Live on Sky News. This is Sharry Good Evening Tonight.
A decade of deficits, a trillion dollar debt and a tax cut worth less than a coffee. The political fight over the federal budget heats up. Michael Kroger and Judith Sloan will give their verdict. Also in the show, Ben Roberts Smith on the verge of taking legal action after our revelations that nine journalists Nick mackenzie claim to have obtained his legal strategy in secret recordings where he also said he'd breached his ethics.
How exclusive coming.
Up, Plus the extraordinary uprising against Hermus on the streets of Gaza as Palestinians brave Palestinians voice their anger with the terror regime.
We will the.
Hypocrites in the West finally wake up and realize that Hermus are not freedom fighters. And the shocking verbal assault of a liberal politician on breakfast television Jackie Lamby Owes Jane Hume an apology but first tonight, Jim Chalmers tax cuts today have been widely condemned across the board as small, insignificant and according to the Coalition.
A hoax and a bribe. Well if a five.
Dollars a week tax cut was slammed as two small twenty two years ago.
Then it was even less welcome.
Today we're in a cost of living crisis where this meager amount will be eroded by bracket creep within two years now. We spoke last night about how Costello announced a five dollars a week tax cut in two thousand and three and at the time his colleague Amanda Anstone admitted that it would barely afford a sandwich and a milkshake. Well, here were those comments, but.
The government's sales campaign was not helped by the Family and Community Services minister was making a point on welfare payments.
Of course, you want to give them five dollars more five dollars Hell, what will it buy you?
A sandwich and a milkshake if you're.
Lucky, a sandwich and a milkshake if you're lucky.
And that was twenty two years ago.
Well, since two thousand and three, the cost of food and other goods has, of course increased a multitude of times. It's my newspapers today described the tax cut as gym pickings and Jim's coffee shot and over at the nightly five bucks a week Asterix next year. Sometime the Adelaide Advertiser went with McHappy Meal Jim, where they said that the tax cut was not enough for a macer's meal, while they said Pandas at the Zoo got fourteen thousand
dollars a week. Well, this was a theme that Opposition leader Peter Dutton picked up on today.
Seventy cents a day. I'll, by the way, it's just a rounding era for family. Who I think is the Adelaide Advertiser point out you can buy a macappy meal. I made of mindus texted me and said, you know, you paid fourteen dollars I think for two cups of coffee yesterday. So look, let's be realistic. This is a it's a hoax. It's about the next five weeks, not the next five years. And for seventy cents a day, it's not going to help families in Labour's cost living crisis.
But this is all about politics. Labor introduced these tax cuts to the Parliament today so that they can then claim during the election that the Coalition voted against tax cuts.
Now, of course this is.
A political gimmicker trick because the Coalition is likely to announce their own tax cuts tomorrow night.
During the budget lock, I've been camber yesterday.
I spoke to the Treasurer and I put to him that this budget was all about the campaign.
Treasure thank you so much. Great to see you today.
Thanks, Sherry, you too.
This is a highly political pre election budget, isn't it.
Now.
This is a budget which recognizes the economic pressures that people are facing, cost of living pressures and global economic uncertainty. Topping up the tax cuts is an important way that we recognize and respond to those cost of living pressures in a way that builds people's take home pay over time.
So he caught it topping up the tax cuts, and he did acknowledge that it was immodest. That was his word, modest tax cut. He said this was responsible. But then he also tried to frame the tax cuts today is being worth around fifty dollars.
The average annual tax cut after this year and next years is two five hundred and forty eight dollars, or about fifty dollars a week. Well, it's more than that, Sarah. That's the first point. If you combine the three tax cuts that labor is providing, it's around fifty dollars a week. There are two rounds of additional tax cuts, and together with the tax cuts which are flowing now, the average is about fifty dollars a week.
Of course, the Coalition today hit back at this. They claim that it under them, under the Coalition, that the Stage three tax cuts were first announced. Now, my colleague Andrew Clenell called the treasure out out on this figure during the budget lock up yesterday.
And so these tax cuts in isolation are relatively modest.
Found modest, there worth about that much a week.
