Live on Sky News This is Sharry.
Good Evening massive show. Tonight, former Prime Minister Scott Morrison hits back against claims Peter Dutton is divisive and racist. In his exclusive interview, Morrison also says bringing in Hermas supporters would be like giving visas to Nazis?
Would we allow you know, those who'd supported the stalin As purges and had sympathies with Nazism And people go, that's outrageous.
You can't draw that parallel. I can.
October seven and he doesn't hold back that sensational interview in a moment. Also tonight, joining me live in the studio is Hollywood star Nate Buzz. He's been shunned by actors from his own show because of his support for Israel. Those behind the sceneans coming up, plus fashion designer Mark Freeman will be here to speak about the campaign to find a cure for ovarian cancer and our favorite of
Feisty Tuesday regulars Bronwan Bishop and calebont. But first Tonight, Treasurer Jim Chalmers has joined the Labour campaign in calling Peter Dutton divisive with invective that indicates a level of personal animosity. The Treasurer said Dutton was the most divisive political leader in living memory.
He is the most divisive leader of a major political party in Australia's modern.
History, and not by accident, but by a choice.
He divides deliberately, almost.
Pathologically, particularly and this is worse than disappointing, it's dangerous.
Well.
His comments are part of Labour's campaign to portray Dutton as divisive for expressing serious concern about the issuing of visitor visas to a terrorist controlled war zone. The Prime Minister Anthony Alberenzi backed in Charmer's attack on Dutton today.
Preda Dutton has promoted division his entire political career. He always looks for what will divide Australians rather than what will bring Australians together.
The Australian's Political editor, Simon Benson says that having lost control of the political agenda, Albanesi has leant back on the sid of personality politics that arose from the activist's handbook and how to win an argument after you've already lost it. Benson writes that when the substance of a debate isn't going your way, attack the opponent rather than the issue, but This is vintage Albanesi, he writes, and
he used it to devastating effect against Scott Morrison. By the time Morrison caught on and tried to counter the damage was already done. Albanezy appears to be convinced that he can rerun the last election using the same tactical weapon against Dutton. And this is the very point I discussed in my interview with Scott Morrison today. Do you think the public will see through this or do you think this is quite an effective technique to paint him as divisive?
Well, it's pretty effective in the past.
I can say from personal experience that is usually at a mission that you can't hold the argument on the policy issue you.
This happens a lot more than it used to.
I don't think it's a good thing, and I get disappointed when I see those who can't match it on the policy.
Argument just go the lazy route. And that's what it is.
It's intellectually lazily, it's politically lazy.
And my full exclusive interview coming up shortly. But as Scott Morrison points out, the tactic of personality politics is used when they can't respond to serious policy questions, When all else fails play the man and not the ball. Well, here was the Prime Minister well when he was Opposition leader attacking Scott Morrison personally ahead of the twenty twenty two election.
That is his way, that's his character. Whenever Australia needs a solution, he offers only smirk and mirrors. The Prime Minister never bothers Toliver up to his job titles. Is there any issue in which Scott Morrison doesn't blame someone else?
And Morrison argues this says more about labor than it does about him or Peter Dutton. As you heard he called it intellectually and politically lazy. Now Scott Morrison is the second former Prime minister to come out today to say how ludicrous it is that Gaza visas can be issued to Hermas support former Prime Minister John Howard Todd
Greg Sheridan. Where you've got a body that's a declared terrorist organization, I don't think for a moment that someone who has declared support for that organization should come to Australia. The majority of Australians would feel that a lot of people want to come and live in Australia. And why not. You've won life's lottery if you come here, So why let these people in if they're spooking for a declared
terrorist organization. Now, on the substance of this particular argument that guards and visas were issued without proper security vetting or in some cases any security vetting, Dutton is right and Australians are with him. It must have painted the Guardian to publish this story today, where their own poll found that more Australians agree with Dutton's visa pause for
gardens that oppose it. The Guardian Essentral shows that forty four percent agree with Dutton's call for a pause, twenty six percent are undecided, and only thirty percent oppose it. The poll was conducted to the end of two weeks in Parliament spent debating the issue. In a sign of no confidence in the Prime minister, fifty two percent of voters said Australia was heading down the wrong track, and the Prime Minister's own approval rating has hit a new
low of minus ten. Now, Peter Dutton, despite the attacks from Labor, he knows he's on strong ground fighting Labor on national security and the economy. The perception is cementing that Albineazy has mishandled both issues, and while Labour paints Dutton as divisive, it's becoming very clear to voters that they were misled into electing the most radical left prime
minister disguised as a centrist. It's ironic that Labor accuses Dutton of being divisive because Alban Easy is literally dividing the country by failing to stand up to hatred, aggression and lawlessness. The country has never been more socially divided, Racism has never been more prolific, and it's all under his watch. Okay, that powerful Scott Morrison interview is coming up in a moment just after our political panel, and
he doesn't miss. But let's bring in now former Speaker of the House Bronwin Bishop and Sky News host Caleb Bond. Great to see you both. Look, I want to talk about this one billion dollar mine that Tanya Pliberset killed off. The Prime Minister seems to be engaging in an acrobatic twist to try spin his way out of Plebis's decision to kill off the gold mine. Here was Albin Easy today.
