbows in a perfect position at the moment because all he has to do is be a spectator. He doesn't have to get down on the ground and fight, doesn't for say anything that's toughen and hard and all the rest of it.
He just let the Liberals and Nationals do it to each other.
Speaking of the breakup, this was a particularly petty part of all I think today, The new Deputy Opposition leader Ted O'Brien May emphasises on May have skipped out on a Today Show interview after he discovered it beyond with National Senator Matt Canavan and Carl Stiff and Ovic, as you can imagine, wasn't too happy.
We asked Deputy liberally a Ted O'Brien on the show last night, and he agreed this morning at a courtesy we told him Matt Canavan was coming on too. All seemed okay, and then twenty minutes ago his team rang saying he won't come on with Canadan. I mean, you can't make it up. It's like maths the Canberra Edition. Matt Canavan is in the house. They made a good morning to you. Nice to see this one. How'd your sleep last night?
I'm not bad, mate?
God as the canber edition, how would it rate? But Ted O'Brien, for his part, denies that he canceled.
I was told this morning that the session won't proceed. I think they were looking at me being on. And then it was in a station palichet. Then it was Matt Canavan. I certainly querit, saying gee, should it be Kevin Hogan given he as the deputy leader. But there was no cancelation and I haven't. I can't think of any sort of interview I've ever canceled. Matt and I spoke a few days ago right where mates. We're both from Queensland. We've always been friends.
Michael.
I don't know what actually happened here and the only people who actually know were those who were involved. But regardless, it wasn't a great look.
Well does it really matter? I mean Ted thought it wasn't going ahead. I don't think this is an issue at all of any substance to anybody. These things happened from time to time. We all booking interviews and they get canceled the last minute on occasions. So you know, I write this as zero on the register of things that are important.
Made to be honest, Well, it's probably not important in the grand scheme of things, but you know, Rich, I suppose it's just another example of where it looks like things are going wrong, because perception is reality. Even if this is not the truth, that is the message that was put across this morning that Ted O'Brien didn't want to be there, and a lot of people watching that would have had that impression.
That's the only impression you can get.
And I think it's lamendable that we'd be at this point. We don't need to be. I can't understand what the problem is between him in Canadan. If there is one. Canadan is one of my good friends. I think he's a terrific fellow, so tess having trouble with him, then I might intervene and so I can help get the two of them together.
Well, we've talked enough about.
We've talked enough about the losers. Let's talk about the winners now, shall we. The architect of Labour's historic win, which is, of course, the LP National secretary Paul Ericson. As I showed earlier, he gave a rather smug lecture to the Coalition at today's National Press Club, and fair enough, he has the runs on the board. He's earn't that right, but he lauded Labour's embrace of renewable energy as integral to their success.
Have a look.
The coalition needs to accept the lessons from the last two federal elections and their last two defeats if they want to be competitive again, and I think that starts with facing up to the reality of climate change and to the energy transition of the country needs to make.
Michael I described Ericson before as a bit cocky. Today I think that's accurate, and I think the ALP would want to be careful about getting too cocky because if they seriously think that energy, renewable energy was one of the things that delivered them. That thumping majority got rocks in their heads.
They need to have one of those true believers dinners. Remember was it after the ninety three election, Richo, that they had that true Believers dinner where Gareth Evans was dancing around and any no one paid for the dinner afterwards putting that aside, Yeah you remember it, no one, No one paid, mate, you're offered. You all thought you were going free. Look, the bottom line is this, You know,
winners write their own history. Ericson was doing absolutely the right thing by trying to tell people why they won the election. Half of what he said was nonsense, half was probably true. I mean, if what he was saying was true on that issue, then how does explain that for a year and a half up to February this year, Peter Dutton was fifty two forty eight in front of the polls fifty one to forty one. For eighteen months
people thought Dutton was going to win. Know what happened was something happened in the last eight weeks and the only person that got close to it today, in a rather fawning performance by the Canbra presscal who was that? Claire Armstrong? I Thinks from the Daily Telegraph in New South Wales who asked him about their negative care campaign. Well, what happened in the eight weeks was two things. One it showed the Liberal National Parties didn't have a sufficient
depth of policy offering. We acknowledge that. But secondly, Labor ran a dirty negative campaign against Peter Dutton personally, which they've been doing for years very successfully, and they ran a disgraceful campaign that Peter Dutton was going to slash and burn medi here, closed down urgent care clinics, close hospitals, and then they lied about nuclear That's what happened in
the last eight weeks. So if what Erickson was saying about the grandiose moved to renewables hadn't dawned on the electric between the twenty two election in February this year, mate.
