‘Toxic and divisive': Gender quotas for Liberal Party leadership blasted
IPA Senior Fellow John Roskam says no Australian should have a position denied to them because of their gender, religion or race.
Former staffer Charlotte Mortlock says the Liberals would be 'morons' if they elect two men to lead the party.
'Quotas are toxic and divisive; they are based on basically a Marxist philosophical position,' Mr Roskam told Sky News host Peta Credlin.
'They are completely illiberal.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
2 hours ago
- Sky News AU
The Project, Q+A axings show progressive dominated programs are boring, while Malcolm Turnbull harnesses his inner 'miserable ghost' at the ABC
THE LATEST Q+A PLUS THE PROJECT IN R.I.P. MODE – DEMONSTRATING THAT LEFT-WING DOMINATED PROGRAMS ARE JUST BORING Media Watch Dog regrets the recently announced demise of ABC TV's Q+A program. Gerard Henderson has covered this in his Weekend Australian column on 14 June. It is invariably sad when a media outlet closes, especially for employees. On a less serious note, Media Watch Dog will miss Q+A in particular because it provided great copy with its unbalanced panels and the fact that it never had one conservative presenter over close to two decades. In the end, Q+A ran out of steam because it was just boring and predictable. There was no genuine debate and discussion on the program dominated by the left. It is much the same with the demise of Network 10's The Project . It was too left-wing and failed to raise sufficient revenue. This fact is completely overlooked by Waleed Aly – one of the program's panellists – in his somewhat boring and repetitive column in The Age and Sydney Morning Herald on Friday 13 June. Current affairs work on TV and Radio when there is genuine debate and discussion. This rarely, if ever, took place on Q+A or The Project. Does a week – or even a day – go by without former Liberal Party prime minister Malcolm Turnbull throwing the switch to 'miserable ghost' mode – and appearing on the ABC? News had hardly broken that the United States administration was doing a review of AUKUS when Turnbull popped up on the taxpayer-funded public broadcaster to give his view. On Thursday 12 June the former prime minister appeared on The World Today . The program heard from such AUKUS critics as Bob Carr and Paul Keating with some balance being provided by former Australian ambassador to the US Joe Hockey. Now let's go to the transcript: Nick Grimm: In fact, you've posted "it's time to wake up". Who needs to wake up Malcolm Turnbull, and why? Malcolm Turnbull: Well, we need to wake up in Australia. I mean, frankly, the, there is a denial of reality in Australia. I mean, there is a very high prospect, very high probability prospect, that we will end up with no submarines in this deal. This is not a far-fetched possibility. It's actually set out in the legislation. It is a risk that Australia took on. This is why it was a bad deal, very asymmetric deal, and there is no plan B. And so when you know Richard Marles is asked about this, 'do you have a plan B?', he says, 'no, we're sticking to the plan. Plan A'. Well, that's great Richard, but the problem is that the submarines, the transfer of the submarines, is a decision of the US government. And if they do not stick to plan A, if they say no, as we foreshadowed, you know, 'we can't spare them', then we end up with no subs. Mr Turnbull was the only person interviewed at length and he is an out-and-out critic of AUKUS. Malcolm Turnbull appeared again on the ABC that very day. He rocked up to the ABC 7.30 on Thursday 12 June where he received a soft interview from presenter Sarah Ferguson. Turnbull accused Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles (who was interrupted by Ferguson) and former prime minister Scott Morrison of making inaccurate statements about AUKUS. Neither had a right of reply. Moreover, Malcolm Turnbull attempted to demean his targets by referring to them as 'Richard' and 'Scott'. How clever is that? He also defended his government's decision to acquire French conventional-powered submarines. Quelle Surprise! It was a remarkably soft interview for someone who is an AUKUS antagonist. CAN YOU BEAR IT? Lot of thanks to the avid reader who drew Media Watch Dog's attention to what passes for journalism at the Sydney Morning Herald when it comes to reporting the Israel-Hamas War. Writing in the Sydney Morning Herald on 10 June, Nine Newspapers' reporter Bronte Gossling commenced her article as follows – under the heading 'What happened when Greta Thunberg was detained by Israel – and who she was with': Greta Thunberg and 11 others who were detained by Israeli forces in international waters on Monday are on their way back to their home countries, Israel's Foreign Ministry claimed on social media this morning. The 22-year-old Swedish human rights and climate activist was part of a crew attempting to break Israel's naval blockade and deliver aid to those at risk of famine, departing Italy for Gaza on the British-flagged Madleen on June 1. Madleen was intercepted by Israel one week later, with the charity mission devolving into a saga playing out through official diplomatic channels as much as on social media – even Conor McGregor is involved. Get it. Israel's Foreign Ministry 'claimed' something or other. Later, Comrade Gossling wrote this: Twelve passengers – the most high profile being Thunberg – departed Sicily, Italy, aboard the British-flagged Madleen on June 1. This included French journalists Yanis Mhamdi, who directed the 2024 documentary Netanyahu: Portrait of a War Criminal , and Omar Faiad of Al Jazeera, which prompted Paris-based non-profit Reporters Without Borders (RSF) to condemn their arrest by Israeli forces. 'Boarding a civilian vessel in international waters to intercept a crew that included two French journalists documenting a peaceful humanitarian initiative is not only illegal but constitutes a serious violation of international law and press freedom,' RSF's director general Thibaut Bruttin said in a statement. 