Chris Mins would like it to go ahead. I'd like to go ahead too, to stop it. There are other options that the company put forward on the tailing step.
Nothing to stop it. Only his own government and even the Chris Min's government is laying the blame squarely on Albanezi's team. New South Wales Natural Resources Minister Courtney Husos met with the mining company Regius Resources today and she confirmed that the state government had and I quote expected the project to go ahead and is disappointed at the
federal government's decision to issue a Section ten declaration. Bronwin, what is it about albit easy that he tried to spin his way out of the actual fact that his own government has stopped this mind from going ahead at present?
Of course he's not very bright. I mean, the bottom line is that this particular project had ticked every box that it needed to do. So it is wrong to my mind that the power lies with the single person, the Minister, to be able to deny that project going ahead. Now all that legislation, there's no head of power that allows the minister to do that in the Constitution and basically they will rely on the treaty making power and some connection to a treaty they've made somewhere along the line.
It gives her the power to make a regulation to destroy it, and in my mind that should not be permitted.
That is bad lawmaking.
So I think there's some fundamental changes needs to be made to the principal legislation that she's overseeing for starters, and I think that she should be made to literally recant because this business of someone whispered something in my ear. And then Albani she says, oh, I'm not stopping the mind. He put the tailing down somewhere else. And she comes out and says, well, the person who whispered in my ear said that the spirits are now telling me.
She's glad the mind is closing.
I mean, the whole thing is an absolute nonsense and an insult to the average Australians intellect. But that law, that basic legislation needs changing and BLIBOCT has to be held up to account. She's tried to save her own seat from a incursion from the Greens.
Say look at me, I stopped her mind.
What do you do?
Politics is behind so much of what we're seeing going on. But Caleb, I want to know, do you think there are other avenues now for Regius Resources to go ahead with this mine? And also what's your view on that level of spinnight. I just think it's breathtaking that the Prime Minister can stand up there in front of the media and give an answer that seems to indicate he had nothing to do with this, his own government had nothing to do with this.
Well, the Prime Minister has now made it clear that there is an avenue for this mind to go ahead. Now, whether or not he's spoken to Tenure Blibersk before making that public announcement, I don't know. And to come out and say, look, you know I supported, I supported as though we're the decision of his government to block it. I'm surprised you didn't blame Peter Dutton. That's genuinely what
they have done. We'll show you with everything else it has gone wrong within his government, particularly when it's come to borders and people being let out of immigration detention, etc. But for these decisions sorry, that was made by Tenia Plibersik at the last moment, was on the basis that there was an Aboriginal heritage problem and therefore the project could not go ahead. The Prime Minister now says, well, there are other places where that that damn can go.
There is a solution to this problem.
That being the case, why did Plibisek as the minister, not go to the developer and say, look, I have concerns about where you want to do this bit. Why don't we put it over here? Do you have alternatives? The Prime Minister says today that there are alternatives that Regis has put forward alternatives. Well, why was that not taken into account in the first place? He is walking backward one hundred miles an hour because he knows how
bad it looks. And in the meantime Plibersek has refused to front up to the locals and explain her decision.
I mean, it's a mess. You just get the very strong set that he doesn't know what each of his ministers are doing. He's not across the detail until it's too late. Suddenly there's a crisis, and then he says, oh, what's going on here, let's walk it back. But you really get the sense that, unlike other prime ministers, he's just not across the detail in each of the different ministerial portfolios. Now, I spoke last night about the right to disconnect laws that came into effect yesterday. I spoke
about how they work against flexible working arrangements, particularly for parents. Now, our regular panelist Andrew Carswell has today written an article in The Nightly and he says the government says these laws are progressive, when in fact they are a throwback to the bygone era when mobile phones and email didn't exist, when we all punched our time cards into a physical machine.