In combination, in combination with the tax cuts that we're already delivering, the average tax cuts about fifty bucks a week. So pineapple, you don't get a pineapple this time. You're just you're giving people a cup of coffee a week, can't you. Well, this is about topping up the text cuts which are flowing already now.
The other theme that we've all been speaking about is
the size of the spending in the budget now. As Matthew Cranston reported in the Australian newspaper today, Jim Chalmers has presided over the biggest deterioration in the country's underlying cash balance outside COVID and the global financial crisis, with a forty three billion dollar plunge into the red from a surplar last year, and the thought of how the record winfall from the mining industry, the high commodity prices and the record level of tax receipts have been squandered
is quite concerning. The size of our nation's debt is astonishing. It will hit, as you know now, one trillion dollars for the first time in Australia's history next financial year, one trillion dollars in debt, as I said on Sky last night, this is a shocking figure, especially when there's no vision or no nation building project to show for it. And then you look at why labor is racking up this level of debt. Well, one of the most reckless wastes of money is to cut twenty percent of all
student loan debts. This is nineteen billion dollars in debt for three million Australians. This is about buying the young vote, which has moved away from Labor and towards independent tier candidates or minor parties, including the Greens.
So Albanizy claims he wants to help young.
Voters, but instead he's saddling our future generations with an unprecedented bill to pay. Then there's the thirty three billion dollars for a housing fund that still hasn't built a single home, And I ask the Treasurer how anyone could believe that a house would be built.
When it hasn't so far.
On your thirty three billion dollars to deliver one point two million dollars one point two million new homes within five years by the end of the decade. Doesn't that stretch credibility when the existing Future Fund hasn't delivered a single house, The existing Housing Australia Fund hasn't delivered a single new house.
It's an ambitious goal, but it's achievable if everybody does their bit. And what the budget shows is that we're prepared to do our bit. Thirty three billion dollars an investment, including some initiatives budget for the first time in this budget.
We need one point two million homes in five years.
Well, we're only at the start of that five year period and we will do everything we can to hit that target because we want to make sure that there are more homes for Australians to rent and buy.
And that's the motivation for Aerfit Now that's outside of his control. But the Housing ministers have a lot to answer for here, so does the Prime Minister. And there's been criticism today across the board that there hasn't been any serious attempt to rein in spending or tackle the sustainability of bloated schemes that are blowing out. The NDIS is the most obvious example.
Now.
Spending in the budget runs to fifty billion dollars more per year than the country is collecting in tax and it seems like the Albaneze government has given up on a balanced budget at least for the time being, at least to.
Win this election.
But what is the plan if there's an economic downturn or international shock with this current level of borrowing and the Treasurer has warned about global volatility and as others have pointed out, debt is so high that we'll be paying.
Forty eight billion dollars in.
Interest in four years time, the seventh highest item in spending into the budget, and it's been reported that it's set to soon eclipse Medicare outgoings. Now Peter Dutton hasn't made this very clear as yet, we might see it tomorrow night, but he appears to be promising a more fiscally conservative approach.
This is the Treasurer now who will deliver a trillion dollars worth of debt to the istral and public, which is a terrible legacy, but an expected one from Labor government.
So we'll need to see tomorrow night exactly what the figures are under the coalition's proposed plan. Now, Jim Chalmers is right that he didn't spend the higher than expected revenue from commodity prices and tax receipts. But then Peter Darton made the point that Labour's first two surplaces were delivered partly because the Coalition had done some of the hard work, and that is to Josh Fridenberg's credit.
But the Coalition can't go to an.
Election opposing tax cuts. That is electoral suicide. Now, they've long signaled that they are going to bring tax relief and it will now need to be more substantial than Labour's modest five dollars a week cuts, but the Coalition needs to pay for it. So the Coalition claims to be the party of better and more responsible economic management, So if they're going to offer more generous tax cuts, they will need to balance the books and show how
they'll pay for it. They've criticized Labor for announcing some sixty seven billion dollars in new spending measures over the past three months alone, but much of these promises they've matched. So the danger for the coalition will be in wanting to match these popular measures dollar for dollar. Labour has now used the budget as the start of their election campaign. This is the basis they'll use to argue for a second term in office. But there's no vision for Australia
or for our future. It's all about buying the election. Okay for more budget reaction. Now, let's bring in the former President to the Victorian Liberal Party, Michael Kroeger and former Labor Minister Gray and Richardson.
