Live on Sky News. This is Sharry.
Good Evening, and welcome to the show.
I'm Caleb Bond filling in for Sharry Marks and this week he's what's coming up on the program tonight. Paul Keating's thinly veiled swipe at Labor over their super tax plan. He might just be protecting his legacy, but he does make some good points. I'll discuss that in just a moment. Glaston bree as you just saw, has made headlines for
all the wrong reasons. This week, Alex Rivtchin will explain why chanting death Death to the IDF isn't appropriate at a music festival, though I think that's probably pretty self explanatory, and as Donald Trump saved TikTok, he seems to think so. The US President has announced that he's found a buyer for the Chinese owned app Generation Zed. I can imagine will be overjoyed, though not so much me. Kosher Garter
on that a little later. Well, Former Prime Minister Paul Keating, as I said before, took a veiled swipe at the government today over its tax on unrealized capital gains in superannuation. We know he's been private critical, but this is the first time, the architect of compulsory super, the man who devised and envisaged this system, has taken a public swipe at his own party for thirty three years later, basically
trying to dismantle what he fought for. From tomorrow, July one, the compulsory rate of SUPER will increase.
Half a percent to twelve percent now.
Keating sent out a statement today that read, tomorrow, thirty four years after I nominated a twelve percent wage equivalent as the appropriate level of compulsory contribution into superannuation, the system finally matures. This means that every young person joining the workforce this year will begin and remain at twelve percent of superannuation contributions throughout their entire working life. And
this is where things get interesting, he continued. This level of contributions and compound earnings will guarantee personal super accumulations in excess of three million dollars at retirement, reducing the call on the age pension on the Australian budget to two percent of GDP by the twenty fifties. He specifically points out that every new employee in the country will be on the road to more than three million in their super account.
That is not a coincidence.
That is Keating taking a veiled but pointed swipe at the Albanese government and its Treasurer Jim Charmers, who happens to be doctor Charmers, because he did his PhD on Paul Keating. Now, the government, of course, is planning to increase the superannuation tax from fifteen percent to thirty percent on earnings above three million dollars and tax unrealized capital
gains in those superfunds. That is, if an asset increases in value, you pay tax on that quote unquote profit even though you haven't actually made any physical money yet.
And that three.
Million dollars, as we know, is not indexed. It stays at that number in perpetuity. Now, this is the first public intervention by the former PM on this issue, but he's been privately seething about this for a year. The Financial Review reported in August last year that in private talks over the past month, mister Keating has told industry super executives and union leaders that the government's refusal to index the three million dollar threshold to increases in inflation
is unconscionable. According to people familiar with the discussions who spoke to the AFR on the condition of anonymity. The paper reported that Keating has said any new tax shouldn't kick in until at least five million, not three million, and he was particularly worried about the three million dollar
figure not being indexed. It wrote, in private conversations with a wide circle of people, mister Keating suggested that an unindexed limit on tax concessional superannuation would condemn super to becoming a low to middle income scheme, completely at odds with the universal scheme he introduced with the Superannuation Guarantee
in nineteen ninety two. That is, Superannuation would lose its university out which mister Keating apparently regards as key to its strength, national appeal and longevity, the same qualities that have underpinned Medicare. That could eventually lead to a lack of political support and even the scrapping of compulsory superannuation, which would destroy Keating's legacy and hurt the superbalances of
low income earners. The Australian's business columnist Robert got Libson wrote last month that according to super funds, Keating was quote unquote white hot with anger. He wrote a number of those funds now believe, as a result of receiving an air full of that keating anger, that in due course the former prime Minister and Treasurer will go public with a withering blast against charmers, more intense than ever
directed to a cabinet minister. Now, today's statement wasn't a withering blast, but it was a shot across the bow. He fired the warning shot got Libson also wrote that former ACTU President Bill Kelty, an other of the US the architects of compulsory super, was likely to come out publicly and he since has a Fortnight Ago he told The Australian that I think taxing unrealized capital gains is bad policy. It distorts the effective tax changes your income flows.
And if it was on superannuation generally there would be a revolution about it. It would destroy Super. Of course, Labor argues this as just a tax on the rich because it kicks in a three million, But as Kelty says, bad policy is bad policy for rich or poor, and this is the most important element of keeping statement today. This is not just a tax on the rich. It is a tax that will affect average income earners in
just a few decades. The government well knows that bracket creep has helped generate record tax revenue in the past decade. Ten years ago, income tax receipts were two hundred and fifty eight point eight billion dollars. This financial year, according to the budget, there'll be four hundred and ninety seven
point six billion dollars. That's ninety two point three percent more than a decade ago, nearly double, and it's also one and a half billion dollars more than was predicted in the mid year economic update, and over the forward estimates.
