00:00:02
Speaker 1: Peedo Krandlin live on Sky News Australia.
00:00:08
Speaker 2: Good evening, Welcome to the show. Here is what's coming up tonight on Kredline. First IVY fluid now vital, end of life pain relief supplies cut due to government mismanagement to drug supply chains, with medical experts now gravely concerned. Older Australians are set to pay more for their age care, with labor set to radically upend the system, while those raught in the NDIS will be allowed to avoid repaying their debts. Now, how's any of that fair? We'll get the latest on day two from the Democratic National Convention. As Michelle and Barack Obama take the stage in Canberra. The Prime Minister faces more questions over his Gaza visa scheme as it's revealed the cost to support these new arrivals could be as much as three hundred million dollars and not contend to name call and slur Peter Dutton as a racist, Zali's steggle and a fellow teals now accuse the Coalition of.
00:01:04
Speaker 3: Misogyny overwhelmingly the conduct.
00:01:07
Speaker 4: The conduct is by mail and peace.
00:01:10
Speaker 2: One of the colleagues across the chamber called out rip him another one, and I'm.
00:01:14
Speaker 5: Like, how is this behavior that is acceptable in the real world.
00:01:18
Speaker 2: I'm going to call it out, mister Dutton recently, name calling, labeling, denigrating words in the media is unacceptable. For first, more travel for the Albanezer government over Gaza visas today the opposition claiming that bringing in three thousand people from the terrorist controlled warzone could cost taxpayers upwards of three hundred million over four years.
00:01:46
Speaker 6: This is the government that's handed out three thousand tourist visas to people who are clearly not tourists. They don't intend to return to Gaza, they can't return to Gaza, and so right now the government is contemplating offering these people permanent visas. When they do so, I'll be able to access Medicare, welfare and other benefits. And that's not free. In fact, it costs about twenty five thousand dollars per year per visa holder. So if all three thousand are converted to permanent visa holders and access those benefits, we've calculated it'll cost Australian taxpayers three hundred million dollars over four years.
00:02:18
Speaker 2: Now, let's face it, almost none of them will volunteer to go back, and the government says it won't force anyone to return, so welfare payments, housing assistance, medicare, legal aid and all the other resettlement services Australia provides will be granted to them. It all costs money. Given the ongoing financial costs plus the potential national security risks are bringing people from a terrorist controlled war zone, the question haunting this government is why why are we letting at least three thousand people, scarcely security checked, many of them schooled from infancy and due hatred and the evils of the West come to Australia when none of our allies are taking in anything like these numbers. Now the countries at no gas are best than Muslim neighbors Egypt, Jordan, Qwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or they're taking none.
00:03:15
Speaker 3: None at all.
00:03:17
Speaker 2: As far as we know, there's been no cabinet decision, no leadership group discussion, no caucus debate on any of this. Certainly no formal announcement, no proper press conference or anything like it. This all leaked out last November, and it was only then that Pennywong sheepishly admitted seven hundred visas had already been granted with hundreds more to come. Now, what's worse, it would appear that ASIO weren't consulted at all about this decision to let people in from a terror zone with minimal no security vetting. We know at the time the Prime Minister had booted Asio out of his National Security Committee.
00:03:58
Speaker 3: Maybe this was why.
00:04:00
Speaker 2: Maybe he feared Asio would argue against it. Certainly the AZO I knew in the past would have done that expressing genuine concern for the security and safety of all Australians. Any wonder our terrorism threat level was recently increased when this scheme to bring Palestinians from Gaza to Australia under a cover of secrecy that's now been blown, looks like it was something cooked up between the PM and former Immigration Minister Andrew Giles not to advance Australia's national interest, but to trade visas for votes in Western Sydney. All at a time when anti Semitism is rampant. What an appalling thing to do to our country. Now, this isn't an easy issue to discuss. It could actually be confronting for some people. But we can't just pretend it away because it's difficult here I'm talking about the fact that babies who survive late term abortions are refused life saving medical care and left to die in some but not all.
00:05:10
Speaker 3: States in this country.
00:05:12
Speaker 2: Now, as I woke up this morning, I still couldn't get over the decision in the Senate last night but refuse to even allow debate on a resolution that all newborn babies born alive after late term abortions be allowed to receive medical treatment rather than being left to die. Here is a midwife speaking out about what is happening in Queensland.
00:05:39
Speaker 7: We've had babies born alive after terminations from fifteen to twenty two weeks, born alive, gasping for air, moving and having a palpable heart rate, fighting for their lives as we are humans designed to do. Parents of these babies who are born alive after abortion do not want to see or hold them. This means the only person left who could possibly hold them.
00:06:01
Speaker 3: As a midwife or a nurse. If there's where a.
00:06:04
Speaker 7: Pregnancy life someone wanted baby, the mother and father would usually comfort that baby while the baby was alive until they pass.
00:06:14
Speaker 2: So in one room you've got doctors doing everything they can to save a premature baby, and in another room they're forced to leave a baby to die because they've unexpectedly emerged alive from a late term abortion. Now, why should the treatment of one human person depend upon a veto from someone else. In this case of the woman, she might have intended the child dead.
00:06:40
Speaker 3: But if the.
00:06:40
Speaker 2: Baby is born alive, surely it's right to live trumps everything else elsewhere. At law in Australia we would call this infanticide. Now, our records in this area are hard to get because it's rightly embarrassing for a medical system that.
00:06:57
Speaker 3: Would prefer to draw a veil over all all of.
00:07:00
Speaker 2: This to pretend it isn't happening, and hope you never hear about it. But it seems that over the past decade in Queensland and Victoria alone, more than seven hundred babies have been born alive after late term abortions and then left to die untreated on a medical dish like discarded waste. In other states, thankfully, their laws say the baby must be given treatment. Hence the need for one national law to protect all newborns. And that's what UAP Senator Ralph Babbott was trying to do when he moved to urgently debate this issue last night, only his bid was stymied by Labor and the Greens that fanatically are committed to abortion rights right up until birth and now it would see even after delivery and voting with the hard left were for liberals who I bet would rather know one knew about this cruelty. They are Senate Leader and South Australian Liberal Simon Birmingham, Victorian Liberal Jane Hume and New South Wales's Liberals Andrew Bragg and Maria Coverchick. This motion was not about restricting abortion. That wasn't even on the table, and in any event, abortion under law in Australia is a matter for the States, not the Commonwealth. It wasn't about changing a woman's right to choose. This was a motion about protecting children. Baby is born that should have the right to treatment, regardless of the woman's intention when she walked into the hospital, because how we treat the most vulnerable in society says everything about our values and our humanity. To reject the right of doctors and nurses who want to save these babies from doing so, it's inhuman, it's against their hippocratic oath to preserve life wherever they can, and I have to say it's just as inhumane for the rest of us just to let this go.
00:09:17
Speaker 7: Right.
00:09:18
Speaker 2: We'll go to Camber now for the headlines sky News political reporter Cam Reddin.
00:09:23
Speaker 8: MPs behaving badly could soon be fined, suspended or dumped from parliamentary committees under a proposed new disciplinary board.
00:09:31
Speaker 2: Bullying, harassment, other complaints were common in this workplace and we're trying to change that.
00:09:37
Speaker 8: The Independent Standards Commission would be sent up to investigate claims of misconduct against politicians or their staff.
00:09:44
Speaker 9: We want to make sure that this is a safe and respectful workplace at all times.
00:09:49
Speaker 8: The Commission would have limited power to impose direct sanctions against politicians, but could recommend Parliament fine MPs up to five percent of their salary, sack them from committee es, suspend them from Parliament, or that a member of staff be terminated. Parliament should set the standard of behavior instead of being a national shame. State and territory leaders have agreed to fast track rule changes that would help curb the rising cost of the Ndis it all works better when you don't have the FEDS and the States arguing The deal puts premiers and the Federal government on the same page around rules that aim to cap funding growth of the NDIS at eight percent a year. It will make life more difficult and it will lead to the deaths of disabled people. The Coalition has continued its pursuit of the Government over the handling of visas given to Palestinians fleeing Gaza.
00:10:44
Speaker 10: Of the reported forty three tourist visas your government granted and then canceled, twenty have been reinstated on appeal. Did ministerial intervention occur to support any of these twenty cases?
00:10:58
Speaker 11: Remember is asking me question about ministerial invention. There certainly has not been prime ministerial invention.
00:11:08
Speaker 3: Well more on all of that.
00:11:08
Speaker 2: I'm joining ow Myskyniest, senior reporter Carolyn Marcus and our political reporter from camera, cam Reddan.
00:11:14
Speaker 3: Will welcome to you both again.
00:11:16
Speaker 2: A feature in the House today the issue of visas out of Palestine, dogging labor. The Coalition today confirming that if all the current gazas were to stay in Australia permanently, and I suspect many will, the cost of taxpayers would be around three hundred million dollars. Well, that's a big figure, Caroline, But that's just for the first four years. But let's put the cost to one side. I think the focus has got to be on the lack of security checks and the attempts by the government again today to avoid answering just basic simple questions.
00:11:49
Speaker 3: That's what's hurting them.
00:11:51
Speaker 2: And I'm pretty confident, as an example, that they took this decision without formal advice from ASIO, and that's why they keep dodging the question.
00:12:00
Speaker 3: And that speaks volumes to me.
00:12:03
Speaker 9: Well, it's difficult to imagine any security agency advising a government was that it's a good idea to take up to three thousand people it's up to at the moment from a terrorist enclave where there is still majority support for hamas a terrorist organization, and majority support for those horrific October seven attacks on Israel. You know, the most minimal of security checks appears to have been done, on average twenty four hours to check these people, and in some cases as little as one hour. How can we be how can we rest easy as a public that this is the level of security checks that the government thinks is all right when it's people who are coming from these areas, When in the past, when we had under the Coalition government people coming from Syria from Afghanistan escaping similar Islamist regimes, we had an average of twelve months for those sorts of security checks to be done. How can you possibly compare the two? But I have to say, Peter, I'm not quite as confident when it comes to ASIO anymore, now that we've heard the ASIO boss, Mike Burgess say that it's that people who express support for hermass that's not a deal breaker. When it's in terms of giving them a visa to come here, that's quite a right apparently. So it doesn't fill me with a lot of confidence when I hear things like that. But in terms of what happened today in Parliament, you know, it was more of the same from the Prime Minister, not answering questions properly, flinging around personal accusations against Peter Dutton and the Coalition, saying that Peter Dutton is nasty and that he's punching down.