Welcome to you both.
Michael, I just want to get your reaction to the budget, the debt, the.
Deficits, the spending. What is it that concerns you the most?
Or maybe the lack of vision for the nation's future, the fact that Albaneze is going to this election without any plan for the future, without any vision for how he wants our nation to become.
Well, we've only got an hour. Shari so you know, I'll have to be I'll have to be brief. But what you've got is Jim Chalmers, who's just a fantasist. I mean, he believes in the tooth fairy. This bloke, he's Andrew Boths just mentioned this. He said on Radio National this morning that gross said is one hundred and seventy seven billion dollars lower than when he came to office.
The truth matter is, if you have look at the budget papers, the budgety Aggar, it's page fifty eight, Appendix A, it's fifty one billion dollars higher than when he came to office, nine forty as opposed to eight eighty nine. He's out by two hundred and twenty eight billion. This bloke.
Just if you listen to his interviews, he throws in these fantastic figures, platitudes that political journalists still mainly doing the interviewing, can't pick him up on, and he just moves on to the next thing without being fact checked. He just makes these figures up. He's not across the detail. He's a good salesman because he's very clever, but he's
a fantasist. And what worries me the most unconstrained debt from a treasurer who has exploded public spending, who is out of his depth, who doesn't have the intellectual capacity to properly run a budget, and he criticizes Angus Taylor. I think Angus is a Rhodes scholar ym I don't think I'd be criticizing him.
Mate, Well, rich O, what do you think about how this from a political perspective, how this budget will be received?
I think their budget will be received all right. I think that the kind of arguments that Michael's running aren't running in the ordinary Australians, as they said around the dinner table. So I just think people have great, healthy disrespect for politicians in some respects, and they'll just maintain that. They'll sit back and they'll say, well, these are politicians. What do you expect they say the same if the
Liberals were in power. And I don't blame them. I mean, if you have a look at the record, you can understand Australian is getting a little bit tired of hearing the same old line from either side when the reality is they know it's not going to happen.
I just want to I meant to pick up something you said there before, Michael, about the level of debt. So I suppose what the treasure is saying is that the level of debt now that's nine hundred and nine hundred and forty billion dollars this year is lower than what was forecast a few years ago. I heard Chris cann you go through this earlier tonight as well.
But reaching one, that's that's not what he said. That's not what he said. He said quite his exact words. He said, gross debt when we came to office this year is one hundred and seventy seven billion dollars lower than when we came to office.
Yeah, yeah, that's insane point.
Chris Kenny went through these figures earlier tonight. He's saying that the debt level they have is one hundred and seventy seven billion dollars less than what was forecast in the budget papers at the time. But my point is it's kind of irrelevant because Australia will hit a trillion dollars in debt for the first time ever next year, presuming.
Those forecasts are accurate, which.
Is extremely concerning because it doesn't seem like there's any concern for budget repair.
It's all about winning the election.
Here was Pete Stefanovic speaking about this with the Prime Minister earlier today.
Are you making things harder for the next generation? For this short term ism?
Pete, there's nothing other than long term objective. By turning a seventy eight billion dollar deficit into a surplus, which is what we did, delivering another surplus, which is what we did.
You don't have those anymore.
Now we're about to deficit almost. We are almost. We have almost halved the deficit that we inherited, that was predicted and foreshadowed in the twenty twenty two budget.
And so let's now have a look at some of the reactions for how people responded to what is now being called a five dollars a week tax cut.
Have a look.
Have we got these comments coming? Maybe we'll come back to them. Okay, let's have a look.
Now.
Five dollars is nothing.
Would it sway you at all to vote for labor on.
Top of everything else?
Probably not.
It might be a cappuccino or something like that though I could save on, but in general probably not.
Not.
Really five dollars a week, would it, I guess, convince you to vote for labor?
Not really, Michael.
I think the trick that Labor played today where they put this to the Parliament knowing the Coalition was going to vote against the tax cuts. They'll now go during the election campaign and say, well, the coalition voted against tax cuts.
That'll be their line, won't it.