Mutual flexibility is progressive, not rigid rules around nine to five as wined by Dolly Parton, you know, forty four years ago, Brugnan. I'm not to ask you to sing that song. I love that song. I'm not working nine to five, but you know, surely flexible working arrangements are a two way street, and employers can't expect to have time off if they're not going to then respond later.
Flexibility and agreement between employer and employee was the fundamental principle that all the reforms about industrial relations were done under the hard government that brought in flexibility, that allowed particularly women to have ours that could suit them. They come to an agreement, and this concept of nine to five is just antiquated. It belongs in the public service. Where my memory serves me, I think it was actually
nine to nine minutes to five. It was very precise, so it is it's an idea that came out of the European Union. This government hasn't gotten original thoughtness. It picks it up from somebody else and it was suddenly picked up and added in to that last tranch that Burke falls through, and it came into effect on the twenty sixth of August. There are seven pages, as Andrew Carswell pointed out, about what is the definition of a reasonable or unreasonable attempt to contact.
Using for bus.
So we will have no idea what it means until there's a body of case law.
I mean, what are you going to do? Oh, let me look read through those seven pages to find out if I can send this email with a question, because that's five minutes past six. Kale can't.
But you can't. You won't get an answer by reading the seven pages. You have to have the Fair Work Commission interpret the seven pages in order to know that this is what they will decide is a reasonable thing to do. So there are going to be people who are going to be in no man's land for a long time.
Now. I have a lot of friends who are similar age to me, who have children in a lot of different professions and they work, they go do school pickup, and then they log back on at night when their kids are asleep. Especially lawyers people like that, and they do a lot of work at night. This works against that these laws are aggressive.
Well, it's essentially a solution in search of a problem, right. I mean this for the vast majority of people is not a problem. And if your boss is contacting you incessantly outside of work hours, we have a great job market at the moment. You can pack up and go elsewhere. Boss who operates like that will not keep staff and will not remain in business. It is as simple as that. If you want to work in a job where you're not going to be contacted outside of your normal working hours, will get.
A different job.
I mean, you and I have worked in journalism, our entire working lives broad when in politics, right, and their jobs where you're going to be contacted at all hours. I know that the chief of staff might call me at eight pm and ask me a question on deadline before the paper goes out.
Well, that's just part of the deal.
That's what was on cadet wages for him AND's sake.
That's not even after hours for you now after hours, right in the morning.
After you if you're a trade union leader, you can bring up any time.
Is there a carvat?
Oh yeah, they will be able to bring up and say you get out there and on stroke of course.
All right, brom and Bishop Calebon, thank you both so much now. Anthony Alberanezi pledged a new tone in politics when he became Prime minister, yet his government has launched a series of personal attacks against Peter Dutton, with a treasurer last night accusing him of being the most divisive political leader in modern history. I sat down with former Prime Minister Scott Morrison today. He says Labour's using the same tactics against Dutton that they did against him in
the lead up to the last election. Morrison wasn't keen to speak about domestic policy, but he did give very strong views on the Palestinian visa saga that's dominated Canbra. I also asked him about Donald Trump, Kamala, Harris, Orcus and Moore. Scott Morrison, great to see you again.
Hi, Charry.
The Teals have accused Peter Dutton of racism for saying that we should stop or at least pause the intake of Palestinians coming from a terrorist controlled region in Gaza. Is this racism?
Of course not, and it's an absurd and lazy and appalling.
Slur that they have made.
I mean, Peter and I both dealt with this during the course of the previous government. If someone doesn't agree with your border protection and immigration policies, they just call you a racist and unable to address what are the substantive policy issues that are occurring. You know, when you're an immigration minister, you wear those security responsibilities very heavily and you consider carefully what the implications might be for
the decisions that you take. You seek to balance your program in a way that can commitigate risks, and to be blind to risks, as some of Peter's critics seem happy to be, I think is foolish and dangerous. I think Peter has spoken out in the national interest, in the national security interest. It's not a one size fits all policy. You need to be cognizant of blatant risks that are there, and you need to adjust your policy, as we did when we're in government successfully.
Where the need arises. It's a very dangerous world.
It can't be you can't run an immigration policy on the vibe.
You've got to do it on the basis.
Of considered national interests and security interests considerations.
I mean today it is.
Three years since the evacuation of Carble. We believed we were going to have to evacuate some nine hundred people and over the course of ten days it proved to be four thousand. It was one of the biggest challenges we faced at that time. But even then we had immigration officers on the tarmac there in Carble being very mindful of who we were letting on the plane, and.