Next financial year, it'll be five hundred and twenty two point seven billion, twenty twenty six, twenty seven, five hundred and forty seven point five to two billion, twenty seven to twenty eight, five hundred and seventy billion, twenty eight twenty nine, three hundred and five point three five billion, nearly one hundred and eight billion dollars more in income tax receipts over the next four years. This has become
the dirty secret of successive federal governments. Inflation and pay rises naturally increase wages, but the tax rates don't move so proportionately, you end up paying more income tax without the government effectively raising taxes. Let's not forget that sham tax cut that Doctor Chalmers announced in the budget before the election that the lowest tax bracket of sixteen percent would drop to fifteen percent on July one next year
and fourteen percent in twenty twenty seven. Now, that's meant to cut two hundred and sixty eight dollars from your tax in twenty twenty six twenty seven, which has equal to about five dollars a week a cup of coffee if you're lucky, and that's meant to increase to five one hundred and thirty six dollars in twenty seven twenty eight. Now, the most recent data collected by the Australian Bureau of Statistics from August last year put median weekly earnings at
one thousand, three hundred and ninety six dollars. So that comes to seventy two thousand, five hundred and ninety two dollars a year. And if you received a pay rise of three percent this year, which is in line with the budget's forecast for the wage price index this financial year, that of course ends tomorrow, you'd now be earning seventy four thousand, seven hundred and eighty dollars, on which you'd pay fourteen thousand, seven hundred and eighteen bucks of tax.
Wages are predicted to rise by three and a quarter percent next financial year, so that to take the median tick over seventy seven thousand, on which they'd pay fifteen and a half thousand dollars in tax. And in twenty twenty six to twenty seven that financial year, which is when you get that first tax cut, wages a fore cast to go up another three and a quarter percent, which will put the median wage annually at seventy nine thousand,
seven hundred and fifteen dollars. Now, under the current tax regime, you'd pay sixteen thousand, two hundred and ninety seven in tax. Doctor Chalmers nice man that he is well not two hundred and sixty eight bucks off that, So that brings
it to sixteen thousand and twenty nine dollars. So, despite being told you'll get a two hundred and sixty eight dollars tax cut tax cut, the average Australian will actually be paying one thousand, three hundred and eleven dollars more income tax when this alleged tax cut kicks in than they are today and that is why they don't want to index the increased tax rate on superannuation, because they know more and more people will eventually fall into this
three million dollar category and they will cree more and more money off the top until eventually average income earners are included. That is the plan. It is part of the deal. If it wasn't the plan, that have included indexation from the start. I know the Treasury said, oh, well, a future government can deal with that in the future. They want a future government to deal with it. They could do it now, but they choose not to because they want the money. So let's hope this isn't the
last we hear from keeping on this. As I said before, he's fired the first shot, but now he has to keep up the fight because the only people who can possibly convince doctor Chalmers to change course are those in the Labor Party itself. That it's nearly two years ago that sixty percent of Australians voted no to an Indigenous voice to Parliament, but we know states have pressed on with their own ideas. South Australia has its own voice. Victoria is going to entrine one in law. As we
found out from the Premier Dissenter Allen today. Now their thing will be called the First People's Assembly, which it does already exist. It's a private, not for profit company that's been around since twenty nineteen that was designed to represent Indigenous people in negotiations with the state government over
a treaty, which is another thing that shouldn't happen. But now Allan says this should be a permanent part of government in Victoria, and she was asked the obvious today, didn't we say no to the boys?
The key difference to the referendum that was put nationwide a couple of years ago is that was changing the constitution. This is not changing the Victorian constitution. It's simply taking a common sense approach sitting the First People's Assembly, an ongoing representative body into our existing parliamentary structures. But the significant change is it'll be a body where we will be listening taking on their advice.
It's not in the constitution, therefore its common sense. I'm not quite sure I follow. Alan also refused to answer questions today about what powers this voice would have, but the expectation is that it will be much the same as the one in South Australia. Which means it'll be able to have a say in all laws and government policies that affect Indigenous Victorians. But of course every law and every policy affects Indigenous Victorians because.
All laws affect all people. So that would.
Effectively give them carte blanche to interfere in absolutely anything and everything that it wants to. When they had the first election of the first People's Assembly in twenty nineteen, which is only open to Aboriginal people, as I'm sure you understand, only two thousand people voted. They had another election in twenty twenty three, and wow, they managed to double the number of voters to four thousand, two hundred. That's ten percent of the Aboriginal voting population in Victoria.
Ninety percent did not vote. And meanwhile, thirty three people are put on this body at a minimum of ninety six thousand, nine hundred and forty six thousand dollars each nearly one hundred thousand dollars each a year, at least.
For one or two days work a week.