Well, unless Peter Dutton announces bigger task cuts tomorrow night. But to do that, of course he's got to find saving elsewhere. But Charri, this is this is we're going down a well worn path here in Australian politics, which has been happening most of my political life. Labour can't control this spending. They explode the budget, they plunge the
state or federal governments into debt crisis. The Liberal Party then said has to come and clean up the mess left by Labor, and Labor say, you've got all these secret cuts, the secrets cuts coming. No one likes cuts, everyone likes handouts from governments. And so this cycle continues, and and you know it's it's hard to win an election politically when you're trying to make savings, when people are used to government large s and people think, oh,
the budget death is nothing to do with me. Someone else round it up, not me. So Labor have been very clever in the last few decades creating this view that you know, increased debt doesn't matter. Well as you say, we're heading to a trillion dollars. You know, he talks to Swarny about surpluses. There's one hundred and fifty billion dollars plus of deficits coming in the next four years. I mean, seriously, I mean, this is we're in a
budget crisis now. But fantasist Jim thinks we're living in the land of milk and honey.
Rich O.
You know, clearly labor's trying to buy the young vote with the promise to pay off everyone's.
Hex debt, all student hex debt, twenty percent of it.
But you know, when I think older generations, when they look at the prospect of more than a trillion dollars in debt, and how they saddle the future generations like that.
We don't know what's coming to our country. Who knows.
Trump might demand that there's an increase in defense spending in return for the orchesteal. There might be a proposition like that which requires more money. So it is, you know, fine, they're trying to buy the young vote. But then what about the rest of Australians who hate this level of debt?
Yeah, look when you say they hate this level of debt, I'm just not sure you're right. I don't walk around the place and hear conversations about Australia's debt. I just don't. I think we've become accustomed to high debt. I think we're inured to it now. I think we just get used to it. Lie back and think of England. That's basically what we're doing. And I just don't think ordinary Australians are as worried as you are.
Well, I am worried about it. Michael.
What do you think do you think Australians care about a trillion dollars in debt?
Well, more and more they do.
When you see that more than thirty billion dollars a year is now going to be used in interest payments. I mean, the budget deficit is unsustainable. Massively increasing debt every year is unsustainable. Sooner or later there has to be a day of reckoning. And the problem is that it'll be our kids and their kids who are saddled with these you know, more than a billion dollars. It's one point two trillion in the next decade and more so you mestionally increase, you know, debt repayments. Of course
people get worried about it. Labour says, Oh, I don't worry about it. No, I don't worry about it because compared to other countries internationally, now WECD, we've got nothing to worry about. Well, that's all our answer to everything, which it's extremely economically dishonest or it's intellectually dishonest. Don't worry about us because the others are worse.
You know.
This is their political trick in order to get re elected, and it's disgraceful, I.
Mean, keating.
You know.
I read in the paper that he doesn't speak to charmers anymore, you know, because anytime Paul talks to Jim, it's time Paul won't get back.
Yeah. I don't know if that. I don't know anything about that story, if it's true or not.
But I read it in Margin Call as well, by Yonnie Bashan, who was telling.
Me about it last night.
Actually, now I want to turn to this interaction between Jackie Lamby and Jane Hume this morning because I was genuinely appalled by it.
Jackie Lamby unleashed a.
Shocking verbal assault on Liberal Senator Jane Hume. This was on Sunrise, completely disgusting behavior from Jackie Lamby. She was meant to be speaking about last night's budget, but instead turned the whole conversation into an attack on Jane Hume.
Have a look, are you going.
To cut the cuts into contract that out again? I know what she's talking about, and ask you about your public good ideas cuts.
I have a very good idea what she's talking about, because the cold one of the coalition's policies seems to be to cut public servants by tens of thousands there in Queensland and Victoria regional centers.
She even defended the teals on the basis that they were female while she was attacking a woman, and you know, it just really looked to me like Jane Hume was being attacked from both sides. Have a look at another clip, Jackie.
You don't have a plan of attack, Jane. All I've heard out of you with this budget is negative, negative, negative, But you have no answers.
What is the coal issue to state the future of this country maybe in the hands of independence. Who are you swaying towards Heaven help us.
You know what it is, and that's really rude Joane.