And you're right, Michael Claire Armstrong did ask him about that negative campaign and specifically about MIDI scare, and Richo Paul Erickson basically said, we will do medi scare again because we know and think that it works. Well.
It does. There's no question that it works. Every time we raise it.
I think we win those so I have no doubt it will be used again and again and again. It's a I think John Howard has just embraced that. When when the many gaving was beginning, then I think he lives that had a lot less strife. But that was one mistake he made. And of course I am not someone who bags out. I think how It was a very good prime minister, but he got that wrong.
Yeah, well, you know, integrity in politics? Who'd care about that?
Now?
Elon Musk told a business for him in Qatar that he's taking a step back from political donations.
In terms of political spending, I'm going to do.
A lot less in the future.
And why is that?
I think I've done enough?
Is it?
Is it because of blowback? Well, if I see a reason to do political spending in the future, I will do it.
And in an currently the reason.
It's a rapid change in approach from one of the founding members, of course, of Trump's Department of Government Efficiency Doge and Michael A. Do we need Elon Musk or people like Elon Musk in politics? But b as he just simply had enough. I mean, he's seen what's happened to his businesses.
You certainly need people like him who have got courage and who are fearless. But the problem is that prominent business people being involved in politics doesn't work because there's too many easy ways to damage their businesses through boycotts. And we've seen what's happened in America with these Tesla dealerships being ransacked and firebombed and cars being set alight. So he's got commercial interests to look after, and he should go back and look after those. You know, he's
done some excellent work on dog. I mean, all that federal government spending in America are out of control. But you know it's part of the age, old adage. Business and politics don't mix, and politicians for politicians, politics politicians, and you know, businesses for business people because they're entirely different professions and they don't mix well together. Mate.
Are you sad to see him shut up? Richard?
Am I sad? Dude? So I missed that?
Are you sad to see him shut up not talk anymore? Leave politics? No?
I think I can probably live with it. I think.
He's a fascinating character. And I love having fascinating characters and politics because it gives us all something to talk about, write about, et cetera. And the guy absolutely fascinates me. I'd love to meet him. But as far as I'm concerned, mate, whether he gets gets up and does more or does less will matter little to any of us.
Michael, we've only got a minute, but quickly before we go that the UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy has been scathing of Israel's actions around Gaza. Sending aid in or not sending aid in is which is what he would say. He has said, we must call this what it is. It is extremism, It is dangerous, it is repellent, it is monstrous, and I condemn it in the strongest possible terms. Is the reality not though that if you send the aid in as he wants to a muscle, just take it anyway.
What's the point.
Yeah, it's so easy to play to your constituency. There are Muslim voters in Britain than there are Jews. That's true throughout the world. Politicians are not immune to domestic pressure. The easiest thing, the most morally proper thing for him to do, would we just say, hang on, if her mus had laid down their weapons straight after October seven, there'd be you know, thousands of Palestinians alive. If Hermas hadn't used innocent Palestinians as human shield, they'd be alive.
So the condemnation should be of Hamas and their supporters and Iran. Israel's an easy target. But what does he think Israel should do? What does he think they should do? How does he think they should deal with terrorists on Israel's doorstep? Nothing, He's got nothing to say about that. Israel is always an easy target and a poor performance by their foreigners, to be quite frank made.
And an interesting way to talk to an ally too, mister Kroger, mister Richardson, Yeah, to have you both asas.
Thanks.
Now let's return to the coalition breakup. As I said earlier, the divisions have seemingly grown today to the point where they might not come back together before the election. I just think that's extraordinary. I don't think it's good for anyone. But I caught up with National's deputy leader Kevin Hogan a short time ago.
Kevin, thank you for joining me.
Of course, we spoke last week on Thursday about the possibility of the coalition breaking up, and that is, of course, now what has happened. So it's the morning after the night before, as it were, Are there any regrets?