That's what it said when they sent out the application forms for twenty twenty three. And Jacinta Allen wants to enshrine this thing in law I mean on a pro rata basis. These people, some of them elected on buggrual votes, are paid more than an MP. I mean, if they're doing one day a week pro rata, they're earning more than the premiere. For God's say, gee whiz. This isn't equality, this isn't reconciliation. It's division. It's racism. It is a
separate and well funded class of people. How much money do you think flows through to the communities, the people who really should have it. But if you're one of the privileged thirty three on this body, one hundred k a year and they want to enshrine this in law, what a joke. For more on Nervous Business with Paul Keating, I'm joined now by Sky News host Joe Hildebrand on the desk and the Institute of Public Affairs Saxon Davidson.
Joe, it seems pretty clear that Keating.
Is not happy with the direction that well we all thought he is a great fan. Dr Chalmers is going and as I said before, it's the first time he's publicly said anything about this.
Yeah.
Look, Paul Keating blowing up is one of the great time on a traditions of Australian politics, and people in the Labor Party are obviously very used to it. They always listen to what he has to say, but they also take it with a grain of salt. I actually think when Paul Keating and Bill Kelty and people from that generation who I do think was the sort of greatest generation of Labor Party leaders, I think you do listen, and you should listen. I'm surprised that the government is
being quite so stubborn on this issue. It strikes me that this is a policy that you could very easily just get rid of all the kinks, blast away all the opposition simply by carving out things like the family farm or small family businesses if you're investing in your own business, and also indexing it. And the Greens have actually suggested the Greens want to lower it to two million, so we don't do that. They're crazy little trots, but
they've suggested indexing it as well. And you know, when the Greens are kind of being a bit more sensible than Dare I say it, I can't say it, but you know this is something you know, you shouldn't really die in a ditch over. So I think there's a bit of sort of there's a bit of pride I think the treasurer has where it's sort of, you know, doesn't want to compromise. But after pride, as a good book says, comes to fall, and.
Let's not forget sex.
And that he was Paul Keating basically the last great reforming economic treasurer we had in this country, and of course the guest he came in under Howard and Alden Costillo, but there were significant changes made by Hawk and Keating. He understands the superannuation system what it was designed to do, because he designed it better than anyone else. If he's saying this could potentially destroy superannuation in the long run, you think the.
Labor Party would take some notice. You would absolutely think so.
And Paul Keating is right to question the nature of these changes, particularly because it's unfair to the first real beneficiaries of superannuation that you're going to change it in this matter, and also unfair to future generations. This change basically embeds bracker creep into super in the same way that it is embedded into income tax. It's anti aspirational, it's against the basic tenants of super that it's supposed to benefit you after you retire, not in double basically
the tax on people over three million dollars. But this will, of course, because it's embedding bracker creep, this will own increase the tax base of super and unfairly tax future generations of Australians.
Indeed, let's hope Keating doesn't give it up now. It was the best story going around last week. This street sweeper in Melbourne who successfully challenged his sacking from DARREBN Council for objecting to acknowledgment of country for a toolbox meeting. For heaven's sake, well, James McPherson, he's filling in on Andrew Bolt this week. Of course, my mate from the late debate, he tracked him down this evening.
Take a look.
I just thought it was overdoing it, like we're at a toolbox meeting, no special occasion or anything like that, and I just thought it's getting overdone, Like.
If you gain eight meetins.
You're probably going to get acknowledgment of the countries.
And he's right.
A new IPA survey has found that fifty six percent of people think welcomes to country have become divisive. Saxon, of course you are at the IPA. You commissioned this polling no great surprise.
I think this result.
Not at all.
Australians don't want to be divided by race, and this pole just reinforces that belief. We obviously saw that sixty percent of Australians rejected the Voice to Parliament in every state plus the Northern Territory, and we just saw a very similar result with this polling. Fifty six percent of Australians believe that that welcome and acknowledgment of countries is divisive, because how could.
It not be.
You're being welcomed to your own country.
And I just think that people have just had a gutful of this racial divisionness in this country. And I think that the states that are continuing to pursue Voice to Parliaments like we've just seen in Victoria and that we saw with South Australia should stop it because the Australians had their say, they don't want this, and it should stop immediately.
I know you and I talked about this last time on a Sunday Showdown, Joe, but it's just.
It's at the point now everyone is sick of it.
Just wind it back, you use it judiciously where it feels a pro pre it and otherwise don't do it. People won't complain if they don't feel like what they're being like.
I noticed that Saxon is conveniently ignoring the very strong showing the voice Scott in the act and a number of teal seats which are suffering from the most tremendously acute Indigenous disadvantage in the country. I mean, the poor Indigenous community of Double Bay is I mean, you can me they're so they're so disadvantaged you can't even see them. It's just white people everywhere. I mean, that's that's colonization for you, isn't it.
I did once ride in a column many years ago that the closest many of these people who carry on about Indigenous afees have ever been to an Aboriginal person is being in their beamer and dad.