And those independents, those toils standing are actually really performs if they're boning in, So give them a go, Michael.
Look, clearly Jane Whome was.
Upset by that treatment. I would have been if I were hurt. It was uncalled for.
Wasn't balanced.
It was just an inexplicable attack from Jackie Lamby.
Nothing to do with last night's budget.
Well, there's only two things you can say about that. One is not that anyone was in any doubt. But Jane Hum is just an absolute class act and you saw that this morning. And secondly, Jackie Lamby up for election, so she needs publicity. She needs to create coverage, outrage. She's not going to get much coverage if she gives a plane dull, boring interview, so she's got to create some kind of sense of theater in order to get publicity. This will get massive publicity in Tasmania if she's up
for election. That's what this is all about. But Jane Him is typical of Jane Him, dealt with in the typical classy way and just battered it away and good Honor Richard, what did you think?
Well, I think Jackie shows occasionally that she is the only one in the Parliament has ever been on the doll. I understand her passion, she just sometimes goes over the top and this was one of those times.
Is that right? Just into her now, bajimper Price. We'll have to check that. Whether she ever had public support, We'll have a check.
She definitely had a tough upbringing. But you know, I don't think that's got anything to do with her behavior. Her bullying of a woman as we saw today really uncalled for. All Right, Michael Kroger, Graham Richardson, appreciate your time. All right, let's return to our budget coverage now, and let's bring in The Australian's commentator and economist Judith Sloan.
Judith, great to have you with us. Are you there is Judith with us? Judith, great to see you. Look. Give us your reaction to this budget.
It's been criticized for overspending further decade of deficits for the ballooning debt. Do you think this budget has any attempt to tackle productivity reform or vision for the nation.
Well, no, and I think you know The reaction was quite interesting. You know, I get up early and you know read all the commentators, and you know the commentators go from you know, conservative to progressive. But it actually was a very very negative assessment of this budget. And I'm absolutely with Michael Kroger. I mean, it's it's just outright lies going on saying that they'd reduced the government debt, for example.
That is simply not true.
They're taking this sort of contrivance of the PIFO, the pre election Economic and Fiscal Outlook, which was brought down in April twenty twenty two. Things were very uncertain, and they're comparing with what's happened to the PIFA. Who cares about the PIFO. I just go and look at the tables, and we know that government debt's gone up by nearly one hundred billion dollars since they've been in office and is heading towards.
That trillion dollar mark.
And you'll probably remember, I'm Shari when Charmers used to give Josh Friedenburg such a hard time for the prospect of government debt reaching a trillion dollars. Well, good on your Jim, because he's going to reach that figure next year.
The Treasurer argued repeatedly yesterday during the budget locker that he had successfully navigated Australia on this narrow path, that the country was going to have a soft landing and had managed not to go into recession and avoid a hard landing where it needed a recovery.
What's your response to this analysis.
Well, we haven't gone into a recession for two principal reasons. One is that they've allowed the population to grow so strongly through excessive migration, so that inflates the gross economy. We've had the capita income to plants per capita GDP clients, but the absolute size of the economy has gone down. And then in terms of what's happened in the labor market, over eighty percent of the jobs created are what we call non market jobs, so they're basically government funded jobs.
Now they're not all government jobs, but their jobs like in age care, childcare, the NDI is where they're basically funded by the government. And you know, there does come a day of reckoning with that, and of course it's we've had the most appalling productivity record, to the point that the current level of productivity is actually back where it was in twenty sixteen, so that is contributing to the decline and living standards which we see in the per capita declines and GDP.
As a budget document, we know this was hastily pulled together. We know there were no plans for a budget. Often we're usually in budget lockups, you get dozens of press releases with various announcements. We didn't have that yesterday. There weren't many new announcements. From your analysis of these budget papers, you know, did it look to you like it was quite thin?
Well, there was clearly stuff in the locker. I mean, you know, I think the treasure at that level is quite a professional outfit. So the preparation of a budget is you know, a very disciplined time path arrangement. And basically they bung in certain things at the very end, but this was with the expectation of their not being a budget. That process at the end was very rushed and you could tell really and there's some clearly silly
things in this. I mean, for example, there was all this this sort of discussion about you know, uncertain global outlook and the dangers and China growth.