Well, look, the feeling yesterday for me, Caylor was one of melancholy and I still feel like that. This certainly wasn't a joyous occasion yesterday. It wasn't something that we wanted to do and wasn't something that we set out to do, but it was something we unfortunately felt we had to do. But having said that as well, we
have some issues that we would like to resolve. Were the four issues that we've been very public on that we need as part of a deal, and I hope that happened sooner rather than later and the band's back together again.
Well, from what David little Proud has been saying today, your leader, of course you may will sit on the backbench until after the next election unless on those four policy points the Liberal Party accedes to you.
Is that a.
Situation you would like to end up in? I mean, are you prepared to say, Look, if we don't get those policies, we are not rejoining with the Liberal Party at all.
Well, Caleb, my desire is to be sitting in a coalition with the Liberal Party tomorrow. That would be my goal. Now, why isn't that happening, and to reprosecute those four things. Let's take one of them, Caleb. One of them is the Regional Australia Future Fund. We have been arguing and trying to get that to be coalition policy for a decade. We've got to agree to us coalition policy in the
last twelve months of the last parliament. We can't see that because what is that that's about more money in the re agents for childcare, for health care and for infrastructure. I couldn't look my community in the eye and said, oh, you know that twenty billion dollar fund that we promised, and there'd be a b and dollarly dividend every year going into the regions. We forego that as far as sign a coalition agreement. That's unacceptable for us as a community.
So I am hoping that the Liberal Party can get to the place where they see the value in those four policies and we are in a coalition agreement by the end of the week.
Well, you talk about how you sell your values to the community, the rank and file members of the National Party, how have they responded to you about this?
Well, on the ground locally, they understand.
I mean the feedback that my office has been getting and things that we've been putting out has been one of very much of positivity. Remember, Caleb, this is this is a position of principle. I not that I'm complaining. We have all foregone shadow cabinet positions which things come with that.
We have forgotne that.
Because these four policy positions are too important us. The vestiture been another one. We've been arguing and trying to get the vestiture as coalition policy for up to ten years as well. We got that as coalition policy in the last parliament, and we just these are too important to our farmers, too important to our local communities when we're talking about the infrastructure and the healthcare and the Region Australian Future Fund to give up. They're really signature policies for us.
Clearly, not everyone in the party room back the decision. You said earlier today that the decision was not unanimous.
Exactly how much descent was there.
We look, I don't want to go and it's not for me too, and I don't want to break party room confidence. I mean, the party room is a sacred place in the sense of what happens in the party room does and should stay in the party room. It wasn't unanimous, but having said that, it was quite conclusive the result.
Did you vote for it?
I did?
I did, And again this shouldn't have been a surprise either, with all due respect to our partners or our partners in the coalition, the Liberal Party. I think David has said that on the Friday last Friday, we went back to the Liberal leadership and said these four are signature policies. They're too important for us to forego and we need a commitment to them. So wasn't something we threw at
the last minute. It was something that we did very early on in the negotiation, so we were disappointed when there wasn't enough movement on them.
The argument, of course from the Liberals would be, you know, as Susan Lee has said, we're going to go back to the table and discuss every policy here, so we may well come back with what you have requested of us, but we're just not in a position to do that yet. Why did you and the party feel it was incumbered upon you to make the decision now to break the coalition, as opposed to waiting for the Liberals to come back with their point of view and making it decision, then.
Well what is we thought?
And we're hoping that the Liberal Party would agree to it, but when they didn't, we feel that if there is opposition, and respectfully I understand that, and they're allowed.
To there is.
Quite some opposition to some of these policies within the Liberal Party room and I respect that and I understand that. So we felt if we didn't have a part of the agreement straight away as we move forward and start to attack the Labor government to form govern the next three years, that we might never see them again.
And as I said earlier.
These four signature policies are too important for our regional communities. Who can't get childcare, who can't get the health services as you get in the cities, who don't have the infrastructure that you have in the cities, is one example of those four things.
Is too important for us, too important for our room.
What demands will you have of the Liberal Party to get back together again? Do you want a resumption of how things were in terms of sharing positions in shadow cabinet?
Do you want more? No?