We don't have that presence in Gaza. Well Tony Burker said in Parliament there are no face to face interviews occurring.
It was one of the really challenging issues when it came to getting Afghan interpreters and others out of Afghanistan, because.
You still had to follow the process and we.
Were seeking to do that now on those last days, obviously we operated in a more accelerated environment, but I can assure you we were still seeking to apply all the checks we possibly could in such an urgent circumstance and without.
That level of security. Vettic face to face interviews and the FARO background checks. Should people from a terrorist controlled warzone be coming to Australia on visas right now, you have to have.
The checks and processes, of course, I mean that is a necessary step, even if someone is I mean, you'll often have the case when someone is already here for other reasons and has come under a legitimate visa and cannot return to their home country. Now they will often be put on bridging visas or things of that nature while their humanitarian visa application is considered. But that's a
proper process. Now, true, that can take some time. But in terms of allowing many others to come, particularly on visitor visas in those circumstances, particularly from a country that you'd have to I should say, from a place that you'd have to consider high risk. I mean, this is a part of the world where if I'm ass were to have elections in Gaza tomorrow, they probably get ninety percent of the vote. Now, some could argue why they might get that support, but Hermas is a terrorist organization.
But more than that, it is a terrorist organization committed to anti Semitism, which involves the destruction annihilation of the Jewish people. Any view or support for such an organization.
I could not think of something more at odds with passing a character test to leave it an Australian in Australia.
And yet the ASIER Director General, Mike Burgess has said that rhetorical support for HERMAS wouldn't preclude someone from being issued with an Australian visa, and the Prime Minister in Question Time on Thursday, in response to two questions from Julian Lisa, wouldn't say that if someone was a HERMAS supporter, they couldn't come here. This was inexplicable.
I found this.
I did find it inexplicable, to be honest, and Mike Burgess is an outstanding public servant. And I worked with Mike over a long period of time in many different roles. And whether he use a different form of words today as opposed to then, only he can say. And I find that completely inconsistent with what I would hear regularly from him over a long.
Period of time.
And I don't think at all that Mike Burgess would be an apologist for Hamas or anything alike.
It, for a second, indicate it's Australian government policy that's changed and he's just following their policy.
I don't think it's that.
But what I think in circumstances like that is you can't leave an air gap. I mean an air gap got opened up over this, and you can't have that in place. The idea that any sympathy with hamas rhetorical or otherwise somehow could be overlooked and you could get a lead pass.
To live long term in Australia. I can't imagine that.
And I can't imagine anyone with the responsibility for letting people in a country as a minister rubber stamping that if.
You were Prime minister, you would not be allowing into Australia anyone who's supported him US.
It's like asking, would we allow, you know, those who'd supported the stalin As purges and or had sympathies with Nazism, And people go, that's outrageous. You can't draw that parallel. I can October seven. I contraw it exactly in a big thick line. And that's what we're talking about here. October seven gets just lost in this debate. The single greatest act of genocide and against the.
Jewish people in a day since the Holocaust.
We spoke before about accusations that Peter Dutton was racist. He's also being painted a divisive by the Prime Minister, the treasurer. You know, the Labor Party came after you as the man ahead of the last election. They're now doing the same thing with Peter Dutton, painting him as divisive, not calling out, you know, not rejecting the suggestion from
the till that he's racist. Do you think the public will see through this or do you think this is quite an effective technique to paint him as divisive?
Well, it's pretty effective in the past, I could say from personal experience, and I think regrettably it's part of what modern politics in a sort of social media digital age is not just here in Australia, but you see all around the world.
You see it in the United States.
There was the ability to get away with saying things that are paintly untrue, the ability for these things now to catch hold and establish a legitimacy through momentum. I think people those involved in the sort of campaigning and communication.
Side of politics are very alive to that, and it's.
Become a feature of campaigns which I don't think is necessarily a very good one, and I think it's a very corrosive one.
But instead of arguing the guys a visa issue, they're saying done in your device, And that is usually.
At a mission that you can't hold the argument on the policy issue. That's what I always found, particularly on immigration. I mean I was called a racist more than once. I was asked once how do I justify not being a racist by a journalist? Once they apologize, But so you know, this happens a lot more than it used to. I don't think it's a good thing. And you know, I know Peter, I know him well. I know that he knows how to show compassion, and I know he knows when you've got to.
Stand your ground.
And I get disappointed when I see those who can't match it on the policy argument just go the lazy And that's what it is. It's intellectually lazily, it's politically lazy, rather than deal with the number of the issue. But that's why you could never trust government to people who engage in such stuff.