Falling and stuff.
But then when you went and looked at the GDP growth economy economic growth, it seemed to be extraordinarily optimistic, you know, two and three quarter percent. That would be amazing if we achieved that. So there was I think some inevitable inconsistencies.
But you know, really my.
Major criticism was that this was a budget for labor and not a budget for Australia, and it absolutely shone through that aspect.
Ye think you're right.
I think it was definitely not just a political document but a bit of a reflection perhaps of the Treasurer himself labor values, something for marginal MPs to sell during the campaign. I just want to return to the question of this trillion dollar debt and in the conversation I had before with rich Oden and if you heard it, but he said Australians don't care about the level of debt, as if this means the Treasurer shouldn't care either. But in your column today you're saying this isn't just an
economic issue. You're saying debt isn't just an economic.
Issue, it's a moral issue. Can you expand on this?
Well, you know, basically you're spending today and seeing the bill to future generation. So there clearly is a moral issue to that. I mean, do you think you know your young children and my grandchildren, you.
Know, when they're in their thirty so.
They're going to be thinking, gosh, I'm glad Jim Chalmers gave my parents a text cut and some electricity price relief.
I don't think so.
So, you know, perhaps if some of the spending were what you might call productivity enhancing or real investment, it might be different. But a lot of this is essentially going on what you might think of as the grocery bill. So I think this is a really big issue.
Now.
I don't entirely agree with Richer because you know, I come from Victoria and the state of public finances in Victoria are absolutely shocked, and it is beginning to affect public opinion.
You know, people, you know, when they tell.
Me that, you know, the new Sunshine station is going to cost six billion dollars, you think, really, you know? And I think, as I understand that Michael Krogan knows this much better than I do, that labor is traveling very badly in Victoria, and one of the reasons is that people have begun to feel very uncertain about the the well the state of the public finances of Victoria, and that then, I think you know, will eventually filter into concerns about the state of public finances in Australia.
M Judith.
I think that was such a good point you made though, when you said that a lot of this debt is being accumulated because the spending is going on effectively grocery bills or the cost of living crisis rather than productivity enhancing or nation building reforms. I think that is just an excellent point. Jud To Sloane, thank you very much for your insights.
Now still to come.
Ben Robert Smith set to take action after a Top nine journalist was caught on audio claiming he breached his ethics during the case. But first that national security breach rocking the White House. Well, how did a journalist end up in a group chat where Pete Hegsith spoke about an imminent strike?
Talk about that after this quick break, welcome back.
Well, our exclusive on Ben Robert Smith case is still coming out. But first, the Trump administration is scrambling to deal with the fallout of a shocking security breach where top US officials accidentally included a journalist on a group chat about plans to bomb hooty rebels in Yemen.
Now.
In the messages they were on the encrypted app signal, Jdi Vance, the Vice President, says he hates the idea of bailing Europe out again, to which the Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says, I fully share your loathing of European freeloading. It's pathetic. But he says, we are the only ones on the planet who can do this. So he is standing up for the idea that the United States needs to be the leader of the free world, needs to
take responsibility here. Mike Walls and Pete Hegseth said America has to do this, has to defend freedom of navigation exercises. They are important. Yet you had the Vice President Jadie Vance with this isolationist view that I've been speaking about that I've been so concerned about pushing back in this internal chat, saying why should America do this?
Let Europe do this. This is the view I've been worried about.
Thank goodness, Pete Hegseth, the Defense Secretary, and Mike Waltz, the National Security head, came in and said, no, America has to do this. We are the only ones who can do this now. The President responded to this odd, it's been a massive story. He downplayed the controversy, and he even rebuked the journalist who.
Was just accidentally brought into this chat. He called him a slee's ball.
But sometimes somebody can get onto those things. That's one of the prices you paid when you're not sitting in the situation room with no phones on it. Certainly, we'll look at this, but the main thing was nothing happened. The attack was totally successful. It was I guess from what I understand, took place during and it wasn't classified information. So this was not lassified now, but it's classified information, it's probably a little bit different. I always say you
have to learn from every experience. I think it was very unfair the way they attacked Michael.