00:13:51
Speaker 3: I always think if someone.
00:13:53
Speaker 9: Resorts to personal attacks like that, it means that they don't have a very good defense to the argument in the first place.
00:14:01
Speaker 2: Well, we'll stay with the personal attacks because the cam the Teals Can. They had a press conference today. They say that they're not a party, but they're always front together looking very much like a party. They're accusing the Coalition of misogyny. I'm going to speak to the Liberal Deputy leader on this point in a moment. But Labor is close to introducing the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission. I did note in the package we played just before, the person pushing this new commission, Katie Gallagher, talked about bullying and name calling and poor treatment, but she was of course accused by her own colleague, the late Kimberly Kitching, of being a bully, being one of the mean girls. Well she's got carriage of this issue. Take us through the code and what it'll mean for politicians.
00:14:50
Speaker 8: Yeah, there's a big question about how this will look in practice, Peter, because the body won't be able to do a lot on its own. What it can do is make a series of recommendations for action that the parliaments can then take if somebody is found to have behaved badly, particularly for MPs. So it can say, for example that if XMP has behaved badly to exactly what threshold, what would meet that standard? We don't yet know for sure, but they could have things like, for example, part of their pay. They could be docked, They could be suspended from Parliament for a period of time, booted off a committee. If a staffer has acted inappropriately, they could essentially be ordered to sack that member of staff. So much of this remains a question mark until any of it is tested practically, Peter, Arguably the most important point about this whole thing though, it doesn't cover conduct in the chamber, So all the to and fro, the rough and tumble in question time, in debates, the certain words that might be used to describe people during the rough and tumble of political debate, that's not covered. All of this covers outside activities, so you know, conversations in the corridor, behavior in offices, all of that counts. What happens in the chamber doesn't. So how much of what we see for day to day politics actually gets held up to this standard, that's a bit of an unknown so far.
00:16:00
Speaker 2: Let's go to the shocking report in the Australian today. This is about palliative care patients, so dying Australians being forced to pay more than four thousand dollars for painkilling drugs that we now have to import from overseas after the existing product, which used to cost around seven dollars, was removed from the market. Now the minister here, Mark Butler, was worn nine months ago with looming shortages. We know there's that issue with ivy fluids. He was also warned about that we've got die shortages in Australia. But this one, Caroline's pretty horrific because those dying patients and their families now have to pay these multi thousand dollars cost to give them relief at end of life. I mean, what are these ministers doing if they're not doing their day job.
00:16:46
Speaker 9: I don't know what they're doing. They clearly had months and months and months to prepare for this. They were warned about it in this case nine months ago. In terms of these drugs, and when we're talking about people in palliative care, it's not just elderly people who are at the end of long lives. We're talking about children too, who are struggling to get access to things like oral morphine liquid oral morphine.
00:17:12
Speaker 3: It is just horrific.
00:17:14
Speaker 9: I mean, these are people who are just in these such awful circumstances.
00:17:17
Speaker 3: And their families being.
00:17:19
Speaker 9: Given these difficult choices thousands of dollars for these medications when they're not listed on the PBS like these alternatives aren't. And who can afford that these days with the cost of living crisis only the really wealthy. So it is just a horrible situation. And it comes off the back, of course of this ivy shortage that we're experiencing too, where the government also had since last May it was warned about this looming crisis, and yet somehow Australia seems to be the only country in the world affected by this shortage. We haven't managed to prepare like everyone else has, it would seem this one I.
00:18:01
Speaker 2: Think worries me a lot to cam this is a sweeping overhaul of age care, because the devil will be in the details. What we know is that there'll be big cost increases for baby boomers. Now, if you're on a pension, you'll be better off than others. But if you're a self funder retiree, if you've made sacrifices to save for your retirement.
00:18:22
Speaker 3: You're going to be hit hard here.
00:18:23
Speaker 2: There'll be additional costs in an age care facility, but also to home care packages and more. I'm told the deals close to being announced. What can you tell us.
00:18:34
Speaker 8: Yeah, the Prime Minister Todd caucus this week, Peter that it'll be announced very soon, so maybe even as soon as tomorrow, by the end of the parliamentary sitting week. But the bottom line, as you indicate there, is that many individuals are going to be paying more for their age care that they receive. That's the bottom line of where we're going to land. The government ruled out a number of ways that it looked at for potentially essentially paying for age care into the future. The rough ballpark figure is it'll double over the course of the next decade from around thirty billion dollars a year to sixty billion dollars a year. They didn't want to go for an age care levy. They didn't really want to slap higher taxes on. So as a result, what we're going to look at is a shifting of some of the cost from the taxpayer at large to the individual And without going to the nitty gritty of all the boring details of it, essentially what that means is a lifting of the lifetime cap. So at the moment, seventy five thousand dollars a bit over that roughly is the most anyone will ever pay for their residential age care. That cap is going to rise, so as a result, the ballpark figure that's being speculated is around one hundred and ninety thousand dollars the new cap, so that'd be a more than doubling of the current cap. Where it lands we'll see tomorrow, still a topic of negotiation, but as you say, Peter, the bottom line is we're living longer, more people need money for care services, and they're going to end up paying more for it as a result.
00:19:47
Speaker 2: I think the perverse disincentive here there can go will be to force people to restructure their affairs before they retire, to spend everything they can in order to get the pension, because the pension will mean they can afford or.
00:20:00
Speaker 3: Age care services. We'll have a look at the detail tomorrow.
00:20:03
Speaker 2: As I said, all right, Caroln, I think you've got some exclusive news for us on a likely lawsuit set to rock the New South Wales Liberals.
00:20:08
Speaker 3: Is that right, yeah, Peter.
00:20:11
Speaker 9: So, as you will be aware, the New South Wales Liberals have abandoned their own plans to take an illegal action against the Electoral Commission. But it seems that a potential lawsuit, a class action against the Liberal Party head office, may still go ahead and maybe quite likely. The one hundred and forty candidates who missed out on nominating for the local government elections next month here in New South Wales, they're being canvassed by a prominent citing lawyer, George Newhouse, who sent an email today telling them that after consulting with two senior barristers, it would appear that this lawsuit would have reasonable prospects of success. Now apparently those prospects are particularly high, he tells me, in terms of briefa of contract and possibly in negligence as well.
00:21:03
Speaker 3: He says he's been in.
00:21:04
Speaker 9: Contact with a number of younger candidates, but is really looking for an elder statesman from the party to join and be the lead plaintiff in this lawsuit. Now, what might make it difficult and getting this lawsuit actually off the ground is that this would be a career ending move for anyone who really would like to stay within the Liberal Party even after everything that's happened to them. But certainly there is a lot of anger and grief from these candidates after this just ginormous stuff up, so it could well go ahead and apparently it has some pretty good chances.
00:21:39
Speaker 3: If it does call then Camp thank you.
00:21:43
Speaker 2: But I want to return out of that extraordinary press conference today from the tials, which followed on from comments in the Guardian accusing the Coalition of misogyny.
00:21:54
Speaker 4: Professional behavior involves being respectful of the person that you stand next to. It involves listening, not to shut that person down, but listening in a way that is actually geared towards understanding what that person is trying to share with you. And professional behavior involves being prepared to work with your colleagues, regardless of what point of view they may be taking on.
00:22:18
Speaker 3: An issue, to be able to come to a point of consensus.
00:22:25
Speaker 2: Sanctominy and hypocrisy, I have to say, because it was only last week Zari Stagger, one of the teals, was happy to name called others labeling Peter Dudden a racist.
00:22:35
Speaker 1: Stop being leader of the opposition. Yes or no? Do you think Peter Duttan's a racist?
00:22:40
Speaker 12: I think he is condining racist politics.
00:22:42
Speaker 13: So do you think he's a racist?
00:22:43
Speaker 3: By association?
00:22:44
Speaker 7: Yes?
00:22:46
Speaker 2: Right to respond to all of this, I'm joining out by the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, Susan Lee.
00:22:50
Speaker 3: Susan, thank you.
00:22:52
Speaker 2: I wanted to speak to you tonight because you are the most senior woman in politics in the House of Reps on the Labour side their leader and the deputy leader of men, the Greens leader at the bottom of the horse shoe.
00:23:03
Speaker 3: Well, he's a bloke as well.
00:23:04
Speaker 2: Your best place to give us your view on these allegations from the tears. I mean, how is it okay to call a bloke a racist but a robust.
00:23:12
Speaker 3: Chamber is somehow an attack on women.
00:23:17
Speaker 5: Well, Peter, thank you, and standards cut both ways. Just because you're a teal doesn't mean you can say what you want and what you've illustrated. There is Zalie Steggle unleashing horrible personal invective, unacceptable personal attacks on Peter Dutton and refusing to withdraw them, probably not even being asked to, but then repeating them several times outside the chamber. I mean, just imagine if somebody came into your workplace and shouted at the top of their voice that somebody was a racist and then repeated it over and over again, And you know, is that in any way professional or acceptable it's not. Peter Dutton is a decent man who cares deeply for our country and its diversity, and I just, you know, I shake my head in bewilderment when I saw that press conference, and as you correctly identified, the Teals do seem to come together and speak as one rather often.
00:24:18
Speaker 2: Does this feel like an attempt to sort of reheat all that Scott Morrison controversy heading into another federal election.
00:24:27
Speaker 5: It just feels like this group of individuals wants to turn the attack, for whatever reason, on us and not where it needs to be, which is across the Parliament as genuinely independent representatives for their community without fear or favor. That's not what I see. And the point is that none of the other Teals has called out Zarly Staggle for her remarks. You've just shown a clip from Kylie Tink and everybody stood there. Everybody backed this in and it totally unacceptable to call somebody this sort of slander within the Parliament and then pretend that it's all okay and that you seek.
00:25:09
Speaker 3: A higher standard.
00:25:11
Speaker 5: Because we know it's a robust chamber and as I said earlier today, we do get passionate.
00:25:16
Speaker 3: We do get worked up.
00:25:17
Speaker 5: But when that happens, we're bringing the care and the concerns of the people that we meet every day on the street. And sometimes it's the sheer frustration at a Prime minister who just is so slippery with the truth, can't answer basic questions and fobs off any attempt to actually be accountable.
00:25:35
Speaker 2: Okay, wasn't that long ago that you copped this spray from Anthony Albanezi.