And I think that is exactly the point. The point is that this has become a sort of performance. I don't find it device or offensive or anything like that. And perhaps ironically, given what sort of started the latest iteration that I think probably a welcome to country on Anzac Day is one of the more profound occasions where
you could do it. But the idea that you somehow sort of absolve all your white guilt just by saying a few words that you're reading from a bit of paper in front of you at the start of every HR meeting or every you know, I mean, what does that do? I think whenever you're looking at indigenous policy, there is a terrible gap that terrible things have been done, often unintentionally, but we've got to acknowledge there is a
massive gap that we've got to fix. And every single thing you do in this area, you should just be thinking, right, what good.
Is this going to do?
What is what problem is this going to fix? How is it going to fix it? Anything that doesn't do anything is just a waste of time and space.
I think it probably does as much good as giving thirty three people one hundred k each to sit on their first people's well Again.
I think you'll find that these are often the people who are the least disadvantage indigenous community.
The Daily Telegraph had this story today that the only money in the New South Wales state budget to combat smoking was two point four million dollars for vaping. The paper reports that the money quote has been set aside this year in the budget to maintain the government's pave app platform, designed to help young people quit vaping. I didn't know there was such a thing, Joe, you're a vapor I'm not sure.
I'm zero point one percent of Australians who actually purchased their legally.
And that's the real problem, right, you know.
I'm sure they're with this app for vaping or whatever, but you can't tackle the problem for as long as the federal government allows legal tobacco to flood into the country because their exercis is too high, and they won't regulate vapor.
That's right.
I think you're looking at two labor governments on two different sides of the Labor Party. One is more ideologically driven and is trying to do the right thing, but is actually making the problem worse in pursuing it because it is driven by ideology and not by pragmatism. And then you've got another in the New South Wales government, which is purely practical, which is unclouded by any kind of ideology, and they clearly have seen that it's just not working and they are just sitting this one out.
They are just quiet quitting on this one and they've just decided they're not going to throw cops at it when they could be busting other criminals, and not showing to throw millions of dollars when they not won't work. But they have to do a kind of, you know, a token thing to show they're sort of on board.
And this is what really annoys me about it, sex is that it's not the state's fault that illicit tobacco has exploded in this country. It's the fault of the federal government who jacked up the excise and refused to properly regulate vapes, and then the states are meant to clean up the mess for them. I don't think it's their job to do so.
No, you're exactly right, and I agree with Joe that the new South Wales labor government is far more practical and pragmatic about this issue than the federal government. The basic point is is that the onerous taxes, excise taxes on cigarettes and the regressive regulations with tobacco and vaping in general is causing this black market and this sort
of organized crime in tobacco markets to flourish. There are a lot of parallels with the nineteen twenties probitioning period of alcohol where you saw a black market thrive and organized crime to flourish, and now you're seeing the same in the twenty twenties with tobacco. I mean, it's just ridiculous the sort of violent crime you see, particularly here
in Victoria, regarding tobacconists and vaping and illicit cigarettes. And I just think that the federal government needs to take a step back, see what's happening, and allow the states to function properly with policing.
And not have to deal with all this crime.
Ye indeed, very quickly before we move on. China's ambassador to Australia has worn camera against boosting defense spending on a sourbriet.
He wrote in the Odds today, good reason to do easily.
Recently some countries hyped up the circle Gina threat narrative, proclaiming to significantly increase diffentsic spendaches and even inside it Australia to follows suit I noticed really not thirty seconds. So the PM was asked about this today by reporter from the Odds about whether it was interference, to which the PM said, well didn't you run the column?
So the PM's editude seems.
To be will attack the media for reporting what people say instead of saying maybe China shouldn't be tell like, I think the PE is.
Having a bit of fun enough, and when you see these kind of supposed barbes, there's always a little smile on his face. But I don't think the PM will be instructed by China or the US on how much it spends on defense, at least not publicly. And I think that it will quietly follow the US's lead far more than it follows China's.
Well, let's hope they do so. Joe Saxon, thank you so much for your time to right all right now, I'm now. The well known Glassonbury Music Festival was on in England over the weekend. I heard Steve Price confirm earlier that he's never been. I'm sure it'll be shocked to hear that I haven't either, but I don't think I'll be rushing there anytime soon After this dross from a legit artist Bob Villain, I'm sure you've already seen it, but have a.
Look to the idf idf ID.
His real name is Pascal Robinson Foster. By the way, I guess you can see why changed his stage name, but that garbage was broadcast live by the BBC and rightly it's been called out by the organizers and British Prime Minister Saki Istama. He wrote, there is no excuse for this kind of appalling hate speech. The BBC needs to explain how these scenes came to be broadcast. Let's bring in our Executive Council of Australian Jury CO Chief
Executive Alex Rivchen. Alex, I mean, of course we've got to acknowledge the fact that this was done at a music festival, and a music festival was where October seven started. I mean, you could fail to be much more offensive than this.