All right, let's bring in now to discuss Guyanese contributed Koshagata Kosher. This is truly shocking, and in my view, Trump was wrong to trash the journalist. He might be a bad journalist, but it was his own officials who breached national security by bringing this journalist into their signals conversation.
Yes, you know this is not good, Shari.
There's absolutely no way to sugarcoat it, and it has consumed the newswag, certainly for the last twenty four hours. I think attacking the journalists, especially this journalist, Jeffrey Goldberg, is a longtime foe of Trump, and he was a central figure in the Russia collusion hoax and other different issues that Trump has been very adversarial about.
So that's his stock in trade.
I think going after adversarial left leaning media as he does when all else fails, you know, definitely go go with that because it's like red meat for his base, and that's something that they punch very well in. I think it' where it goes from here is there's three things. So one is how did this happen? As you say, And there's a spectrum anywhere from just sloppiness and gross and competence for something very serious all the way to
even something more nefarious. We may never know, but there's all sorts of theories going out there about was it sabotage, was it infiltration?
Who knows?
So those kinds of theories are going to fill the void if we never find out, and we may never. The other thing is the substance of it, and you're right that it did reveal where Jade Vance stands and where the other people in the administration stands. But I would say the big takeaway by and large is that they're a thoughtful group and they generally are pretty consistent with what they say publicly versus privately, and I think many people find that refreshing in politics.
And then the third thing is what should they do from here?
So one is get to the bottom of it, shore up the communication channels and all of that. But then as a political matter, you should they punch back? Should they fire the person involved potentially that led to this breach? Should they remind people that actually their leaks happening all the time in the US government. This is not the first time, and none of those people been held accountable.
So that's going to be very interesting to see what the administration does in the next forty eight to seventy two hours.
And it is already sparking heated debate.
There was a Senate hearing. Let's have a look at some of that.
Was there any mention of a target in Yemen?
I don't remember mention of specific targets. How about anything about timing. I don't recall specific timing. There was a significant amount of planning.
My communications, to be clear in a signal message group were entirely permissible and lawful and did not include classified information.
If it's not classified, share the text with the committee. You can't have it both ways.
A lot more to go on that, but as I said, my overall takeout is that more concern about JD.
Vance.
I definitely do not think he should be running for president next time around. But great that figures John Ratcliff would have been among them. Pete Hegseth certainly, and Mike Waltz, who defended America's place as the leader of the free world as it should be kosher data.
Really appreciate your time and your insights on that. Thank you so much. Now still to come.
Ben Robert Smith reacts to our revelations about nine journalist Nick McKenzie, claiming he'd obtained his legal strategy in the high profile case. Plus later on Green Senator Sarah Hanson Young, desperate for publicity, interrupts question time with a dead fish. That's all coming up, Welcome back, well. Afghanistan war veteran Ben Robert Smith is now urgently considering his legal options after explosive revelations that part of his legal strategy was
obtained by nine journalist Nick McKenzie. We reported on Monday Nights program that mackenzie was captured in an audio recording claiming that he breached his ethics by telling a witness that Robert Smith's ex wife, Emma Roberts and her friend Danny L. Scott had provided him with part of Robert Smith's confidential legal strategy. He also said on the recording that knowing part of this legal strategy was helpful to
Nine's case. Well, here he was in that record in making that shocking claim, the.
Actively breaking us on his legal shifty, who respected you like this and yet we're not learning.
About we anticipated most of it. One or two things now we know which is helpful.
But one or two things now we know which is helpful Mackenzie's own words. Well, in the secret recording, mackenzie also says that he knew it was wrong, and he claimed that.
He behaved unethically. Have a listen, No, I shouldn't tell you.
I've just preached my ethics and doing that like this is where like this is to leadership position. Now if they knew that.
And feting you that, now there's been silence from nine ever since their first response to us on Monday. Nick mackenzie has not spoken out to explain his words either, and nine Independent Always have not reported on this development in any way. Well, I've now confirmed that Ben Roberts Smith and his legal team are currently urgently examining their legal options, a source close to Robert Smith told me, and I'm quoting in light of this recording, mister Robert
Smith is urgently considering the most appropriate next step. The recording confirmed what he has known.
What he has long known, that.