Look, the shadow cabinet, for example, is a ratio, so it's literally done on how many members they have, how many members, we have you calculate it, you do it on a pro rata system, so we weren't asking for it.
Well, we never really.
Got to that level of the discussion within the coalition agreement because these four things were the starting point, but we wouldn't have been asking for any more than.
We were due.
And part of that there would have been other little nuances we were asking for about things in the Chamber, et cetera, in question time and MPIs, but that's just per functionary stuff. The starting point was these four policies, three of them which we've been fighting for for a long time, were great wins for our room in the last Parliament to get approved by the coalition.
Because of the importance of them.
Couldn't let them go and potentially never see them again become coalition policy. Our wish, our hope, was that the Liberal Party would see the importance of those to our room and say, yep, we get these, we get how important this is to the National's party room. We think it's important for a coalition degrement happy to make the exception of our review for these important positions of the Nationals and know how long you've been arguing for them, and the rest will be up for review as we march on.
That's what we were hoping the scenario was going to be.
Kevin Hogan, thank you for your time.
Thanks Calum Again, I say, I hope they can fix it sooner rather than later, because the longer it goes on, the worse it will get still to come. I'll get the perspective of the coalition breakup from the other partner, the Liberals, when the lnp's Garth Hamilton joins me a little later. But first the latest details on those record breaking floods that have swept across New South Wales and what the next few days have in store. Meteorologist Rob Sharp will join me next.
Well.
Record breaking floods have again in undated parts of New South Wales. It just feels like a hamster wheel, doesn't it. This time the Manning River has peaked at six point four meters at Tare, and of course the SEES has been working in overdrive to resk hundreds of trapped residents, many of whom have been cut off from roads and have been living on their rooftops since last and since last night, I should say, much like the Hallerin family here, goodness me you feel so sorry for them and what
an experience that would be with me now. Sky News meteorologist Rob Sharp Rob Tari had record breaking flooding today. Could floods rise to new heights in other communities, That.
Is a possibility.
That is the fear that I have that this flood event will continue and the focus will shift just that a little bit further north. So many can communities along the Manning River have been flooded out completely, homes engulfed by water, and that kind of thing is starting to happen in a few other areas as well, and we've seen that today. This is a shot from Kempsey from the middle of the day. Since then, the river has risen an extra half a meter a in Port mcquarie.
That's significant water in many of the streets as well, as water levels continue to rise in that region too. So over the last couple of days, this is the rain we have seen. Areas in the peak have had more than two hundred millimeters widespread and totals have reached as high as five hundred millimeters up.
To nine o'clock this morning.
But since then the rain has continued to fall.
We have major.
Flooding in all of these river systems labeled here, but my fears are greatest for the Nambucker, Maclay and Hastings River from now on because those three are rising quite quickly and we're continuing to see the rain in that region as well, so you could see it's a bit more further north than what we were seeing in previous days, with the target being the mid North Coast and even into southern parts of the Northern Rivers where we have seen another ninety six in Yamber Bellinger one hundred and
fifty six, and there's even been a small location picking up as much as one hundred and ninety milimeters just since nine o'clock this morning.
Goodness, goodness me.
How will the rest of this weather event play out? Well?
Unfortunately, through tomorrow it's going to continue to target much the same area. There's a severe weather warnings that stands heavy to locally intense rainfall the potential for life threatening flash flooding. But it's the accumulation of rain that I'm most concerned about because it's targeting these same areas again
through tonight and into tomorrow with the low pressure trough. Unfortunately, on top of that small low pressure system circulation is likely to form, and that will aid the winds to strengthen as well. So that may mean that those helicopters may not be able to land on rooftops later tomorrow if water levels rise to the heights that we fear that they may, So that could be the real problem. That evacuations might get significantly trickier as the wind picks
up again. But you can see this rain spreads to many regions. Twenty five to fifty millimeters is likely in these lime green shedded areas, even Canberra, who is likely to see thirty to ninety millimeters. In Sydney Thursday and Friday, fifty to one hundred and twenty millimeters is likely. But it's that north coast where in the pink sheding we're still expecting another two hundred millimeters on top of the three hundred to five hundred that has already fallen.