You're right, Caleber. I mean it's incredible the fact that these people could have so little historical awareness, so little compassion, that at a music festival when, as you said, almost four hundred Israelians were butchered dancing at a festival. Now they're using their festivals to preach hatred and chant for death and it's just extraordinary. It's as though this is a has Bala rall in downtown root and on a
music festival in Somerset. The fact that people would be compelled and like sheep go along with these chants by these little known artists who are trying to drum up attension calling for death to people. But this is what happens when you deal with fanatics, and fanatics have a characteristic of them that they eventually reveal who they are. And this movement, which really swelled post October seven, it began by calling for ceasefires as though it wanted peace
and was anti war. They very quickly dropped that and turned to donning their cafirs and chanting for Palestine. Then they started cheering on a Ranian rockets and hoodie drones. And now they've gone a step even further. Now they're openly calling for death. This is what they are and it's not merely glassen with the same chant was heard
on the streets of Melbourne just last night. So this is something that's with us in our society and around the world, and until we see serious consequences, commercial consequences, criminal consequences, this is going to.
Go on and on and on.
And this is the thing that I just it to me, is that the crowd was just shouting it back, seemingly not even thinking about it. I mean, I find it hard to believe that you could get such a large group of people together who all feel the same way about that thing. But like sheep, as you say, in that circumstance, they just shout it back as though it has no meaning, as though it's just a normal thing
to say. I mean, do they think it's edgy or has it just seeped into the culture now that that is an entirely acceptable thing to shout at a music festival.
Well, look, we know from history that when you have a mob, a large group of people, and you kind of shed personal responsibility and you take on anonymity and you can behave into a different way, you get swept up. And even if you don't necessarily hold those views, even if you didn't come into that crowd intending to chant death towards a group of people, you get swept away. And we saw it with Nazis, we saw it with
you know, clan rallies. It's that same sort of group dynamic where people take on the ideology of sometimes a small minority people of fanatics, and that's what we're seeing here. But whether it's a lot of people that support this or a small minority, everyone who stood there waving those flags and going along with those chants best personal responsibility. We're responsible for own actions that are own conduct. And they could have booed, they could have shown displeasure with it,
but they didn't. They're either silent or they went along with it. And I think that reveals something really nasty about the crowd there, but also wider society, you know, the apathy, the complicity, the moral fold, the unwillingness of people to see evil for what it is and to stand up to it.
Indeed, now, of course, after successfully ending the war between Israel and Iran, the US prison is now pushing for Israel and Hamas to have a Ceasari posted on truth Social make the deal in Gaza, get the hostages back, and this was him over the weekend saying he thinks that a deal could be imminent.
I think it's close. I spoke with some of the people. It's a terrible situation that's going guy. So he's asking about and we think within the next week we're going to get.
Us alex wishful thinking or potential reality.
Look, it's difficult to know. I mean the president has said similar things early on, and you know he pledged upon taking office to bring the water or close and that's been elusive, and he's applied diplomatic pressure. You know, as we saw with Iran, he can show us power
in very extravagant, spectacular ways. But when you're dealing with a phote like Hamas, which is you know, psychologically unstable in their calculations, which wants death of a life, which will yield up its own civilians to pursue its propaganda aims, it's difficult to know how they can be compelled to actually release the hostage and end this war and surrender on conditioning. They're not a conventional fighting force that accepts defeat and moves on, so it's difficult to see how
this plays out. But we know that we've gotten into where we've gotten through power and through a demonstration of Israeli force, and you know, the attention is shifted somewhat from that theater of war. We've been focused on what's happening in Iran, But every day Israelis are fighting bravely
and they're falling in combat. Every day the hostages remain in captivity in the most hellish circumstances imaginable, and we fight for them and we pray for them, and we hope they'll be home soon, and we hope that this war does end. But I think it will take the complete dismantlement of Hamas to a point where they see no way out and will rather accept surrender or exile for their leadership. I think that's the only way we'll get to a conclusion here.
Just finally, New South Wales, we will. In p Anthony Roberts, his office was vandalized over the weekend. Some pathetic low life was seen on CCTV footage allegedly spitting on the glass at the front of the office before writing if Israel.
I mean for goodness?
So I thought we'd given up on this stuff a while ago, but there were still dopes running around doing alex.
Look. I think pathetic low life is an apt characterization of this sort of individual, someone who's so filled with hatred and is so petty and looking for their own emotional nourishment that they would spit on an electorate office, on an inanimate object and vandalize it in this sway. But it's criminal conduct. And you know, in this instance, I'm less concerned for the Jewish community. We've put up
with a great deal more than this. We've dealt with fire bombings and boycotts and what's happening to our brethren in Israel. But I'm concerned more for the state of our democracy because this is another act which I think dissuades as strange from participating in our democracy and running for public office. I mean, who would want to put themselves in the firing line of people like that? And you know, John Howard once said that politics was the
only game in town. But I think increasingly people will look at this sort of thing and think, you know, I'll do something else with my life. But ultimately it's our represent democracy that suffers for it.