00:25:39
Speaker 3: Let's have a listen, sing you.
00:25:44
Speaker 2: This is the only way to get a member of the balarav Snash on a point of order.
00:25:50
Speaker 8: Slash on a point of order, Slash on a.
00:25:52
Speaker 3: Point of order.
00:25:55
Speaker 2: Smasher, He said, I mean, did others leap to your defense?
00:25:59
Speaker 3: Then? Did you get an apology from miss alboin easy? I didn't get a public one.
00:26:05
Speaker 5: There was quite a lot of pressure on him, and I think that was appropriate at the time. But as we often say in here, Peter, we don't really mind what happens to us. We're here for the Australian people. We're here to fight for them. We're here to fight for the women in workplaces who don't have a loud voice, don't have agency, the people in the real world the people. I sometimes wonder if the Teals actually understand what their lives are like at all, Because what we want to see is better public policy come out of this place. Holding the government to account is our job. We make no apology for doing that, and doing it ferociously when we need to. I just don't see that coming from any of the Teals any of the time.
00:26:47
Speaker 2: Susan Lee, thank you for your time. All right after the break, Why labors Palestine visas debarcle points to a much deeper problem when it comes to national security. Plus all the latest from day two the Democratic National can mention as they actually try to put the device in anti Israel protests on Donald Trump.
00:27:09
Speaker 3: Welcome Back, still the car.
00:27:10
Speaker 2: More questions emerge about the Aboriginal Corporation the triggered Tanya Plevers's decision to block a billion dollar gold mine project. But first as the government ties itself in k nots trying to justify dolling out thousands of visas to people coming from Gaza yesterday. Greg Sheridan put this into context, says it catalogued Labour's national security ineptitude on a broader scale, like the litany of defense reviews we've now had with no tangible outcomes. This is a government, said Sheridan, the likes to quote hide behind bureaucracy to avoid hard political decisions, joined me out to discuss this. Foreign editor at The Australian Greg Sheridan, Greg as always, I mean, you hit the nail on the head. They say this is all standard process, that it's been done before, but we've never given visas out life this type of visa in this number, with one or two hours worth of checking for people coming out of a terror controlled zone.
00:28:10
Speaker 3: What's worse, I.
00:28:11
Speaker 2: Have to say, is the lack of candor in all of this when we only know about it because pennywe was pressed on it last year in a press conference and I wonder if the journalist from the ABSC hadn't picked it up, would we even know this was happening.
00:28:26
Speaker 12: Yeah, Peter, I think you're absolutely right. I mean, this has turned out to be a shocking government on national security, both in substance and in process. It's given us nothing on defense. The defense force is much weaker than it was when they took office. We lost our last two commercial international cargo ships, so we've got no supply chain security whatsoever. And this whole visa in broglio is just indecipherable and bizarre. So we've given out many more visas than any other Five eyes country. Now one caveat, I'd like to make any Palestinian who has come here under rules set by the Australian government is welcome. They're our friend. They're here now. They didn't do anything wrong, they came under the rules. God bless them. But we're entitled to have a discussion about the future. Now, if the government decided that it was going to take a disproportionately large number of people from Gaza compared to any other country that we like to compare ourselves to, and we were going to bizarrely take them under visitor visas sometimes issued in one hour, which cannot possibly mean proper checks, it should have made this decision public, taken the nation into its confidence, and explained what it was doing, instead of which all of the information has had to be drawn out of it, like extracting teeth from a reluctant kid at a patient at a dentist surgery, and then it's complained about us making any inquiries or having any concerns about it.
00:30:00
Speaker 2: And allowing the accusations to fly that somehow you're a racist for raising what I think are legitimate security concerns. I have to go to those comments, and you raise them in your article from Mike Burgess where he says it basically, if you're a supporter of Hummas, so not necessarily a terror actor. But if you're a supporter of Hummas, as far as he's concerned, that's not necessarily a deal breaker. Now, come on, we would have tried to deport someone in the past if they said they support al Qaeder, if they said they supported Islamic state. How the heck are we changing our view on this?
00:30:39
Speaker 12: Yeah, Peter, this is an indecipherable comment and the government has to explain it. The government has to explain it. The responsible minister for RASIO is the Attorney General, so Mark Drafus has to tell us what level of support for Hamas is acceptable for the government. I've got Mike Burgess's transcript here. Now I've often said on this program I have the greatest admiration for Mike Burgess. He's led ASIO effectively. He's a tireless public servant, He's a dedicated upholder of national security. I can only think that he misspoke. However, this misspeaking can't be allowed to stand, so Spears asks him if people have expressed any support or sympathy for Hammas, is that a problem? It doesn't give us straightforward answer. Spears a follow up question. But if it's just rhetorical support, According to the transcript, Burgess says, it's just rhetorical support, and they don't have an ideology or support for a violent extremism as an ideology, then that's not a problem. Rhetorical support for Hummas is not a problem at the core of Hummas's identity. It's rhetoric, it's global vision. Its outlook is profound, vicious, hateful anti Semitism. Burgess's comments have distressed the Jewish community. They are utterly confusing. People right across the political spectrum have no idea what he means. Former senior a Cabinet minister like Stephen Conroy calls it out as a clear mistake, and now the government is running and hiding. Now Burgess, as Asier Director General, is not really in a position to issue a clarification of his own profoundly confusing statement. But the Attorney General or the Prime ministers simply.
00:32:19
Speaker 4: Have to do this.
00:32:21
Speaker 12: They have to say either the DG of Asia misspoke or when we said rhetorical support, we meant nothing more than calling for a Palestinian homeland or something like that. But they've got to give us some guidance on it now.
00:32:33
Speaker 3: There is no state regrant in our history.
00:32:39
Speaker 2: I just want to jump in there though. The other option in all of these could be that he was reflecting government policy. I mean, has he been in the room with the Prime Minister or ministers who say, look, you know, Mike, we don't expect if there's just rhetorical support for Hamas that that should knock someone out. I mean, is he expressing there with David Spears what he believes government policies. Is that why they're not addressing this head on?
00:33:07
Speaker 12: Well, that's possible. But if that's the case, they've got to tell us that too. If they have that as a government policy, they've got to tell us. As far as I'm aware, and I'd love anybody to show me that this is wrong, in the entire history of Australia, there has never been a statement from a government minister or a senior government official saying rhetorical support for a terrorist outfit, so long as you don't have the ideology of violent extremism is okay. For someone seeking to come to Australia on a visa, which will mean permanent residency, that doesn't mean they're a terrorist, of course, but it means they support the worldview of that terrorist organization. That's what it means. Definitionally, rhetorical support for Hummas must mean rhetorical support for the Hummas view of the world. Now, you know, if that is the government's policy, I don't believe it would be, and I don't think if that was a government's policy. I think a smart public servant would simply avoid answering the question because you'd leave it up to the government to answer it. One lesson out of all this is it's stupid to get a political officials to do political interviews on chat shows. They have to be very precise with their language. They can't make mistakes like this. By believing that this is a mistake by Burgess, I'm giving the charitable interpretation because I just cannot believe that Australia has a policy which is that rhetorical support for a terrorist organization. So rhetorical support for Al Qaeda or rhetorical support for Islamic state, or even rhetorical support for the Ku Klux Klan shouldn't be a deal breaker if you're seeking a visa to come to Australia. I just can't believe that that is the case. And the government is leaving Asio out to dry, damaging Asio's reputation every sea day, and also causing concern amongst Australian citizens, and also leading to a most unfortunate and no doubt baseless inference that perhaps some people who've come here are Humas supporters. Because it won't clarify this and the government has to own this decision and tell us what its policy is.
00:35:23
Speaker 2: All right, just quickly, we'll go to Chicago Democratic Convention, Day two. Michelle Obama, a former president at Barack Obama.
00:35:31
Speaker 3: Both took the stage.
00:35:33
Speaker 2: Give us your sense, I mean, the former president went very hard on Donald Trump. His wife sort of sold us in Kamala Harris and her backstory. Give us your sense of how this is panning out for the Democrats.
00:35:48
Speaker 12: I think it's pretty good conference for the Democrats. They're running it very professionally. They're very united. You know, all their former presidents are there. The Republicans can't get George W. Bush in the same room with Donald Trump or Mike Penzi vice presidential. He's vice president when he was in office. It's quite a dishonest conference because they're pretending that Joe Biden's record doesn't exist. Kamala Harris is going to run against inflation, whereas Joe Biden caused the inflation. She's going to fix the border, whereas Joe Biden caused the border problem and she was part of that administration. Obama is so infinitely superior a performer to Kamala Harris or Joe Biden. That was a masterful performance by him today. Somewhat dishonest because, for example, the crowd went to boo Trump and he said, don't boo. Now, that's a good thing. He's a very courtly gentleman, and that's a good thing. But of course the Democrats are not playing by the rules. They've weaponized political prosecutions against Trump. They've really subverted the American political system for the American legal system for political ends. They play just as hard ball as Trump, but they're presenting themselves as more civil and I think it's been reasonably effective. Probably too many liberals. But on the other hand, they dialed Hollywood down a bit. They had a little bit more mention of God and a few denunciations of anti Semitism. I think actually it helps them to have a few anti Israel demonstrators outside. You know, it used to help Bob Hawk to have left wing demonstrators that he was against. I think Kamala Harras is going to be a terrible president if she is elected, she'll be the most left wing president probably in American history. But I think this convention has been well managed, and Obama is just so much better at this sort of rhetoric than anyone else on the American stage today. The Republicans are lucky they're not running against Obama. And if they can't beat the likes of Kamala Harris, that says a lot about them.
00:37:49
Speaker 2: Two days ago, Greg, we'll see what happens before then, anythink ituld happen wild and crazy over there.
00:37:54
Speaker 3: At the moment. Thank you for your time, all right, after break?
00:37:57
Speaker 2: Why nothing about Tanya ple The Sex's decision to block a billion dollar gold mine stacks up with the disturbing information coming to light about the Aboriginal Corporation that influenced her move, plus the council putting out pamphlets with every flag under the sun except our national one.
00:38:15
Speaker 3: More in that suit.
00:38:19
Speaker 2: Welcome back, Kel Richard's coming up as we always But first my panel Shadow Environment Minister Jonathan Dunham, Senior Fellow at the Menzies Research Center, Nick Cata Gens, I want to start with an update on time your plever sex decision to block the one billion dollar Regius gold mine, with revelations today that a dissident Aboriginal corporation just eighteen registered members, played a key role in the minister's decision.