His privileged legal strategy was being accessed by Miss Roberts and Miss Scott and passed to Nick mackenzie. This was apparent at the time of his application before Brummige on the eve of the trial in June twenty twenty one. At the time of his judgment, Justice Brummage did not have the benefit of Roberts oral testimony before Justice Forsanco,
in which she confirmed his suspicions. Now the recording is a conversation between Nick McKenzie and a potential witness who he was trying to convince to give the evidence on behalf of nine. The audio recording also captured McKenzie sharing details with this unrelated third party about an undercover police investigation that he claimed was active and currently underway.
No one knows about the police investigation.
It's intensively if I'm going place investigation Bone Tabs task Force, a whole new task force has been still up in Brisbane.
The entire new task force.
There's police living in his apartment block under resumed identities.
As we speak by you, the.
Guys now sharing details of an undercover a covert police operation.
Could have put it in jeopardy.
But the source close to Robert Smith also told me that the source was concerned, highly concerned that McKenzie claimed to have knowledge of such an investigation. They said separately, questions need to be asked of the AFP and OSI as to how McKenzie knew what he told this individual in April twenty twenty one. Now, this is an ongoing story and I will have more developments on this tomorrow night on the show, So make sure you tune in
tomorrow at eight pm. Well after the break, finally, brave Palestinians tell the West what Hamas is really like.
We'll get to that after this quick break. Welcome back.
We'll Afghanistan war veteran Ben Roberts. Smith is now urgently considering his legal options after explosive revelations that part of his legal strategy was obtained by Nine journalist Nick McKenzie. We reported on Monday Night's program that mackenzie was captured in an audio recording claiming that he breached his ethics by telling a witness that Robert Smith's ex wife, Emma Roberts and her friend Danny L. Scott had provided him
with part of Robert Smith's confidential legal strategy. He also said on the recording that knowing part of this legal strategy was helpful to Nine's case. Well, here he was in that record, in making that shocking claim.
Actively breading us on his legal shifty who respected you like his?
And yet we're not learning about we anticipated most of it. One or two things now we know which is helpful.
But one or two things now we know which is helpful Mackenzie's own words. Well, in the secret recording, mackenzie also says that he knew it was wrong, and he claimed that he behaved unethically. Have a listen, No, I shouldn't tell you.
I've just breached my ethics. And doing that like this is where like this is to leadership position. Now if they knew that and peat to you that, I.
Now there's been silence from nine ever since their first response to us on Monday. Nick mackenzie has not spoken out to explain his words either, and nine Independent Always have not reported on this development in any way. Well, I've now confirmed that Ben Roberts Smith and his legal team are currently urgently examining their legal options, a source close to Robert Smith told me, and I'm quoting in light of this recording, mister Robert Smith is urgently considering
the most appropriate next step. The recording confirmed what he has known, what he has long known, that his privileged legal strategy was being accessed by Miss Roberts and Miss Scott and passed to Nick mackenzie. This was apparent at the time of his application before Brummich on the eve of the trial in June twenty twenty one. At the time of his judgment, Justice Image did not have the benefit of Robert's oral testimony before Justice Forsanco, in which
she confirmed his suspicions. Now, the recording is a conversation between Nick McKenzie and a potential witness who he was trying to convince to give the evidence on behalf of nine. The audio recording also captured McKenzie sharing details with this unrelated third party about an undercover police investigation that he claimed was active and currently underway.
No one knows about the police investigation.
It's extensively if I'm going place investigation, phone tabs task force, A whole new task force has been still love in Brisbane.
The entire new task force.
There's police living in his apartment block under resumed Ladensities as we speak, like you the.
Guys now sharing details of an undercover a covert police operation.
Could have put it in jeopardy.
But the source close to Robert Smith also told me that the source was concerned, highly concerned that McKenzie claimed to have knowledge of such an investigation. They said separately, questions need to be asked of the AFP and OSI as to how McKenzie knew what he told this individual in April twenty twenty one. Now, this is an ongoing story and I will have more developments on this tomorrow night on the show, So make sure you tune in
tomorrow at eight pm, well after the break. Finally, Brave Palestinians tell the West what Hamas is really like.
We'll get to that after this quick break