Indeed, Alex Trifan, thank you for joining me, and I'll give you a tip as well. If you think vandalizing MP's office is going to change anything, mate, you are so stupid.
Just give it up.
Still to come, Labour's renewables plan is looking more and more like a pipe dream.
Who would have thought that anything serious?
Graham Lloyd will join me later to discuss, but first Foreign Minister Penny Wong jets off to Washington for the Quad talks. But with the to do list as long as the flight itself, will she really be able to achieve all that much LNPMP. Garth Hamilton will weigh in. Next interesting story in the Career Mail today about a teacher at a special school in Redcliffe, north of Brisbane.
She was on long service leave when Cyclone Alfred hit in March, so she wasn't at work, but the school ended up being shut for three days and all the
staff were put on special leave. So she argued that she should be given special leave for those three days and then given back the long service leaf, but the Education Department said no, so she took it to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission and they ruled that she can't get her long service leave back basically because she was already on leave, which meant she wasn't expected to go to work and the only reason her colleagues got special
leave was because they were otherwise expected to go to work.
I don't know. To me, that seems a bit unfair.
Her colleagues were given effectively three extra days off free of charge, So it seems a bit petty to me for the Education Department not to just give her a three days back.
How hard can it be?
Meanwhile, Penny Wong is flying to Washington this week to meet her counterparts from the US, Japan, and India. This meeting could not come at a more pressing time. Albanezy courses so far failed to secure a meeting with the US president or a tariff exemption, but it also comes as Australia refuses to boost defense spending and of course
was late to support Trump's strikes on Iran. With me now as MP Garth, Hamilton Garth, it's going to be an interesting week for Penny Wong, particularly being in the same.
Room as Marco Rubio.
And in the same room as Marco Rubio, it's about the closest we can get at the moment to having someone directly ask the administration if we can get a room, get in a room, sorry with Donald Trump.
Surely she's asking that question this week.
Look, i'd very much hope so, and I can sincerely say that's what we need, That's what Australia needs. We're going through a period where the US Australian relationship is in a period of degradation, and I think this could actually come to define mister Alberze's time as our Prime minister. We're seeing that relationship slip away. I'm not presumptuous enough to give any wrong advice. But if I would, I'd say, look,
take a leaf out of Bob Hawk's playbook. This was a guy who really a labor leader, who really put the US relationship first. He was willing to stand up against the anti American elements of his own party. Compare that unfortunate mister Albanzi on his front bench. He's got Don Farrell who was openly questioning whether the US even are our best. So I think there's a way that labor can do this. Australia needs them to. We really do need them to. We're only at the start of
a three year term goodness with this relationship. Can't afford to get any worse than a little tip. I don't think mister Trump is for changing. I don't think he is in a position where he thinks he needs to change anything about how he's engaging with us. We're going to have to adapt to that. Penny Wong's got a lot on her shoulders right now.
Indeed, and of course I'm sure there will be talk about the decision at NATO last week for every country but Spain to increase the defense spending to five percent. We've said, we're not interested in even getting to three and a half percent. I mean to walk into that room at the QUAD. It just makes us look pathetic, look sadly.
I think it does.
And this is a no brainer. Our closest trusted ally, the only country that we can genuinely trust, will stand side by side with us should we find ourselves imperilled. They're asking us to increase our spending. I don't think that's a non reason ask given everyone will say this, The Prime Minister himself will say this all the time.
We're in a period of heightened geopolitical uncertainty. Surely the correct response for us, without the US asking us to do so, is to increase our defense spending to be ready. We've seen the Ukraine gives us an incredible example of what's happening in terms of technology change in defense. We've gone through a time where we have drone warfare. Now we've got anti drone warfare. The world's are changing place
rapidly in defense. We need to be making those investments to make sure that I think we can look our allies in the eye and say we're carrying our share.
Well, you know, I took about meetings of course, as I've said, the PM hasn't managed to cop on with Trump. But I mean it looks like Albanezi is going to meet with the Chinese President, Jijingping next month in Beijing, which will be the fourth meeting he's had with Gi. And I know he didn't technically choose to meet Gi
before Trump. But it kind of goes to the point, doesn't that our relationship with the United States is nowhere near as strong as it should be, and we're certainly giving off the overture that we're much closer to China than we are to the US will use flash. China ain't going to step in and protect us in the conflict, but the US will.
I think there's a very clear perception problem that mister Albert Easy is facing. You know, if I'm positive, I think it's important we do have a strong relationship with China. I always remind people during the Cold War, we continue to sell wall to Russia. You know, even in the depths of the Cold War, we were reaching out making sure that we had that trade established and secured. We've got some important trade with China we need to keep
on the table. That's okay, that's important. The perception at the moment, though, is that we're being set aside by the US and that we are leaning a little bit too closer to China. And when we see the Chinese ambassador come out and tell us we shouldn't be increasing our defense spending and in that particulicular argument, we're siding with China and not the US. Goodness me, it looks bad.