Just to ask you about the United States election. A little over a month ago, after the near miss the assassination attempt of Donald Trump, it seemed like a certainty that he would be the next president. Many commentators thought he would win an a landslide. We've seen since then, this transformation of Kamala Harris, no substantive interviews, She wasn't subject to any interrogation during what would normally be primary debates, No serious media interviews to date. Do you think this
is a concern? Do you think we need to see what the alternative president is like, what she stands for, what her policies are.
Well think Americans do. They're the ones making the decision.
I mean, we've had the show business side of this campaign up until now. They both had their conventions and they were larger than life affairs. We had the initial debate, which had its quite extraordinary follow on, and up until then, I think we'd seen this, and we had the indictment and prosecution of Donald Trump, and that's what I saw him when he was still in court.
At that time, the.
Issues were very much focused around borders, the economy, and President Trump had a pretty strong lead going into that debate. It wasn't after that debate, he already had a pretty good one going into it. Since that time, it was fairly obvious that if they were to change, well, it could lead to any number of outcomes, and it's led to a positive outcome for the Democrats.
But there's still a long way to go in this race.
And anyone who was confidently saying one way that the other at the moment how this is going to end, I think is either listening to their heart more than their head, or is try to assert some sort of bold confidence. I think it's too close to call now. I wouldn't have said that prior to the debate or around the time of the debate. I think President Trump was in a pretty commanding position.
But you would hope, and I have a lot.
Of faith in the American democracy that by the time people come around to vote, everybody will do their job. That includes media in terms of calling for the questions to be answered. I recall back in the twenty nineteen election it was John o'lee who asked some pretty pointed questions of the then opposition leader, which had a pretty
big impact. I think at that time that's the job of journalists and media in any campaign, not to take sides, but to grill those who seek the highest office, and particularly in the United States.
Now, Prime Minister Anthony Alberizi rarely mentions China when he's speaking about ORCUS. I interviewed US Congressman Michael McColl recently and he said that ORCUS was the single greatest deterrent for China. It was the grouping that they were most terrified of. What's your view about the importance of ORCUS in our region when we are seeing and increasingly aggressive China.
Well, I think our American friends are right about this, and it was certainly our view when we're in government
as well. I think that has been one of the early successes of August is that it has said in a very clear way that the working of allies, allies and partners is one of the greatest terrants that we have against aggression, against these types of assertions that we saw from the communist government in China in our region, and a UCUS was designed to deter not just that type of threat, but authoritarian threats wherever we may encounter them. And to have the three most trusted allies and partners
of all in the world. I would argue coming to together in this way, but it just doesn't do that. It also then provides a platform for those most trusted of partners to engage with other like minded in our region, whether that be Japan or Career in particular, but many others across the Indo Pacific, and we've seen that and as a.
Result, we have seen that deterrent.
Exercised in our region for a very positive purpose.
Are you concerned that Kirs Starmer has ordered a review into Orcus in the UK?
Well, Sir Steve and Lovego was there in the room when we put the deal together. He was the National Security Advisor, my good friend Boris Johnson at the time. We were all up there in Carver's.
Bay when we had both Joe Biden Joe Biden was there of course, and.
Jake Sullivan and we're all there together with Michelle Chan from Australia and Jimmy Kiplocks from my team, and this is the group that formed AUCAS. And so Steve has i think an outstanding understanding of what this is all about, what it's designed to do, why they're the three partners that are in the room, has very good appreciation of the two pillar nature of UGUS, because if this was just a deal about submarines, then that's all it had to be.
But it was far more than that.
Sometimes you hear, oh, it's just a technology sharing partnership. No, this is a transformational partnership between the most trusted partners of any in the world that is designed to deter authoritarian aggression by developing capabilities that can give effect to that and build platforms for others to engage in for the same purpose.
Scott Morrison, thank you so much, really appreciate your time.
Noares, thank you good talking.
And the extended half an hour interview with Scott Morrison will be online later tonight. He also spoke about the withdrawal from Afghanistan and whether he thinks Donald Trump as president would support ORCA That full online will be That full interview will be online at skynews dot com dot au. Now still to come. Hollywood actor Nate Buzz live in studio.
He's been shunned by fellow actors and had hundreds of death threats, but he won't stop speaking out and the powerful campaign shedding light and the deadliest cancer that's often caught too late. Fashion designer Mark Freeman will speak about this after this quick break. Welcome back. Well, if you've been scrolling through social media lately, you might have noticed people in white or red T shirts with the text
ovaries talk about them. This powerful collection is part of a campaign led by Australian designers Kimilla Freeman Topper and Mark Freeman. They're the duo behind fashion label Camilla and Mark. Have a look at their campaign.