Caleb, rob I'm getting fan mail about your work here, so thank you so much for keeping us across it. It's been the most popular part of the show so far. Rob Sharp, thank you for your time. Now, Donald Trump said what a lot of people have been thinking when it comes to Joe Biden's cancer diagnosis.
I think it's very sad. Actually, I'm surprised that it wasn't you know, THEBLIC wasn't notified a long time ago, because to get to stage nine, that's a long time. I just add my physical saw that you saw the results of that particular test. I think that testa's standard to pretty much anybody getting a physical good physical.
And of course I wish President Biden, well you wouldn't wish cancer on anyone.
But it's a good question. I mean, surely Biden.
Had access to the best possible medical treatment any US citizen could have, but his prostate cancer was only discovered when it had metastasized into the bone. Biden's office responded today saying he hadn't had a screening for prostate cancer since twenty fourteen. And I know screening isn't always recommended for men over seventy, but I just don't know how that makes anything better. I mean, it's a blood test so easy, and you're the president of the United States.
You know you'd think you'd bother to get tested. Donald Trump, does I mean, did Biden say that he didn't want the test, or did his doctor decide not to do it without discussing it with him.
It's all very odd.
The doctor Kevin O'Connor, Biden's doctor, hasn't answered any questions, by the way, and the question I want to answered, and I haven't really seen anyone give an answer this week, is how long do you need to have prostate cancer before it becomes a stage four cancer moving into the bone. How long might have Joe Biden had this? Well for an expert medical opinion, I'm joined now by urologist and clinical director with the Australian Prostate Center, doctor Phil Dundee.
Doctor Dundee, the most pressing point here is that Biden was out of the White House for four months. He was given a clean bill of health in his time as president. Now he has stage four prostate cancer. Now you're a doctor, you're not a political commentator, So I'm not going to get into the politics of it with you.
I can do that myself later.
But strictly medically speaking, is this something that could have conceivably happened in just four months?
Well, I think it depends on whether you're talking about the diagnosis been made or whether the disease has been present for four months. So it's almost certain that this process has been going on for at least ten years, but it is possible that he has been unaware of the diagnosis until he had the requisite testing. So I think you mentioned about the guidelines of testing, and I
think that's where really the failure has been. I understand that he last had a test in twenty fourteen, and he would have been seventy one or seventy two at that stage. Unfortunately, the US as well as Australia, recommend against screening for prostate cancer for men in their seventies, and that's why this situation has been able to occur.
So had he had ongoing testing through his seventies seventies, almost certainly this would have been picked up at a much earlier stage, and possibly at a curable stage, and he wouldn't be facing this situation now. So I think this is really quite a disaster.
Well, how early I have picked something up? And if you're saying this is a process that can take up to ten years to get to, I mean potentially this would have been picked up before he'd even run for president.
Yeah, that's right.
And ideally we like to pick up prostate cancer before it becomes symptomatic. Almost universally, once prostate cancer becomes symptomatic. And I understand the prostate President Biden had some urinary symptoms and that is a sign of late stage prostate cancer. Now, I want to reassure any men, any of your viewers out there, who have urinary symptoms. They are very common. They are almost never related to prostate cancer. But it does pose a good opportunity for men to see their
primary care provider and be tested for prostate cancer. But if he has urinary symptoms that are because of prostate cancer, he already has late stage disease. And that's why we recommend staging. So staging is a simple blood test. We can pick up prostate cancer when it's confined to the prostate, and in almost all cases we can cure men before it escapes as long as we are able to detect it early, and we can only do that with the blood test just quickly.
Why would you not test after seventy I know that seems to be the recommendation, I mean, the President of the United States, it's there. I don't know why you wouldn't take it, But why would you not test after seventy.
I would strongly disagree with those recommendations, and we look at the what's called lead time in prostaate cancer, where when we detect the prostate cancer on a screening test, we pick it up typically around about ten years before it becomes symptomatic. And so the recommendations have been that men in their seventies don't require prostate cancer screening because they are likely to die of other causes before they develop symptomatic prostaate cancer.
And that is just not true.
Of many men in their seventies. If you look at the statistics for men in their seventies in Australia, life expectancy does not drop below ten years until men reach the age of seventy nine. So not only should they be screened in their seventies, they should be screened right through their seventies and even into their in some cases, because we have an expanding life expectancy, many men living into their late eighties, early nineties, and even to one hundred.