00:38:44
Speaker 3: Now we know the nuts and bolts of that decision, she's decided to keep secret.
00:38:49
Speaker 2: Setator Price has slam the move is utterly disgraceful and pointed out that the orange Land Council, so that's the local Indigenous authority, hasn't raised any concerns at all with the project. So concerned the coalition about this decision, they're trying to move a disallowance motion in the Senate to kill it off. Well, John O, that's where you are in your day job. What do we know about this dissident group. Give us a sense of where you're up to with this motion.
00:39:17
Speaker 14: Yes, so this dissident group eighteen people of which we don't know anything on the official web page about the group. I understand that in some cases only Christian names are outlined. We don't know where the complaints have been raised about this group. We asked about that in the Senate today and guess what the Minister couldn't and didn't answer questions about it. We know that they're aided by everyone's friends at the taxpayer funded Environmental Defender's Office, and of course we also know that they have a track record of fabricating evidence and coaching witnesses. So all we do know is that the Minister A that funds the IDEO and B who ticked off on the environmental approvals, has now used this eleventh hour move to kill off this billion dollar project, has got her priorities wrong. And I'm quietly confident we might get this disallowance up because it is the right thing for Australia and anyone who votes against us doesn't have their priorities right.
00:40:12
Speaker 2: I mean, this is eight hundred jobs when they export the goal, that's money to the bottom line to pay for all the things like the NDIS and new defense ships that we want and need. I mean, if this goes down after it had all the approvals, all the ducks lined up, who the heck's going to want to invest in Australia anyway?
00:40:33
Speaker 1: Well, exactly, Peter. I mean, there's plenty of other places around the world where you can go in gold and indeed iron or uranium for that matter. People come here because we usually have a stable political context and you know, laws don't change between governments, you don't get irrational and decisions like the one we've just had, and they come here because we do it cheaply and easily. Now we're making it really really hard. So inevitably this will mean that Australia will lose mining to other countries, lose the mining royalties most importantly, because as you know, we know once a mine is approved and it's producing royalties, it's benefiting Australians for generations to come. So it's an appalling decision and the way this has been made and the fact that there seems to be sort of Aboriginal Land Council shopping going on, that's the I I'd like to see, But I'd like to know that's not the case, which I'd like to see that opened up because it needs to be totally transparent and just enter Price is somebody who obviously her suspicions are raised. We've got to get to the bottom of this one.
00:41:37
Speaker 3: John.
00:41:37
Speaker 2: Yesterday and I've spoken about this at the top of the show, there was a motion in the Senate to ensure that baby is born alive after a fouled abortion received medical care. It was voted down in the Senate. Now, this was not emotion about abortion, It was not about women's reproductive rights. It was an attempt to ensure that we have national laws. It's not the case in every state that this happened, but it was an attempt to ensure we would have a national law that says a baby born alive after an attempted abortion would get the care that every one of us get as a basic human right. Now, Labour in the Greens oppose the motion. They voted against it, as did four of your colleagues, Senators Birmingham Bragg, Jane Hume and Ria Covid. Check you voted for it, though you vote to support the motion, explain why.
00:42:32
Speaker 14: Well, Firstly, I believe life is a gift from God and to take that away from someone else is frankly a sin. But as you rightly point out, this was not about reproductive health, this motion, it wasn't about denying women the right to a medical or surgical abortion. And to sit there and listen to the speeches from those who contributed to it, the heartrending stories of children who after a failed abortion are literally left in a petri dish or a kidney dish, or on a stainless steel table in a back room of a hospital to die alone. No love. That is not something I could ever bring myself to condone and allowed to continue. And to hear Labor and Green senators shouting words like disgusting every time someone would raise one of these concerns. Sorry to allow this to happen in a modern world, where as you say, if you were sick requiring medical care, you'd get it. These babies are born alive and should be protected and afforded care. That's what decent human beings would offer in that situation. I can't believe it is not the law that that must happen.
00:43:44
Speaker 3: I hope you keep pursuing it.
00:43:46
Speaker 2: On my phone is lit up like a Christmas tree, and now a lot of strains didn't actually know that was going on.
00:43:51
Speaker 3: Nick, are you.
00:43:52
Speaker 2: Concerned about reports at Facebook's being censoring political content? This is prone nuclear content. It's been removed, we're told because it's been quote misleading supporters for Nuclear for Australia.
00:44:06
Speaker 3: They've reached out of the lobby group. They said stuff that we.
00:44:08
Speaker 2: Wanted to send around a supporting nuclear power has been taken down. Meta says all, No, you know, there's no censorship here.
00:44:17
Speaker 3: It was a technical error.
00:44:20
Speaker 2: Come on, we had plenty of technical errors hit the No campaign in the Voice, not many that hit the Yes campaign.
00:44:26
Speaker 3: We don't believe this, furfy.
00:44:28
Speaker 1: Do we I don't believe it for one. And second, Peter, because they've got form on this. As you point out, they did exactly the same with the Voice. You know, they decided that just Enter Price should not have a voice on Facebook. Seemed rather contradictory. But this is alarming. I mean, thankfully fewer and fewer Australians I believe are going to Facebook for news and any sort of comment like that, because it's unreliable. But this from a company, of course, which is based in Silicon Valley, which doesn't pay taxes here as far as I know, or not much, and doesn't even pay for the news. It steals basically from companies like News Corp and Fairfax and the other ones, and they have the cheap too want to buy into our political debates. I think it's outrageous and I think they should be shown. The best thing to do here is to point out for people what's going on so that people will realize that they can't trust what's happening on Facebook. It's a very poor source of news. Go somewhere reliable, but like this channel for instance.
00:45:27
Speaker 2: Now no surprises here. My sister and my brother in LAWA have got a big dairy farm.
00:45:31
Speaker 3: They're on the land.
00:45:32
Speaker 2: But farmers across the country according to a new survey from the NFF so that seventy percent of them believe labors harming the industry. Their top concerns are bio security, climate change policies, and live sheep export bands. But what about the fallout today from a really poor joke that the Prime Minister made last night at a regional women's awards dinner in Canberra.
00:45:58
Speaker 3: Have a listen.
00:46:00
Speaker 11: Then we had in a beautiful Australian beef, not the live expert we've made sure.
00:46:08
Speaker 6: It was dead.
00:46:11
Speaker 3: I'm told that it went down like a lead balloon. JOHNO.
00:46:15
Speaker 14: Yeah, that's the feedback of us seed too. But I mean to make a joke off the back of having ended the livelihoods of scores of farmers and businesses with the live sheep trade. To then make a joke of that nature when there is a high degree of anxiety, as you've already pointed out amongst the agricultural communities, it just proves how tone def this man is out of touch. He is. He gets paid every fortnight now, no matter how much he runs this country into the ground. And to stand up there in black tie joke about the future of this industry in that way proves he's not fit to govern this country. And farmers know it, and they've not got a friend in him, so you'd expect better from him. But sadly we're proven wrong again.
00:47:00
Speaker 2: Yes, seventy percent is a pretty comprehensive pole. I have to say, thank you, gentlemen. We'll get your home one day.
00:47:06
Speaker 3: Nick Katie.
00:47:06
Speaker 2: You seem to have been away a long time. You'll have plenty of stuff to tell us when you get back or after break. Kel Richards in a moment without feather Ado, let's welcome him in Kel Richards, this is a word that's a bit topical after Zali Stegel's interjections in the chamber the other day.
00:47:26
Speaker 3: Racism.
00:47:28
Speaker 2: This is from Leon, who says the meaning of the word racism's being corrupted.
00:47:32
Speaker 3: He claims.
00:47:33
Speaker 2: He says it means biological determinism.
00:47:36
Speaker 3: It appears.
00:47:36
Speaker 2: He says that many people use it wrongly instead of perhaps the word xenophobia.
00:47:42
Speaker 13: Is he right, Kel, I could see what he's saying. No, I don't think he is right racism. This is interesting if you look at the big American dictionary, the Merriam Webster Third International, which I have on my shelves, is massive volume, which says that in fact, they say racism means believing that your psychological and cultural characteristics are determined by your race, and that every race is different. That's what they say. Racism is. Xenophobia, of course, is fear of strangers from the Greek word xenos for strangers, so fear of foreigners. And Leon is saying, look, what we call in racism is actually xenophobia, fear of what is different. I actually think he's mistaken in that racism is what underlies that. If that exists, the belief that races are different is the really evil belief. That's what I'm trying to say in my own stumbling way, the belief that races are different and unlike each other, that's the real problem. It's the inability to see human human beings as human beings, as humanity. So racism is deeper than xenophobia, and it is a more serious problem. And that's why that charge in the Parliament was such a serious charge.
00:48:54
Speaker 2: Now I didn't even know about this word tackatopia. I hope I'm saying it right. Helen wants to know what's the meaning of cacatopia.
00:49:02
Speaker 13: Oh, it's a lovely word. It's a spin on utopia, the word coined by Thomas Moore for his book of that name in fifteen sixteen, which he took from a Greek source meaning you know, the best place, the perfect place. So what's the opposite? These days we say a dystopia is the opposite to a utopia, but that's only been around since the nineteen fifties. Cackatopia goes back to the eighteen eighties and it comes from the Greek word kacos meaning bad. And the viewer who wrote to me about this said, Kel, are we living in a cacatopia? And my answer was, you'll have to decide.
00:49:36
Speaker 3: Depends what state you're in. I think I am in Victoria.
00:49:39
Speaker 2: Biometric testing we've talked about a lot this week. I know what it is, but Stewart wants to know exactly what do we mean by the term.
00:49:47
Speaker 13: Okay, it's older than I would have thought nineteen oh two, and it means using test like fingerprints, DNA, blood tests and so on to see if you really are who you say you are. But it's been done, as I say Snyder O two, using physical measurements to determine if people are who they claim to be, and it comes obviously from by your life and metric meaning measurement. So biometric testing is nothing new and it's a really good idea when people make claims about who they are.
00:50:17
Speaker 2: Now, look, if you've left Australia with a new passport and you've scanned your face as you're left through the little glass gates, you have been biometrically.
00:50:24
Speaker 3: Testing exactly exactly who you are in the passport. Kel, thank you, see you next week. That's it for me. Tomorrow night, at six, he's antiboult
Speaker 1: Peedo Krandlin live on Sky News Australia.