The reality is I'm going to die of this disease way before my time.
So I went and removed my ovaries and float pinto to prevent ovarian cancer. Four years later, I get a stage four ovarian cancer.
I remember asking my surge and will it effect remain beating lives?
You can have it being caught back being sims.
Our life is so beautiful, our family is so beautiful.
I love for it to this so beautiful that it's such a loss.
It's such a huge loss.
And you can have a look at those full emotional stories on the Camilla and Mark Instagram page. Now that emotional campaign is aiming to shed light on the amazing feat the research by the University of New South Wales Guynecological Cancer Research Group. It's recently reached a major milestone in their goal to develop an early detection test for ovarian cancer. This is a heartbreaking but important cause and I'm pleased to say I'm out by Mark Freeman. Thank
you so much for your time. Thanks Now, the stories and those videos are just so emotional, so gut wrenching mothers and young women fighting for their lives, fighting to survive this ovarian cancer. Why is the detection so difficult? You know, it's often found when it's just too late for women to live.
Yeah, Unfortunately, ovarian cancer is most often found in stage three or four and at that time it's very hard to do anything about. So, you know, after doing a lot of research and wanting to get behind it, we've found that early detection is the place that we think is most important and that the reality is if you can get it early, if you can find it in stage one, the chances and the life expectancy now shoots up to ninety percent, similar to breast cancer. Say, so, that's why it's so important.
And there has been some groundbreaking research from Australia on this front. Can you tell us a bit about that.
Yeah, so amazing scientists at the University of New South Wales have found a three signature a test which is basically using DNA biomarkers which detects traces of cancer early. So it's now about doing more testing on this and it's amazing.
World first, a blood test effectively.
At the moment, it's detecting DNA biomarkers. The dream is for it to be more sensitive and for it to become a blood test which you'd get at your GP, so regular blood tests would therefore be able to detect a varying cancer early.
And so that's the goal of That is the goal research that you're fundraising for correct And how far off do you think that is?
So we've been supporting this important course for the last four years. When we originally sat down with a scientist, we set about a plan to accelerate this. This is that's barely changed in thirty years. So thirty years, the statistics have barely changed in thirty years. So we set about a goal of trying to get this to clinical trials within six years. We're four years through this process and another two years to go, and we're on track with this great new finding.
That's amazing. Look, if it's not too hard for you to speak about, can you share why this particular cause is so personal to you and your sister?
Yeah, So, unfortunately our mother passed away when my sister and I was thirteen, and my sister was eleven. She was forty two years of age, and that was over thirty years ago, and like I said earlier, the statistics have barely changed in that time. So now that we've you know, our business is established, and we wanted to use our platform for something good, for really trying to change the outcomes in science.
Yeah. So if people are watching this and they want to help, what's the best way to donate?
So we've designed merchandise which you can buy camillamark dot com.
Those are the t shirts that the celebrities are wearing online.
That's right with the catchphrase overy talk about them. It's about creating a conversation so people both educate themselves on this cancer and one hundred percent of proceeds go directly to medical research or alternatively you can make a donation.
Well, congratulations on this powerful campaign. It's going to make a difference absolutely in the lives of women and mothers. Thank you so much for joining us, Thanks for having me on. And that was Mark Freeman. Now still to come, Hollywood star Nate Barz is live in studio to discuss the backlash he's received just for standing up for Israel. Plus the spotlight is on free speech, as Facebook admits it's censored users and another high profile independent has thrown
their support behind Trump's race to the White House. I'll bring you that with Adam Crichton later on the show Welcome Back Well. Schools should clearly be a safe zone from racism and division, Yet the new Southwal's Education Department is on the brink of caving into the Greens. They agreed today the Education Department that is to review a directive advising public schools on whether to stay neutral on
the Israel Garza War. This shocking capitulation comes after New Southell's Greens MP Abigail Boyd said students want to show their support for Palestine. Have a look.
Palestinian students have not been allowed to wear their cafe at school, that they haven't been able to have a Palestinian flag on their bags. We're not neutral on most crimes, why would we be neutral on war?
Well?
To discuss this and more, let's bring in now Hollywood actor Nate Buzz. Great to see you again, Nate, Thanks for having me. What do you think about this? The new Southwal's Education Department potentially or they've agreed to review whether schools have to stay neutral on the war.