And this is the kind of situation that we're faced with when men don't have screening. So this is a preventable problem and it absolutely should have been prevented.
You've been a great help, doctor Phil Dundee. Thank you.
I mean, there you go ten years that could have taken and either they didn't test or they didn't know.
I mean, it just seems insane.
Coming up after the break Keir Starmer says he's reset the UK's relationship with Europe, but he's torn apart his relationship with his own voters.
Brint and O'Neill in a moment, and.
We've spent a lot of time wondering about the future of the Nationals after the coalition break up. But what's going to happen now in the ideological battle for the future of the Liberal Party?
Garth Hamilton joins me.
Next, let's return to the coalition split. You heard from Kevin Hogan a little earlier about things from the National's perspective. But of course what all of this hangs on whether the Coalition gets back together is the policy decisions of the Liberal Party. Do they come to the table or do they decide they want to go it alone. I mean, I don't know why they'd want to, but you read today that Susan lay Lee sorry, is prepared to do so.
So I don't know what she knows that I don't know, but someone who I think has given the most clear art analysis of where the campaign went wrong and part of what needs to happen in the future is the lnp's Garth Hamilton. I've been praising his column in The Australian on Monday all week and he joins me. Now, Garth, thank you for joining me. I mean, what was your initial reaction to the news that the coalition was breaking up for the first time in nearly forty years.
Look, I won't pretend I wasn't frustrated and a little bit sad. And we've got a great story to tell them the coalition. Over the last hundred years, Australian people have turned to a center right coalition for sixty five of those years. We are the choice that Australia regularly makes when we're going through hard times. We should be
really proud of that. And look, I guess what really hurts the most is that right now we've got a Labor government that went into the election raising the prospect of a recession coming, that just released a budget that had ten years of deficits banked in, and yet they took almost no mandate to the last election. And we're letting those guys get away. Every day we're talking about
the coalition agreement. We're letting these guys get away without being held to account, which is our job as opposition. So we need to get back to doing our job really quickly. The best way to do that is in a coalition.
Well, the N's policy demands nuclear energy, force, editive divestiture of supermarkets, the Regional Future Fund, the service obligations for mobile phone coverage in the regions. Is there any reason the Liberal Party could not have just set up front look will do it to keep the coalition together. I know Lee has said that everything is up for grabs, but could you not have just hit that one on the head.
Look, I think this is a bit of kobuki theater from the NATS. They know very well we would have been open to a discussion on all of those issues. They have no reason to think that we wouldn't. Kevin Hogan's a very good man. But look, I think there's a decision that the NAT's made long ago. They weren't looking for peaceful resolution of that. That's my belief. I
think they need to stand to account for that. I think they need to have a good hard look at themselves and really commit to coming back to being part of this coalition. It's important to Australia that we do. This isn't about parties. This is about the Australian people and how we serve them as their representatives in Parliament.
So you now need to have this fight over policies and that will decide whether or not the Nats want to come back to you. And of course you wrote on Monday about part of the direction you think the party should take. You particularly said that you've lost confidence in net zero and you've lost confidence in blank checkbook politics essentially, which is what net zero has been. Are you confident that the Party will change its tune on this matter.
Well, what I want the Party to do is to focus on making this a question of the economy. I think we've allowed questions like net zero to become moral questions and to feel that either you're all in or you're all out. You're good, you're bad, and that's a terrible way for us to be addressing policy, particularly when we're the people who are the strong economic managers who look after Australia in those hard times. Netzero should be an economic question. We'll be setting a price tag on it,
making assessment from that point of view. That's where we offer something to the Australian people. And I think if we have the view once again of going back to the economy, of having a smaller government, of low attacks, of putting family at the heart of the state, this is where our our heartbeat is. This is what's important to us. This is why people have chosen a center right coalition in the past, which have to head in that direction again and that's where we'll find home.
I wholeheartedly agree, Garth Hamilton, thank you for joining me. Coming up after the break, a Conservative councilor's wife has lost a repeal after being sentenced to thirty one months in prison for a post on social media.
Brendan O'Neal joins me next.
Well.