00:00:08
Speaker 2: Good evening, Welcome to the show. Here is what's coming up tonight on Kredline. First IVY fluid now vital, end of life pain relief supplies cut due to government mismanagement to drug supply chains, with medical experts now gravely concerned. Older Australians are set to pay more for their age care, with labor set to radically upend the system, while those raught in the NDIS will be allowed to avoid repaying their debts. Now, how's any of that fair? We'll get the latest on day two from the Democratic National Convention. As Michelle and Barack Obama take the stage in Canberra. The Prime Minister faces more questions over his Gaza visa scheme as it's revealed the cost to support these new arrivals could be as much as three hundred million dollars and not contend to name call and slur Peter Dutton as a racist, Zali's steggle and a fellow teals now accuse the Coalition of.
00:01:04
Speaker 3: Misogyny overwhelmingly the conduct.
00:01:07
Speaker 4: The conduct is by mail and peace.
00:01:10
Speaker 2: One of the colleagues across the chamber called out rip him another one, and I'm.
00:01:14
Speaker 5: Like, how is this behavior that is acceptable in the real world.
00:01:18
Speaker 2: I'm going to call it out, mister Dutton recently, name calling, labeling, denigrating words in the media is unacceptable. For first, more travel for the Albanezer government over Gaza visas today the opposition claiming that bringing in three thousand people from the terrorist controlled warzone could cost taxpayers upwards of three hundred million over four years.
00:01:46
Speaker 6: This is the government that's handed out three thousand tourist visas to people who are clearly not tourists. They don't intend to return to Gaza, they can't return to Gaza, and so right now the government is contemplating offering these people permanent visas. When they do so, I'll be able to access Medicare, welfare and other benefits. And that's not free. In fact, it costs about twenty five thousand dollars per year per visa holder. So if all three thousand are converted to permanent visa holders and access those benefits, we've calculated it'll cost Australian taxpayers three hundred million dollars over four years.
00:02:18
Speaker 2: Now, let's face it, almost none of them will volunteer to go back, and the government says it won't force anyone to return, so welfare payments, housing assistance, medicare, legal aid and all the other resettlement services Australia provides will be granted to them. It all costs money. Given the ongoing financial costs plus the potential national security risks are bringing people from a terrorist controlled war zone, the question haunting this government is why why are we letting at least three thousand people, scarcely security checked, many of them schooled from infancy and due hatred and the evils of the West come to Australia when none of our allies are taking in anything like these numbers. Now the countries at no gas are best than Muslim neighbors Egypt, Jordan, Qwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or they're taking none.
00:03:15
Speaker 3: None at all.
00:03:17
Speaker 2: As far as we know, there's been no cabinet decision, no leadership group discussion, no caucus debate on any of this. Certainly no formal announcement, no proper press conference or anything like it. This all leaked out last November, and it was only then that Pennywong sheepishly admitted seven hundred visas had already been granted with hundreds more to come. Now, what's worse, it would appear that ASIO weren't consulted at all about this decision to let people in from a terror zone with minimal no security vetting. We know at the time the Prime Minister had booted Asio out of his National Security Committee.
00:03:58
Speaker 3: Maybe this was why.
00:04:00
Speaker 2: Maybe he feared Asio would argue against it. Certainly the AZO I knew in the past would have done that expressing genuine concern for the security and safety of all Australians. Any wonder our terrorism threat level was recently increased when this scheme to bring Palestinians from Gaza to Australia under a cover of secrecy that's now been blown, looks like it was something cooked up between the PM and former Immigration Minister Andrew Giles not to advance Australia's national interest, but to trade visas for votes in Western Sydney. All at a time when anti Semitism is rampant. What an appalling thing to do to our country. Now, this isn't an easy issue to discuss. It could actually be confronting for some people. But we can't just pretend it away because it's difficult here I'm talking about the fact that babies who survive late term abortions are refused life saving medical care and left to die in some but not all.
00:05:10
Speaker 3: States in this country.
00:05:12
Speaker 2: Now, as I woke up this morning, I still couldn't get over the decision in the Senate last night but refuse to even allow debate on a resolution that all newborn babies born alive after late term abortions be allowed to receive medical treatment rather than being left to die. Here is a midwife speaking out about what is happening in Queensland.
00:05:39
Speaker 7: We've had babies born alive after terminations from fifteen to twenty two weeks, born alive, gasping for air, moving and having a palpable heart rate, fighting for their lives as we are humans designed to do. Parents of these babies who are born alive after abortion do not want to see or hold them. This means the only person left who could possibly hold them.
00:06:01
Speaker 3: As a midwife or a nurse. If there's where a.
00:06:04
Speaker 7: Pregnancy life someone wanted baby, the mother and father would usually comfort that baby while the baby was alive until they pass.
00:06:14
Speaker 2: So in one room you've got doctors doing everything they can to save a premature baby, and in another room they're forced to leave a baby to die because they've unexpectedly emerged alive from a late term abortion. Now, why should the treatment of one human person depend upon a veto from someone else. In this case of the woman, she might have intended the child dead.
00:06:40
Speaker 3: But if the.
00:06:40
Speaker 2: Baby is born alive, surely it's right to live trumps everything else elsewhere. At law in Australia we would call this infanticide. Now, our records in this area are hard to get because it's rightly embarrassing for a medical system that.
00:06:57
Speaker 3: Would prefer to draw a veil over all all of.
00:07:00
Speaker 2: This to pretend it isn't happening, and hope you never hear about it. But it seems that over the past decade in Queensland and Victoria alone, more than seven hundred babies have been born alive after late term abortions and then left to die untreated on a medical dish like discarded waste. In other states, thankfully, their laws say the baby must be given treatment. Hence the need for one national law to protect all newborns. And that's what UAP Senator Ralph Babbott was trying to do when he moved to urgently debate this issue last night, only his bid was stymied by Labor and the Greens that fanatically are committed to abortion rights right up until birth and now it would see even after delivery and voting with the hard left were for liberals who I bet would rather know one knew about this cruelty. They are Senate Leader and South Australian Liberal Simon Birmingham, Victorian Liberal Jane Hume and New South Wales's Liberals Andrew Bragg and Maria Coverchick. This motion was not about restricting abortion. That wasn't even on the table, and in any event, abortion under law in Australia is a matter for the States, not the Commonwealth. It wasn't about changing a woman's right to choose. This was a motion about protecting children. Baby is born that should have the right to treatment, regardless of the woman's intention when she walked into the hospital, because how we treat the most vulnerable in society says everything about our values and our humanity. To reject the right of doctors and nurses who want to save these babies from doing so, it's inhuman, it's against their hippocratic oath to preserve life wherever they can, and I have to say it's just as inhumane for the rest of us just to let this go.
00:09:17
Speaker 7: Right.
00:09:18
Speaker 2: We'll go to Camber now for the headlines sky News political reporter Cam Reddin.
00:09:23
Speaker 8: MPs behaving badly could soon be fined, suspended or dumped from parliamentary committees under a proposed new disciplinary board.
00:09:31
Speaker 2: Bullying, harassment, other complaints were common in this workplace and we're trying to change that.
00:09:37
Speaker 8: The Independent Standards Commission would be sent up to investigate claims of misconduct against politicians or their staff.
00:09:44
Speaker 9: We want to make sure that this is a safe and respectful workplace at all times.
00:09:49
Speaker 8: The Commission would have limited power to impose direct sanctions against politicians, but could recommend Parliament fine MPs up to five percent of their salary, sack them from committee es, suspend them from Parliament, or that a member of staff be terminated. Parliament should set the standard of behavior instead of being a national shame. State and territory leaders have agreed to fast track rule changes that would help curb the rising cost of the Ndis it all works better when you don't have the FEDS and the States arguing The deal puts premiers and the Federal government on the same page around rules that aim to cap funding growth of the NDIS at eight percent a year. It will make life more difficult and it will lead to the deaths of disabled people. The Coalition has continued its pursuit of the Government over the handling of visas given to Palestinians fleeing Gaza.
00:10:44
Speaker 10: Of the reported forty three tourist visas your government granted and then canceled, twenty have been reinstated on appeal. Did ministerial intervention occur to support any of these twenty cases?
00:10:58
Speaker 11: Remember is asking me question about ministerial invention. There certainly has not been prime ministerial invention.
00:11:08
Speaker 3: Well more on all of that.
00:11:08
Speaker 2: I'm joining ow Myskyniest, senior reporter Carolyn Marcus and our political reporter from camera, cam Reddan.
00:11:14
Speaker 3: Will welcome to you both again.
00:11:16
Speaker 2: A feature in the House today the issue of visas out of Palestine, dogging labor. The Coalition today confirming that if all the current gazas were to stay in Australia permanently, and I suspect many will, the cost of taxpayers would be around three hundred million dollars. Well, that's a big figure, Caroline, But that's just for the first four years. But let's put the cost to one side. I think the focus has got to be on the lack of security checks and the attempts by the government again today to avoid answering just basic simple questions.
00:11:49
Speaker 3: That's what's hurting them.
00:11:51
Speaker 2: And I'm pretty confident, as an example, that they took this decision without formal advice from ASIO, and that's why they keep dodging the question.
00:12:00
Speaker 3: And that speaks volumes to me.
00:12:03
Speaker 9: Well, it's difficult to imagine any security agency advising a government was that it's a good idea to take up to three thousand people it's up to at the moment from a terrorist enclave where there is still majority support for hamas a terrorist organization, and majority support for those horrific October seven attacks on Israel. You know, the most minimal of security checks appears to have been done, on average twenty four hours to check these people, and in some cases as little as one hour. How can we be how can we rest easy as a public that this is the level of security checks that the government thinks is all right when it's people who are coming from these areas, When in the past, when we had under the Coalition government people coming from Syria from Afghanistan escaping similar Islamist regimes, we had an average of twelve months for those sorts of security checks to be done. How can you possibly compare the two? But I have to say, Peter, I'm not quite as confident when it comes to ASIO anymore, now that we've heard the ASIO boss, Mike Burgess say that it's that people who express support for hermass that's not a deal breaker. When it's in terms of giving them a visa to come here, that's quite a right apparently. So it doesn't fill me with a lot of confidence when I hear things like that. But in terms of what happened today in Parliament, you know, it was more of the same from the Prime Minister, not answering questions properly, flinging around personal accusations against Peter Dutton and the Coalition, saying that Peter Dutton is nasty and that he's punching down.