I think what we have to remind ourselves of is when people have been wearing the kafirs and when they've been waiving the Palestinian flag for the last ten months around Australia, it's been directly connected to violent chants and threats, and so I just don't think it's a fitting place to bring this into schools where young minds can be influenced to think a certain way, when what's happening in Israel and Gaza is far more complicated than just a nationality or an ethnicity.
I mean, we talk about the indoctrination of children, that's what is going on in Gaza with young Palestinian children. That we don't want that in Australia at all. I mean at a time when the Prime Minister is looking at bringing in thousands, he's issued three thousand visas to Gazans, and the people there have been indoctrinated, They've been brought up to hate Israel and hate Jews. Do you think it would be worrying to bring people here without adequate security vetting?
Well, I think what it reveals is, you know, the current Stinian movement, its use of radicalization, with the youth which happens in Gaza. The IDF have come across countless examples where a young generation of people in Gaza in the West Bank are being taught to not only hate Israel, but also to become martyrs for a cause of gi Hyde. And so the same people who were funneling this to the youth in the Middle East are now trying to
do this in Australia. That's concerning, that's alarming because what they're creating is a radicalization problem. Now, look, we saw Taylor Swift have to cancel two concerts in Vienna because of radical plans from young men who wanted to commit violent crimes because they felt they were doing something for a Palestini movement. We saw people having their throat slit in Germany again by being influenced by the radicalization of
this Free Palestine movement. So the fruits of this movement is showing to be around the world, very very violent, and Australia is going to have to accept the fact that if something like that happens, those who have been allowing this to go on are going to be directly responsible. Blood It's going to be on the hands because they're allowing this sort of speech and this movement to live, to breathe, and to be affecting young minds all over Australia.
Look, when October seven broke out, you were splitting your time between Australia and Hollywood. You then felt very strongly about the issue of anti Semitism and Israel as well. And you've now living quite a lot of spending quite a lot of time in Israel. You know from your time there, do you think that a lot of the Palestinians do support Hamas?
Yes, without a doubt. Unfortunately, that's the reality on the ground. If there was a vote to take place in Gaza or the West Bank tomorrow, Hamas would win unanimously. You know, I think the greatest problem that I'm seeing is most people who are weighing in on this conversation have never been to Israel, have never fully understand the conflict that has been unfolding for seventy six plus years. And so you know, my time, my experience. I mean, I've got
two examples. I've been chatting to a lot of Gazans in Gaza right now, trying to build some sort of relationship and conversation with them. I'm looking for people who may feel that Hermas has led them down a destructive road. Every single conversation I'm having with young Gazans is that they're fully in support of not only what Hamas is doing,
but what they did on October seventh. Now, most Australians, I think you and I would agree if we showed them the raw footage and showed them the facts of what Hamas did in eight hours in Israel, killing twelve hundred innocent Israelis. I'm talking people in their family home, women, children being murdered, you know, young people at a music festival. Most Australians will say this is not acceptable and I
can't get behind this. And what they need to realize is that most people support in the Palestinian movement are fully in support of not only Hamas but the events
of October seventh. Now here's where the hypocrisy starts. You'll see a lot of pro Palestinian supporters referring to the current Prime Minister of Israel, Netanyahu as a Hitler type, and they'll even call Israel's military operation similar to what the Nazis were doing to the Jews in the nineteen thirties and the nineteen forties, and yet in the same breath they celebrate and glorify what Hitler did to the Jews. So their own message is full of him.
Very confused.
Yeah, Now, because of your advocacy for Israel and the Jewish people, you've received horrific death threats, hundreds of death threats, massive cost to you personally for your security. And also two actors from your own from one of your own shows in Hollywood have shunned you. Can you tell us about this?
Yeah, So, one of the main actors on the TV show that I worked in refuses to be in photos with me because of my stands for Israel. Now, look, I'm not upset with him, because he's just being fed the Palestinian narrative over and over again, and he's looking out for his career. But you know, the threats is a great example of what's really at the heart of
this movement. You know, it's a sad reality when you take a stance and the people that for the Palestinian movement feel that their only option is to use violence. And so you know, I was in Berlin shooting a sunglass campaign and I had many pro Palestinian supporters trying to track me down so they could harm me in some way. You know, and people often say to me, why do you do this name, Why do you put yourself at risk if the result is going to be
potential violence from those who support the Palestinian movement. But the fact that people are trying to threaten me for standing with Israel and trying to remove my voice with violence is further proof why it's so important that we actually stand up and stand with the Israelis as they continue to deal with this violence, not only from Hamas, but also from Hesbla in the north, who has been using provocation over and over again since the seventh of October.