UK Prime Minister Sirquias Stamer has signed Britain up to a series of new agreements with the EU that, in his words, resets the relationship after Brexit.
Now.
These agreements covered defense, trade and allowing EU fishing.
Vessels into UK waters.
Here he was announcing it, leadies and gentlemen, Britain is back on the world stage, working with our partners, doing deals that will grow our economy and putting more money in the pockets of working.
People joining me. Now.
Brendan O'Neil, the chief political reporter for Spiked Online, and something tells me you're not as excited by this as Sirquias Stamer, and I suspect a lot of Brixiteers out either.
No, we absolutely are not. You know, we have to remember that seventeen point four million people voted for Brexit in twenty sixteen. I was one of those people, very proud to have been one of those people, and that was a vote to leave the European Union, to completely cut ties with the European Union, which is an institution we don't like. And yet this new deal that Kiirs
Starmer is trumpeting there, this takes us back into the EU. Essentially, it brings us back under certain rules and regulations drafted in Brussels and institutions we voted to reject. So it kind of brings us back in by the back door. And I think what Kirs Starmer is doing he always hated Brexit, and what he's doing now is he's killing it by a thousand technocratic blows, and this is part of that process.
I just don't understand why, though, I mean, we saw how he backled so fast on immigration last week, and we know that he's under pressure, internal pressure from colleagues with the surge in support for Reform UK. They're really worried about the next election. So how does a deal like this do anything to convince a potential Reform voter that they should vote for labor.
It really doesn't. And in fact I think he is the death warrant of the Labor Party, the death warrant of the Labor government with this deal. It really is that bad. And as you say, you know, Reform is nipping at the heels of Labor Reform, which is Nigel Farage's party. It's a pro Brexit party, it's wary about mass immigration, it's against wokeness, you know, it's a party that appeals to millions of working class voters here that is now appealing to voters who would traditionally go for labor.
And yet still kir Starmer is pushing through this crazy deal, this deal which makes us beholden to the European Court of Justice. There are certain food and trade regulations that we will have to follow, which means that if a judgment is made in the ECJ that affects those rules, we will have to abide by it. I'm sorry, but a nation that has to abide by the judgments of
a foreign court is not an independent nation. And that's what a lot of voters are waking up to, the fact that kir Starmer is willing to sell off our sovereignty in order to appease the European Union.
Well, let's at about the courts in the UK.
The wife of a Conservative counselor has lost to have bid to appeal against a prison sentence. Lucy Connelly. She was jailed for thirty one months in October after she called for quote unquote mess deportation now and she urged people to sit fire to hotels housing asylum seekers. Now, you know, you don't go around doing that sort of stuff. It is absolutely incitement to violence. But thirty one months does seem a little extreme.
It's incredibly extreme. You know, everyone agrees, well, most decent people agree that what she tweeted was awful. When during those Southport riots she said burn down the hotels, by which she meant hotels that were housing immigrants, she said, I don't care, get rid of them all. That's an obnoxious and potentially criminal thing to tweet. People shouldn't say things like that. But thirty one months, two and a half years in the slammer for something she wrote, something
she regretted writing, and something she swiftly deleted. That is extreme. That is authority and taken to a new level. You know, we have a two tier justice system in Britain because there was an imam here, an Islamic preacher who a few days after the Hamasis seventh of October attack on Israel, he gave a sermon in which he said, cursed the Jews, ruined their houses, destroy their homes, cursed the children of Israel.
He went on and on. No charges were brought against him, he was not found guilty of having committed a crime. He's still now preaching as he usually, as he always was, and yet this woman finds herself in jail for saying burn down the hotels. That is two tier justice and it's another element of Keir Starmer's Britain that people are sick of.
Just very quickly, before we go, Brindon, I want to ask you about Joe Biden and the prostate cancer diagnosis. Do we really believe that no one knew about this?
You know, how could they not. That's the question I keep asking myself. You know, presidents famously get checked up all the time to make sure that they're physically and mentally healthy. Someone must have known, and we know that there is a long record of people covering up Joe Biden's full of mental frailty.
It just it seems so odd. I'm sorry, Brendan, we've run out of time. Brendan O'Neill, thank you as always. That's all We've got time for statue now. Paul Murray Live,