00:13:51
Speaker 3: I always think if someone.
00:13:53
Speaker 9: Resorts to personal attacks like that, it means that they don't have a very good defense to the argument in the first place.
00:14:01
Speaker 2: Well, we'll stay with the personal attacks because the cam the Teals Can. They had a press conference today. They say that they're not a party, but they're always front together looking very much like a party. They're accusing the Coalition of misogyny. I'm going to speak to the Liberal Deputy leader on this point in a moment. But Labor is close to introducing the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission. I did note in the package we played just before, the person pushing this new commission, Katie Gallagher, talked about bullying and name calling and poor treatment, but she was of course accused by her own colleague, the late Kimberly Kitching, of being a bully, being one of the mean girls. Well she's got carriage of this issue. Take us through the code and what it'll mean for politicians.
00:14:50
Speaker 8: Yeah, there's a big question about how this will look in practice, Peter, because the body won't be able to do a lot on its own. What it can do is make a series of recommendations for action that the parliaments can then take if somebody is found to have behaved badly, particularly for MPs. So it can say, for example that if XMP has behaved badly to exactly what threshold, what would meet that standard? We don't yet know for sure, but they could have things like, for example, part of their pay. They could be docked, They could be suspended from Parliament for a period of time, booted off a committee. If a staffer has acted inappropriately, they could essentially be ordered to sack that member of staff. So much of this remains a question mark until any of it is tested practically, Peter, Arguably the most important point about this whole thing though, it doesn't cover conduct in the chamber, So all the to and fro, the rough and tumble in question time, in debates, the certain words that might be used to describe people during the rough and tumble of political debate, that's not covered. All of this covers outside activities, so you know, conversations in the corridor, behavior in offices, all of that counts. What happens in the chamber doesn't. So how much of what we see for day to day politics actually gets held up to this standard, that's a bit of an unknown so far.
00:16:00
Speaker 2: Let's go to the shocking report in the Australian today. This is about palliative care patients, so dying Australians being forced to pay more than four thousand dollars for painkilling drugs that we now have to import from overseas after the existing product, which used to cost around seven dollars, was removed from the market. Now the minister here, Mark Butler, was worn nine months ago with looming shortages. We know there's that issue with ivy fluids. He was also warned about that we've got die shortages in Australia. But this one, Caroline's pretty horrific because those dying patients and their families now have to pay these multi thousand dollars cost to give them relief at end of life. I mean, what are these ministers doing if they're not doing their day job.
00:16:46
Speaker 9: I don't know what they're doing. They clearly had months and months and months to prepare for this. They were warned about it in this case nine months ago. In terms of these drugs, and when we're talking about people in palliative care, it's not just elderly people who are at the end of long lives. We're talking about children too, who are struggling to get access to things like oral morphine liquid oral morphine.
00:17:12
Speaker 3: It is just horrific.
00:17:14
Speaker 9: I mean, these are people who are just in these such awful circumstances.
00:17:17
Speaker 3: And their families being.
00:17:19
Speaker 9: Given these difficult choices thousands of dollars for these medications when they're not listed on the PBS like these alternatives aren't. And who can afford that these days with the cost of living crisis only the really wealthy. So it is just a horrible situation. And it comes off the back, of course of this ivy shortage that we're experiencing too, where the government also had since last May it was warned about this looming crisis, and yet somehow Australia seems to be the only country in the world affected by this shortage. We haven't managed to prepare like everyone else has, it would seem this one I.
00:18:01
Speaker 2: Think worries me a lot to cam this is a sweeping overhaul of age care, because the devil will be in the details. What we know is that there'll be big cost increases for baby boomers. Now, if you're on a pension, you'll be better off than others. But if you're a self funder retiree, if you've made sacrifices to save for your retirement.
00:18:22
Speaker 3: You're going to be hit hard here.
00:18:23
Speaker 2: There'll be additional costs in an age care facility, but also to home care packages and more. I'm told the deals close to being announced. What can you tell us.
00:18:34
Speaker 8: Yeah, the Prime Minister Todd caucus this week, Peter that it'll be announced very soon, so maybe even as soon as tomorrow, by the end of the parliamentary sitting week. But the bottom line, as you indicate there, is that many individuals are going to be paying more for their age care that they receive. That's the bottom line of where we're going to land. The government ruled out a number of ways that it looked at for potentially essentially paying for age care into the future. The rough ballpark figure is it'll double over the course of the next decade from around thirty billion dollars a year to sixty billion dollars a year. They didn't want to go for an age care levy. They didn't really want to slap higher taxes on. So as a result, what we're going to look at is a shifting of some of the cost from the taxpayer at large to the individual And without going to the nitty gritty of all the boring details of it, essentially what that means is a lifting of the lifetime cap. So at the moment, seventy five thousand dollars a bit over that roughly is the most anyone will ever pay for their residential age care. That cap is going to rise, so as a result, the ballpark figure that's being speculated is around one hundred and ninety thousand dollars the new cap, so that'd be a more than doubling of the current cap. Where it lands we'll see tomorrow, still a topic of negotiation, but as you say, Peter, the bottom line is we're living longer, more people need money for care services, and they're going to end up paying more for it as a result.
00:19:47
Speaker 2: I think the perverse disincentive here there can go will be to force people to restructure their affairs before they retire, to spend everything they can in order to get the pension, because the pension will mean they can afford or.
00:20:00
Speaker 3: Age care services. We'll have a look at the detail tomorrow.
00:20:03
Speaker 2: As I said, all right, Caroln, I think you've got some exclusive news for us on a likely lawsuit set to rock the New South Wales Liberals.
00:20:08
Speaker 3: Is that right, yeah, Peter.
00:20:11
Speaker 9: So, as you will be aware, the New South Wales Liberals have abandoned their own plans to take an illegal action against the Electoral Commission. But it seems that a potential lawsuit, a class action against the Liberal Party head office, may still go ahead and maybe quite likely. The one hundred and forty candidates who missed out on nominating for the local government elections next month here in New South Wales, they're being canvassed by a prominent citing lawyer, George Newhouse, who sent an email today telling them that after consulting with two senior barristers, it would appear that this lawsuit would have reasonable prospects of success. Now apparently those prospects are particularly high, he tells me, in terms of briefa of contract and possibly in negligence as well.
00:21:03
Speaker 3: He says he's been in.
00:21:04
Speaker 9: Contact with a number of younger candidates, but is really looking for an elder statesman from the party to join and be the lead plaintiff in this lawsuit. Now, what might make it difficult and getting this lawsuit actually off the ground is that this would be a career ending move for anyone who really would like to stay within the Liberal Party even after everything that's happened to them. But certainly there is a lot of anger and grief from these candidates after this just ginormous stuff up, so it could well go ahead and apparently it has some pretty good chances.
00:21:39
Speaker 3: If it does call then Camp thank you.
00:21:43
Speaker 2: But I want to return out of that extraordinary press conference today from the tials, which followed on from comments in the Guardian accusing the Coalition of misogyny.
00:21:54
Speaker 4: Professional behavior involves being respectful of the person that you stand next to. It involves listening, not to shut that person down, but listening in a way that is actually geared towards understanding what that person is trying to share with you. And professional behavior involves being prepared to work with your colleagues, regardless of what point of view they may be taking on.
00:22:18
Speaker 3: An issue, to be able to come to a point of consensus.
00:22:25
Speaker 2: Sanctominy and hypocrisy, I have to say, because it was only last week Zari Stagger, one of the teals, was happy to name called others labeling Peter Dudden a racist.
00:22:35
Speaker 1: Stop being leader of the opposition. Yes or no? Do you think Peter Duttan's a racist?
00:22:40
Speaker 12: I think he is condining racist politics.
00:22:42
Speaker 13: So do you think he's a racist?
00:22:43
Speaker 3: By association?
00:22:44
Speaker 7: Yes?
00:22:46
Speaker 2: Right to respond to all of this, I'm joining out by the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, Susan Lee.
00:22:50
Speaker 3: Susan, thank you.
00:22:52
Speaker 2: I wanted to speak to you tonight because you are the most senior woman in politics in the House of Reps on the Labour side their leader and the deputy leader of men, the Greens leader at the bottom of the horse shoe.
00:23:03
Speaker 3: Well, he's a bloke as well.
00:23:04
Speaker 2: Your best place to give us your view on these allegations from the tears. I mean, how is it okay to call a bloke a racist but a robust.
00:23:12
Speaker 3: Chamber is somehow an attack on women.
00:23:17
Speaker 5: Well, Peter, thank you, and standards cut both ways. Just because you're a teal doesn't mean you can say what you want and what you've illustrated. There is Zalie Steggle unleashing horrible personal invective, unacceptable personal attacks on Peter Dutton and refusing to withdraw them, probably not even being asked to, but then repeating them several times outside the chamber. I mean, just imagine if somebody came into your workplace and shouted at the top of their voice that somebody was a racist and then repeated it over and over again, And you know, is that in any way professional or acceptable it's not. Peter Dutton is a decent man who cares deeply for our country and its diversity, and I just, you know, I shake my head in bewilderment when I saw that press conference, and as you correctly identified, the Teals do seem to come together and speak as one rather often.
00:24:18
Speaker 2: Does this feel like an attempt to sort of reheat all that Scott Morrison controversy heading into another federal election.
00:24:27
Speaker 5: It just feels like this group of individuals wants to turn the attack, for whatever reason, on us and not where it needs to be, which is across the Parliament as genuinely independent representatives for their community without fear or favor. That's not what I see. And the point is that none of the other Teals has called out Zarly Staggle for her remarks. You've just shown a clip from Kylie Tink and everybody stood there. Everybody backed this in and it totally unacceptable to call somebody this sort of slander within the Parliament and then pretend that it's all okay and that you seek.
00:25:09
Speaker 3: A higher standard.
00:25:11
Speaker 5: Because we know it's a robust chamber and as I said earlier today, we do get passionate.
00:25:16
Speaker 3: We do get worked up.
00:25:17
Speaker 5: But when that happens, we're bringing the care and the concerns of the people that we meet every day on the street. And sometimes it's the sheer frustration at a Prime minister who just is so slippery with the truth, can't answer basic questions and fobs off any attempt to actually be accountable.
00:25:35
Speaker 2: Okay, wasn't that long ago that you copped this spray from Anthony Albanezi.