It looks very, very bad. And I think we need to be making a very clear demonstration that we sit right beside the US, that they are our ally and we do so because that's the right thing for us, not because the US are leaning on us, because it's our choosing. It's what we want and what we understand is best for the Australian nation.
Well, yes, and we believe in protecting ourselves. You'd think that'd be a pretty basic thing, but hard to get through their minds, it would seem Garth Hamilton, thank you, mate for joining me as always. Coming up after the break, jen Z's breathing a sigh of relief after Donald Trump announced he's found a buyer for TikTok Kosher Garda will clue us in on how he plans to save all of that later, and cracks are deepening in the Albanese government's green dreams.
What a surprise.
The Australian's Environment editor, Graham Lloyd will explain the damage that the collapse of yet another hydrogen project will cause next.
Well.
Deliberations in Erin Pattison's death kept Mushroom trial began the safteroon. I think the whole country will be hanging on for this verdict. They put up black bunting around her house this afternoon, so.
We're at the business end now.
The jurors are basically locked in the court and then their hotels for as long as it takes them to reach a unanimous decision. Skyne News reporter Georgie Dickerson has been following the case in Morwell.
She filed this for as little earlier Caleb.
The final twelve jurors has been decided and they are the ones that will ultimately decide the fate of Aaron Pattison. Now this trial has now entered its tenth week. Ten weeks ago. We did start with fifteen jurors and that was always going to be brought down to just twelve. As for why they do this, they start with a larger number in case a jura falls unwell if they or if they have to be dismissed from the trial,
and that happened a few weeks ago. There were allegations that one dura had been speaking to family and friends about the trial, so they were dismissed. Now today it was picked at random. Two men were dismissed, leaving just twelve people. This was seven men and five women are now the ones that will decide the fate of Aaron Pattison. Now, in terms of how they reach this verdict, it must be a unanimous verdict. They will deliberate from ten thirty am with a break at lunch until four point fifteen
in the afternoon. But they don't go home. When they came into court today they had to bring their luggage and each day after court finishes, they go back to a hotel in an undisclosed location and that's where they stay. They don't have access to any media, Internet or even their phones. This is to ensure that a fair trial takes place.
Now.
In terms of this, they will then come back here each day to deliberate. The judges warned and said that there are strict conditions in place for these jurors. While they can discuss the trial here in court with all of the jurors, they aren't to discuss it in small groups back at the hotel. Now, in terms of what to from here and how long this will take, well, it's anyone's guess. It has to be a unanimous verdict.
They need to take into account the four different charges, three counts of murder and one count of attempted murder. And so this trial and this jury will then continue to deliberate until they come back with that unanimous verdict. But Caleb, it has been a long ten weeks for these jurors. Fifty three witnesses have been present in this trial,
and now it's down to the pointy end. We'll all be waiting here when we received that message and ultimately find out if she is guilty or not guilty in this highly anticipated trial here and more.
Well, ten weeks, it's been a hell of a trial.
Plenty more to come.
We will keep you updated, of course, right here on Sky News. Now it must be a day ending in why the Albinizi government's renewable energy aginder had another major reality checked today with the cancelation of the country's biggest green hydrogen project that Lee Developer confirmed that it pulled out of the twelve and a half billion dollar Central Queensland hydrogen project over the weekend, which all guarantees it's dead. With me now is the Australians Environment editor Graham Lloyd?
I mean, Graham always talk of green hydrogen. Even a couple of months ago, the Prime Minister was.
Still talking it up.
How we were the envy of the world. Have we actually got a single one of these projects up?
Well, all good evening, Caleb, but the short answer is no, nothing past a real bench scale testing.
Same story around the rest of the world.
And out of a one hundred billion dollar pipeline of projects that were going to make us a renewal energy superpower, none of them have actually taken flight. So it's a big reality check for hydrogen and the failure of this project, which is the largest in the country is it's very illustrative. It was really going to supply the industrial city of Gladstone with renewable hydrogen to keep the industry going.
Now that's obviously not going to happen.
So that raises some very awkward questions about the future of aluminum smelting and other things in that district.
Well, I mean it's all over now, baby Blue. But when does the government admit it.
Well, certainly they're slow to call it off.
The change here has come about because of the election of the LNP government in Queensland.
They had a look at the books.
It was being sponsored by a state owned electricity company. That company needed more money and the state government said no, this is a fool's errand and throwing good money after bad. So once they pulled out, the overseas back has lost confidence as well and it's not going ahead. But we're still yet to hear from the federal government that they've got a plan B or they even acknowledged that things have us die as in fact they.
Are well there.
While we're talking about energy, the Energy Minister Chris Bowen announced a review into gas market regulations today.
And today I'm releasing the terms of reference and a consultation paper about making sure that Australian government policy holistically instead of having three different mechanisms, holistically is looking at ensuring the efficient supply of gas to industrial users, to domestic users and to the energy system.