I mean, to this date, they've shot eight thousand rockets towards northern Israel.
Eight thousand.
I mean, what nation would deal with this? You know, what would Albanese do if the Australian people were being bombarded with rocket attacks from our neighbors.
Well, he criticizes Israel all the time for how it's fighting the war.
Look, Albanize has never been in a situation where he's had to protect the well being in the safety of Australians. You know, maybe his biggest concern is which sporting event
he'll attend on a Friday night. You know, Benjamin et Yahoo, whether you like him or not, is in one of the most difficult positions right now because he not only has threats from the North, he doesn't have threats just from Gaza, but he also has the Islamic regime threatening the entire nation of Israel every single day, and sundly, yeah here on and sadly. You know, the world wants to give them nuclear capabilities. I mean, this is a very very dangerous time for the Middle East. More than that,
this is going to affect the world. You know, what happens in Israel is flowing over into the world. You can see that in the protests.
Yeah, exactly, every I mean antisemitism and lawlessness and aggression in every major city. Nate Buzz, you have been one of the most powerful defenders of the Jewish community, particularly in the past ten months. So thank you so much for your strong voice. And for anyone who doesn't know you, well, you've got what three and a half million followers on Instagram, so everyone can follow your interviews and conversations there. Thank
you so much, Thank you so much. Now up next, shocking allegations from the CEO of Meta himself about an attempt to censor Facebook users. Class a former Democrat follows in the footsteps of RFK Junior and endorses Trump. That's up, Net, All right, let's go live to the US now, and let's bring in the Australians. Washington correspondent Adam Crichton, Adam,
great to see you. Look. Can you tell us about this extraordinary letter that Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote today to the House Judiciary Committee and the admissions he made in it.
Yes, certainly, Cherry look at was an extraordinary letter. Very basically said that the US goverment repeatedly pressured Facebook and I used that phrase on purpose, repeatedly pressured the company to take down various statements about lockdowns, about vaccines, about the whole COVID episode, which in hindsight turned out.
To be very true.
And he said that he regretted that very very much, and he shouldn't have done it, and they won't do it again. He secondly also said that the Hunter Biden lapstop story, which I'm sure your viewers are very familiar with, was actually correct. Of course, it was not Russian disinformation, and it was a mistake of Facebook to take it down. So look, it was a fairly lengthy letter and it kind of came out of nowhere. No one was really
expecting it. Two years ago or so, he did make some public comments in a podcast where he said some of the things they took down are wrong, but he never before has said that the US Goverment repeatedly pressured the company to do so, and of course that is a First Amendment violation in the United States with potentialifications.
It's quite a shame that this information has comes now because there was a Supreme Court case that was thrown out in June which really could have used this new piece of information.
Yeah, it's interesting. I've seen speculation that perhaps there might be a whistleblower coming out or something that has led to this letter. I guess we'll have to wait and see, but definitely a win for free speech. Let's have a look at another long term Democrat who's now cross sides to endorse Donald Trump at Tulsey. Do you pronounce the surname Gabbard. You'll have to tell me. Adam served as a Democratic congresswoman from gathered from Hawaii for eight years.
She's praising Trump for his foreign policy. Tell us about this endorsement.
Yeah, look, it's a pretty extraordinary transition for her. I mean, she ran for president for the Democrats in twenty twenties. She was on the st at the same stage as Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, of course, and now you knows, you know, she's given this a full throated endorsement for Donald Trump. It's not so much of a surprise. She did leave the Democrat Party in twenty twenty two. She called them a group of warmongers. She was extremely critical,
So I guess there's no surprise in that sense. But it could boost Trump's campaign to some extendent. Of course, coming just a few days after Robert F. Kennedy, who also a former Democrat, has endorsed Trump. Look remains to be seeing what this does to the polls. I mean, certainly it's embarrassing, I suppose for Democrats that those two
individuals have done this. But still it's the case that Kamala Harris is leading Trump forty seven percent to about forty four percent in most national polls in the US.
Do you think very quickly do you think that their first debate could shift this significantly.
Yes, Look I think it could.
I think it's going to be, you know, probably the most important one and a half hours of television for many years, probably across the world. I think it's going to be extremely crucial. Look, there's there's you know, there's there's some speculation now that it might be moved because there's an argument between the two camps. So whether the my crophones are going to be muted or not.
I see she's making all sorts of microphones muted, all sorts of demands and wants to be able to bring notes in as well. Adam Crichton, we're out of time, thanks for joining us. And right now here's Paul Murray.