00:25:39
Speaker 3: Let's have a listen, sing you.
00:25:44
Speaker 2: This is the only way to get a member of the balarav Snash on a point of order.
00:25:50
Speaker 8: Slash on a point of order, Slash on a.
00:25:52
Speaker 3: Point of order.
00:25:55
Speaker 2: Smasher, He said, I mean, did others leap to your defense?
00:25:59
Speaker 3: Then? Did you get an apology from miss alboin easy? I didn't get a public one.
00:26:05
Speaker 5: There was quite a lot of pressure on him, and I think that was appropriate at the time. But as we often say in here, Peter, we don't really mind what happens to us. We're here for the Australian people. We're here to fight for them. We're here to fight for the women in workplaces who don't have a loud voice, don't have agency, the people in the real world the people. I sometimes wonder if the Teals actually understand what their lives are like at all, Because what we want to see is better public policy come out of this place. Holding the government to account is our job. We make no apology for doing that, and doing it ferociously when we need to. I just don't see that coming from any of the Teals any of the time.
00:26:47
Speaker 2: Susan Lee, thank you for your time. All right after the break, Why labors Palestine visas debarcle points to a much deeper problem when it comes to national security. Plus all the latest from day two the Democratic National can mention as they actually try to put the device in anti Israel protests on Donald Trump.
00:27:09
Speaker 3: Welcome Back, still the car.
00:27:10
Speaker 2: More questions emerge about the Aboriginal Corporation the triggered Tanya Plevers's decision to block a billion dollar gold mine project. But first as the government ties itself in k nots trying to justify dolling out thousands of visas to people coming from Gaza yesterday. Greg Sheridan put this into context, says it catalogued Labour's national security ineptitude on a broader scale, like the litany of defense reviews we've now had with no tangible outcomes. This is a government, said Sheridan, the likes to quote hide behind bureaucracy to avoid hard political decisions, joined me out to discuss this. Foreign editor at The Australian Greg Sheridan, Greg as always, I mean, you hit the nail on the head. They say this is all standard process, that it's been done before, but we've never given visas out life this type of visa in this number, with one or two hours worth of checking for people coming out of a terror controlled zone.
00:28:10
Speaker 3: What's worse, I.
00:28:11
Speaker 2: Have to say, is the lack of candor in all of this when we only know about it because pennywe was pressed on it last year in a press conference and I wonder if the journalist from the ABSC hadn't picked it up, would we even know this was happening.
00:28:26
Speaker 12: Yeah, Peter, I think you're absolutely right. I mean, this has turned out to be a shocking government on national security, both in substance and in process. It's given us nothing on defense. The defense force is much weaker than it was when they took office. We lost our last two commercial international cargo ships, so we've got no supply chain security whatsoever. And this whole visa in broglio is just indecipherable and bizarre. So we've given out many more visas than any other Five eyes country. Now one caveat, I'd like to make any Palestinian who has come here under rules set by the Australian government is welcome. They're our friend. They're here now. They didn't do anything wrong, they came under the rules. God bless them. But we're entitled to have a discussion about the future. Now, if the government decided that it was going to take a disproportionately large number of people from Gaza compared to any other country that we like to compare ourselves to, and we were going to bizarrely take them under visitor visas sometimes issued in one hour, which cannot possibly mean proper checks, it should have made this decision public, taken the nation into its confidence, and explained what it was doing, instead of which all of the information has had to be drawn out of it, like extracting teeth from a reluctant kid at a patient at a dentist surgery, and then it's complained about us making any inquiries or having any concerns about it.
00:30:00
Speaker 2: And allowing the accusations to fly that somehow you're a racist for raising what I think are legitimate security concerns. I have to go to those comments, and you raise them in your article from Mike Burgess where he says it basically, if you're a supporter of Hummas, so not necessarily a terror actor. But if you're a supporter of Hummas, as far as he's concerned, that's not necessarily a deal breaker. Now, come on, we would have tried to deport someone in the past if they said they support al Qaeder, if they said they supported Islamic state. How the heck are we changing our view on this?
00:30:39
Speaker 12: Yeah, Peter, this is an indecipherable comment and the government has to explain it. The government has to explain it. The responsible minister for RASIO is the Attorney General, so Mark Drafus has to tell us what level of support for Hamas is acceptable for the government. I've got Mike Burgess's transcript here. Now I've often said on this program I have the greatest admiration for Mike Burgess. He's led ASIO effectively. He's a tireless public servant, He's a dedicated upholder of national security. I can only think that he misspoke. However, this misspeaking can't be allowed to stand, so Spears asks him if people have expressed any support or sympathy for Hammas, is that a problem? It doesn't give us straightforward answer. Spears a follow up question. But if it's just rhetorical support, According to the transcript, Burgess says, it's just rhetorical support, and they don't have an ideology or support for a violent extremism as an ideology, then that's not a problem. Rhetorical support for Hummas is not a problem at the core of Hummas's identity. It's rhetoric, it's global vision. Its outlook is profound, vicious, hateful anti Semitism. Burgess's comments have distressed the Jewish community. They are utterly confusing. People right across the political spectrum have no idea what he means. Former senior a Cabinet minister like Stephen Conroy calls it out as a clear mistake, and now the government is running and hiding. Now Burgess, as Asier Director General, is not really in a position to issue a clarification of his own profoundly confusing statement. But the Attorney General or the Prime ministers simply.
00:32:19
Speaker 4: Have to do this.
00:32:21
Speaker 12: They have to say either the DG of Asia misspoke or when we said rhetorical support, we meant nothing more than calling for a Palestinian homeland or something like that. But they've got to give us some guidance on it now.
00:32:33
Speaker 3: There is no state regrant in our history.
00:32:39
Speaker 2: I just want to jump in there though. The other option in all of these could be that he was reflecting government policy. I mean, has he been in the room with the Prime Minister or ministers who say, look, you know, Mike, we don't expect if there's just rhetorical support for Hamas that that should knock someone out. I mean, is he expressing there with David Spears what he believes government policies. Is that why they're not addressing this head on?
00:33:07
Speaker 12: Well, that's possible. But if that's the case, they've got to tell us that too. If they have that as a government policy, they've got to tell us. As far as I'm aware, and I'd love anybody to show me that this is wrong, in the entire history of Australia, there has never been a statement from a government minister or a senior government official saying rhetorical support for a terrorist outfit, so long as you don't have the ideology of violent extremism is okay. For someone seeking to come to Australia on a visa, which will mean permanent residency, that doesn't mean they're a terrorist, of course, but it means they support the worldview of that terrorist organization. That's what it means. Definitionally, rhetorical support for Hummas must mean rhetorical support for the Hummas view of the world. Now, you know, if that is the government's policy, I don't believe it would be, and I don't think if that was a government's policy. I think a smart public servant would simply avoid answering the question because you'd leave it up to the government to answer it. One lesson out of all this is it's stupid to get a political officials to do political interviews on chat shows. They have to be very precise with their language. They can't make mistakes like this. By believing that this is a mistake by Burgess, I'm giving the charitable interpretation because I just cannot believe that Australia has a policy which is that rhetorical support for a terrorist organization. So rhetorical support for Al Qaeda or rhetorical support for Islamic state, or even rhetorical support for the Ku Klux Klan shouldn't be a deal breaker if you're seeking a visa to come to Australia. I just can't believe that that is the case. And the government is leaving Asio out to dry, damaging Asio's reputation every sea day, and also causing concern amongst Australian citizens, and also leading to a most unfortunate and no doubt baseless inference that perhaps some people who've come here are Humas supporters. Because it won't clarify this and the government has to own this decision and tell us what its policy is.
00:35:23
Speaker 2: All right, just quickly, we'll go to Chicago Democratic Convention, Day two. Michelle Obama, a former president at Barack Obama.
00:35:31
Speaker 3: Both took the stage.
00:35:33
Speaker 2: Give us your sense, I mean, the former president went very hard on Donald Trump. His wife sort of sold us in Kamala Harris and her backstory. Give us your sense of how this is panning out for the Democrats.
00:35:48
Speaker 12: I think it's pretty good conference for the Democrats. They're running it very professionally. They're very united. You know, all their former presidents are there. The Republicans can't get George W. Bush in the same room with Donald Trump or Mike Penzi vice presidential. He's vice president when he was in office. It's quite a dishonest conference because they're pretending that Joe Biden's record doesn't exist. Kamala Harris is going to run against inflation, whereas Joe Biden caused the inflation. She's going to fix the border, whereas Joe Biden caused the border problem and she was part of that administration. Obama is so infinitely superior a performer to Kamala Harris or Joe Biden. That was a masterful performance by him today. Somewhat dishonest because, for example, the crowd went to boo Trump and he said, don't boo. Now, that's a good thing. He's a very courtly gentleman, and that's a good thing. But of course the Democrats are not playing by the rules. They've weaponized political prosecutions against Trump. They've really subverted the American political system for the American legal system for political ends. They play just as hard ball as Trump, but they're presenting themselves as more civil and I think it's been reasonably effective. Probably too many liberals. But on the other hand, they dialed Hollywood down a bit. They had a little bit more mention of God and a few denunciations of anti Semitism. I think actually it helps them to have a few anti Israel demonstrators outside. You know, it used to help Bob Hawk to have left wing demonstrators that he was against. I think Kamala Harras is going to be a terrible president if she is elected, she'll be the most left wing president probably in American history. But I think this convention has been well managed, and Obama is just so much better at this sort of rhetoric than anyone else on the American stage today. The Republicans are lucky they're not running against Obama. And if they can't beat the likes of Kamala Harris, that says a lot about them.
00:37:49
Speaker 2: Two days ago, Greg, we'll see what happens before then, anythink ituld happen wild and crazy over there.
00:37:54
Speaker 3: At the moment. Thank you for your time, all right, after break?
00:37:57
Speaker 2: Why nothing about Tanya ple The Sex's decision to block a billion dollar gold mine stacks up with the disturbing information coming to light about the Aboriginal Corporation that influenced her move, plus the council putting out pamphlets with every flag under the sun except our national one.
00:38:15
Speaker 3: More in that suit.
00:38:19
Speaker 2: Welcome back, Kel Richard's coming up as we always But first my panel Shadow Environment Minister Jonathan Dunham, Senior Fellow at the Menzies Research Center, Nick Cata Gens, I want to start with an update on time your plever sex decision to block the one billion dollar Regius gold mine, with revelations today that a dissident Aboriginal corporation just eighteen registered members, played a key role in the minister's decision.