In basic terms, what's in this what will it do.
Well.
They're looking now at the supply of gas for the domestic market, and it's been like a slow flat freight train coming that there's a shortage in the domestic market and something needs to be.
Done about it.
To a large extent, the government has hid behind the hope that our hydrogen fuel will become available and it will replace the need for gas.
But it's now.
Obvious that's not going to happen, so there needs to be an urgent effort to increase the domestic stocks. The Energy minister there is saying he's going to have a review into all the policy, and the thing that can be drawn from it is it's likely that future developments will have to contain a domestic reservation, so they will have to supply gas to the domestic market.
But the trick is to get those projects off the ground.
Indeed, I don't think that's a bad thing necessarily, but how many time do we see reviews and nothing happens afterwards?
Graham, thank you so much for your time. Don't go anywhere.
We'll turn to the United States to get the latest on Trump and his secret TikTok buyer right after this quick break. Don't know whether you saw the press conference with US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint chiefs of Staff Chair and General Dan Kaine on Thursday night. We took it helived during the late debate. It was pretty extraordinary how General kin went through how the bunker busting bombs used in around work and how they were developed.
And Hegseth was seething.
He was absolutely seething over the leaked report into the effectiveness of the strike. He read a bits that were published in the media that said it was a low confidence report. Let's bring a nawska and use contributor Kosher Garda. In response to all of that, Kosher, Donald Trump is now saying that if he wants to, he could compel the journalists to report it on it to reveal their source.
Yes, great with you, quieleb. I think it'll be a little bit tricky for him to do that because we do have the First Amendment in the US, which has the strongest protections in the world against the press, even press that is adversarial, not always honest. There are trust is at an all time law. It is very difficult to compel them to reveal their sources. So it may just be rhetoric and and bluster from him. However, there
is value in intimidation and putting pressure on him. More likely he's going to probably find success by trying to trace the leak or within the government, within the Pentagon who did it. This has been a problem. We've seen a low level person leak the Dobs decision at the
Supreme Court, and there have been other leaks. So it would actually be good for the country, I think if they can snuff out who that is internally within the government and make an example so that these types of leaks don't keep happening.
Yeah, and you know it's the leak's fault, it's not the journalist's fault.
We should note meanwhile, Trump said that he's found a.
Very wealthy group of people, that's his word, to buy TikTok, which would potentially save it from a ban in the United States, and he sort of kept putting this ban off every ninety days. Do we have any detail about who these people are, where they're from, what the deal might be.
Not much, I think classic Trump style. He's dangling it out there and saying he'll reveal it in two weeks. We do know from the past six months or so, there have been a few different very wealthy investors that
have pressed interest. Kevin O'Leary, who's one of the Sharks on the American version of Shark Tank and very successful investor, has been putting together a consortium of investors, institutional and personal ones, and they've or individual investors and they've been the only group that's put out a public offer, So it could be them. Others like Elon Musk, Larry Ellison, founder of Oracle, Steve Manuchin who worked in the Trump administration before as a billionaire. All of them have at
different points mentioned that it might be them. I think the key also is the Chinese Party Communist Party has what's called a golden share in TikTok, so they have veto rights to block who TikTok decides to divest it to. So that's another angle that I think Trump is juggling and trying to find a group that can buy this at a fair price and also appease changing Ping's golden share, and we'll see what happens in a couple of weeks.
I think it's just a shame that he didn't invoke the band at some point and try to force him to do things a little earlier.
Of course, what we're talking about.
Trump's big beautiful bill made it through the Senate, but we know it had its career, including from within the Republican Party. One of them we know, of course, is he's ex best friend, Trump's expst friend to Elon Musk, who went on his platform mix over the weekend and said it will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause Immitt strategy cam to our country utterly insane and destructive. The process, though, by which this thing was passed, was creite extraordinary, though kosher it was.
They're using this reconciliation process, which is the only mechanism, and you can't use it too many times. You can basically use it once in a term that allows them to get it through with just a simple majority fifty percent or fifty one percent of the votes, whereas otherwise they'd have to meet a sixty percent threshold. And that's next time possible, just given how divided the country is right now. So it's squeaked by but the skin of its teeth, not everything in it is going to make
everybody happy. Elon Musk's gripe with it is that it doesn't cut spending deeply enough. This is true. However, the Trump team is prioritizing immigration enforcement over spending cuts. And it has the greatest funding for immigration enforcement that's ribbon passed by Congress for the wall, for more ICE agents, for more deportation related mechanisms and needs that they have. So that's what he's prioritizing. And you know it's not some spending, but not as much as we would like.
But you know, life is about trade offs, and that's a tradeoff he's made, indeed.
And it does come with text cats to Koshergata. Thank you so much for your time, and that's all we have time for tonight. I'll be back here tomorrow at eight o'clock, but stay tuned, of course. The Great Man Paul Murray in the Man Cave