00:38:44
Speaker 3: Now we know the nuts and bolts of that decision, she's decided to keep secret.
00:38:49
Speaker 2: Setator Price has slam the move is utterly disgraceful and pointed out that the orange Land Council, so that's the local Indigenous authority, hasn't raised any concerns at all with the project. So concerned the coalition about this decision, they're trying to move a disallowance motion in the Senate to kill it off. Well, John O, that's where you are in your day job. What do we know about this dissident group. Give us a sense of where you're up to with this motion.
00:39:17
Speaker 14: Yes, so this dissident group eighteen people of which we don't know anything on the official web page about the group. I understand that in some cases only Christian names are outlined. We don't know where the complaints have been raised about this group. We asked about that in the Senate today and guess what the Minister couldn't and didn't answer questions about it. We know that they're aided by everyone's friends at the taxpayer funded Environmental Defender's Office, and of course we also know that they have a track record of fabricating evidence and coaching witnesses. So all we do know is that the Minister A that funds the IDEO and B who ticked off on the environmental approvals, has now used this eleventh hour move to kill off this billion dollar project, has got her priorities wrong. And I'm quietly confident we might get this disallowance up because it is the right thing for Australia and anyone who votes against us doesn't have their priorities right.
00:40:12
Speaker 2: I mean, this is eight hundred jobs when they export the goal, that's money to the bottom line to pay for all the things like the NDIS and new defense ships that we want and need. I mean, if this goes down after it had all the approvals, all the ducks lined up, who the heck's going to want to invest in Australia anyway?
00:40:33
Speaker 1: Well, exactly, Peter. I mean, there's plenty of other places around the world where you can go in gold and indeed iron or uranium for that matter. People come here because we usually have a stable political context and you know, laws don't change between governments, you don't get irrational and decisions like the one we've just had, and they come here because we do it cheaply and easily. Now we're making it really really hard. So inevitably this will mean that Australia will lose mining to other countries, lose the mining royalties most importantly, because as you know, we know once a mine is approved and it's producing royalties, it's benefiting Australians for generations to come. So it's an appalling decision and the way this has been made and the fact that there seems to be sort of Aboriginal Land Council shopping going on, that's the I I'd like to see, But I'd like to know that's not the case, which I'd like to see that opened up because it needs to be totally transparent and just enter Price is somebody who obviously her suspicions are raised. We've got to get to the bottom of this one.
00:41:37
Speaker 3: John.
00:41:37
Speaker 2: Yesterday and I've spoken about this at the top of the show, there was a motion in the Senate to ensure that baby is born alive after a fouled abortion received medical care. It was voted down in the Senate. Now, this was not emotion about abortion, It was not about women's reproductive rights. It was an attempt to ensure that we have national laws. It's not the case in every state that this happened, but it was an attempt to ensure we would have a national law that says a baby born alive after an attempted abortion would get the care that every one of us get as a basic human right. Now, Labour in the Greens oppose the motion. They voted against it, as did four of your colleagues, Senators Birmingham Bragg, Jane Hume and Ria Covid. Check you voted for it, though you vote to support the motion, explain why.
00:42:32
Speaker 14: Well, Firstly, I believe life is a gift from God and to take that away from someone else is frankly a sin. But as you rightly point out, this was not about reproductive health, this motion, it wasn't about denying women the right to a medical or surgical abortion. And to sit there and listen to the speeches from those who contributed to it, the heartrending stories of children who after a failed abortion are literally left in a petri dish or a kidney dish, or on a stainless steel table in a back room of a hospital to die alone. No love. That is not something I could ever bring myself to condone and allowed to continue. And to hear Labor and Green senators shouting words like disgusting every time someone would raise one of these concerns. Sorry to allow this to happen in a modern world, where as you say, if you were sick requiring medical care, you'd get it. These babies are born alive and should be protected and afforded care. That's what decent human beings would offer in that situation. I can't believe it is not the law that that must happen.
00:43:44
Speaker 3: I hope you keep pursuing it.
00:43:46
Speaker 2: On my phone is lit up like a Christmas tree, and now a lot of strains didn't actually know that was going on.
00:43:51
Speaker 3: Nick, are you.
00:43:52
Speaker 2: Concerned about reports at Facebook's being censoring political content? This is prone nuclear content. It's been removed, we're told because it's been quote misleading supporters for Nuclear for Australia.
00:44:06
Speaker 3: They've reached out of the lobby group. They said stuff that we.
00:44:08
Speaker 2: Wanted to send around a supporting nuclear power has been taken down. Meta says all, No, you know, there's no censorship here.
00:44:17
Speaker 3: It was a technical error.
00:44:20
Speaker 2: Come on, we had plenty of technical errors hit the No campaign in the Voice, not many that hit the Yes campaign.
00:44:26
Speaker 3: We don't believe this, furfy.
00:44:28
Speaker 1: Do we I don't believe it for one. And second, Peter, because they've got form on this. As you point out, they did exactly the same with the Voice. You know, they decided that just Enter Price should not have a voice on Facebook. Seemed rather contradictory. But this is alarming. I mean, thankfully fewer and fewer Australians I believe are going to Facebook for news and any sort of comment like that, because it's unreliable. But this from a company, of course, which is based in Silicon Valley, which doesn't pay taxes here as far as I know, or not much, and doesn't even pay for the news. It steals basically from companies like News Corp and Fairfax and the other ones, and they have the cheap too want to buy into our political debates. I think it's outrageous and I think they should be shown. The best thing to do here is to point out for people what's going on so that people will realize that they can't trust what's happening on Facebook. It's a very poor source of news. Go somewhere reliable, but like this channel for instance.
00:45:27
Speaker 2: Now no surprises here. My sister and my brother in LAWA have got a big dairy farm.
00:45:31
Speaker 3: They're on the land.
00:45:32
Speaker 2: But farmers across the country according to a new survey from the NFF so that seventy percent of them believe labors harming the industry. Their top concerns are bio security, climate change policies, and live sheep export bands. But what about the fallout today from a really poor joke that the Prime Minister made last night at a regional women's awards dinner in Canberra.
00:45:58
Speaker 3: Have a listen.
00:46:00
Speaker 11: Then we had in a beautiful Australian beef, not the live expert we've made sure.
00:46:08
Speaker 6: It was dead.
00:46:11
Speaker 3: I'm told that it went down like a lead balloon. JOHNO.
00:46:15
Speaker 14: Yeah, that's the feedback of us seed too. But I mean to make a joke off the back of having ended the livelihoods of scores of farmers and businesses with the live sheep trade. To then make a joke of that nature when there is a high degree of anxiety, as you've already pointed out amongst the agricultural communities, it just proves how tone def this man is out of touch. He is. He gets paid every fortnight now, no matter how much he runs this country into the ground. And to stand up there in black tie joke about the future of this industry in that way proves he's not fit to govern this country. And farmers know it, and they've not got a friend in him, so you'd expect better from him. But sadly we're proven wrong again.
00:47:00
Speaker 2: Yes, seventy percent is a pretty comprehensive pole. I have to say, thank you, gentlemen. We'll get your home one day.
00:47:06
Speaker 3: Nick Katie.
00:47:06
Speaker 2: You seem to have been away a long time. You'll have plenty of stuff to tell us when you get back or after break. Kel Richards in a moment without feather Ado, let's welcome him in Kel Richards, this is a word that's a bit topical after Zali Stegel's interjections in the chamber the other day.
00:47:26
Speaker 3: Racism.
00:47:28
Speaker 2: This is from Leon, who says the meaning of the word racism's being corrupted.
00:47:32
Speaker 3: He claims.
00:47:33
Speaker 2: He says it means biological determinism.
00:47:36
Speaker 3: It appears.
00:47:36
Speaker 2: He says that many people use it wrongly instead of perhaps the word xenophobia.
00:47:42
Speaker 13: Is he right, Kel, I could see what he's saying. No, I don't think he is right racism. This is interesting if you look at the big American dictionary, the Merriam Webster Third International, which I have on my shelves, is massive volume, which says that in fact, they say racism means believing that your psychological and cultural characteristics are determined by your race, and that every race is different. That's what they say. Racism is. Xenophobia, of course, is fear of strangers from the Greek word xenos for strangers, so fear of foreigners. And Leon is saying, look, what we call in racism is actually xenophobia, fear of what is different. I actually think he's mistaken in that racism is what underlies that. If that exists, the belief that races are different is the really evil belief. That's what I'm trying to say in my own stumbling way, the belief that races are different and unlike each other, that's the real problem. It's the inability to see human human beings as human beings, as humanity. So racism is deeper than xenophobia, and it is a more serious problem. And that's why that charge in the Parliament was such a serious charge.
00:48:54
Speaker 2: Now I didn't even know about this word tackatopia. I hope I'm saying it right. Helen wants to know what's the meaning of cacatopia.
00:49:02
Speaker 13: Oh, it's a lovely word. It's a spin on utopia, the word coined by Thomas Moore for his book of that name in fifteen sixteen, which he took from a Greek source meaning you know, the best place, the perfect place. So what's the opposite? These days we say a dystopia is the opposite to a utopia, but that's only been around since the nineteen fifties. Cackatopia goes back to the eighteen eighties and it comes from the Greek word kacos meaning bad. And the viewer who wrote to me about this said, Kel, are we living in a cacatopia? And my answer was, you'll have to decide.
00:49:36
Speaker 3: Depends what state you're in. I think I am in Victoria.
00:49:39
Speaker 2: Biometric testing we've talked about a lot this week. I know what it is, but Stewart wants to know exactly what do we mean by the term.
00:49:47
Speaker 13: Okay, it's older than I would have thought nineteen oh two, and it means using test like fingerprints, DNA, blood tests and so on to see if you really are who you say you are. But it's been done, as I say Snyder O two, using physical measurements to determine if people are who they claim to be, and it comes obviously from by your life and metric meaning measurement. So biometric testing is nothing new and it's a really good idea when people make claims about who they are.
00:50:17
Speaker 2: Now, look, if you've left Australia with a new passport and you've scanned your face as you're left through the little glass gates, you have been biometrically.
00:50:24
Speaker 3: Testing exactly exactly who you are in the passport. Kel, thank you, see you next week. That's it for me. Tomorrow night, at six, he's antiboult