'RSF calls on the French authorities to act without delay to secure their location and release, and urges the international community to firmly condemn this latest attack on journalism.' Spot the difference. According to the SMH reporter the Israel Foreign Ministry 'claimed' something. Whereas Reporters Without Borders 'said' something. This is a form of prompting and, as such, unprofessional journalism. By the way, Comrade Gossling used the word 'claimed' on two other occasions both with reference to the Israel Foreign Ministry but not with respect to any other organisation. Can You Bear It? [Thanks for locating this. It would seem that Comrade Gossling and her ilk do not believe that SMH readers are capable of determining what statements are true and what statements are false without being told to by using language as a weapon. – MWD Editor.] It was Monday 9 June – the King's Birthday public holiday in all States and Territories except for Queensland and Western Australia. David ('Please call me Speersy') was standing in for Sarah Ferguson as presenter of ABC TV's 7.30. The program covered the story it described as 'protests escalate in Los Angeles over Donald Trump's immigration crackdown'. This is how it was introduced: David Speers: To the United States now, where tensions and divisions over Donald Trump and his immigration crackdown have turned violent. For three days, crowds have taken to the streets of Los Angeles over raids targeting undocumented migrants. Today, protesters were met with tear gas and rubber bullets. The promise of mass deportations was central to Donald Trump's election campaign, but the President's decision to deploy National Guard troops to deal with these demonstrations has been denounced by California's Governor Gavin Newsom as purposefully inflammatory. One of Donald Trump's frustrations is the so-called sanctuary law in California, which limits the ability of local police to cooperate with federal immigration officials. The man who wrote that law is former State Senator Kevin de León. I spoke to him earlier. Note that Comrade Speers did not say that Comrade de León was a former Democratic State Senator. Nor that he had a, er, controversial background in the politics of California. His political background is as follows: California State Assembly (2006–2010); California State Senate (2010–2018); Los Angeles City Council (2020–2024). De León was defeated in the 2018 United States Senate election in California against incumbent Senator Dianne Feinstein. And was defeated in the 2022 Los Angeles mayoral election. The Speers/de León interview ran for 8 minutes, during which the presenter asked soft questions and did not contest any replies. No other view was heard. For example, no Californian Republican was interviewed. Speers allowed de León to rail against President Donald J. Trump. Let's go to the transcript: Kevin de León: ….Donald Trump has usurped Governor Gavin Newsom's power and authorised the National Guard to enter the city streets of Los Angeles. David Speers : And clearly you believe that is an inflammatory move from the President. I think you've described this as Donald Trump trying to orchestrate a crisis. Why do you think the President wants to orchestrate a crisis? Kevin de León : I don't believe that President Trump, as well as his cronies – Stephen Miller, to be specific – is actually responding to a crisis. They're actually manufacturing a crisis to create the scenario and the conditions to have the National Guard enter the premises. He wants to create chaos in a state that he despises, which is the state of California. It was only when the discussion got to the issue of what are called Sanctuary Cities in the United States (Los Angeles has one) that de León advised that he worked with Attorney General Eric Holder in President Barack Obama's Democratic administration. What no one mentioned was that Donald Trump was elected on a promise to stop unlawful immigration into the US and to deport unlawful immigrants – with an emphasis on those who had committed serious crimes. There was no problem in David Speers interviewing Kevin de León. It's just that there was a lack of viewpoint diversity. That's the continuing problem with the Conservative Free Zone that is the ABC. Can You Bear It? [No. Not really – now that you ask. Perhaps you should have informed viewers of your man de León's controversial past. Here it is: - In a leaked 2021 recording, de León, along with fellow Los Angeles city council members Nury Martínez and Gil Cedillo, discussed redistricting efforts – that included plans to diminish the influence of Black voters by altering district boundaries. As Shawn Hubler wrote in the New York Times on 20 September 2023: 'The audio was about as damaging as can be, including his saying that a white colleague displayed his Black son the way a colleague displayed her status handbag, and his failing to challenge deeply offensive and racist remarks by other Latino political figures in the room.' - In 2022 de León was involved in an altercation with a protester who was calling for him to resign. Video was released showing de León grabbing the protester by the collar and slamming him onto a table. De León claimed he was acting in self-defence and the video was misleading. Both parties filed police reports, but the City Attorney's Office declined to file any charges. - In 2025, the Los Angeles Ethics Commission found that de León violated disclosure rules, admitting to four counts of participating in decisions tied to his financial interests and one count of failing to disclose income. I believe that avid MWD readers would like to know this. – MWD Editor.] THE [BORING] SATURDAY PAPER The Saturday Paper (Morry Schwartz proprietor, Erik Jensen editor-in-chief) is the only newspaper in Australia that contains no news. It is printed on Thursday evenings and arrives in inner-city coffee shops on a Saturday morning. Ellie's (male) co-owner reads it on Mondays at Gin & Tonic Time. What's the hurry? TSP's RICK MORTON OVER-WRITES ABOUT HEADING OFF TO PARIS TO WRITE – YES, YOU'VE GUESSED IT – A NOVEL It was Gin & Tonic Time on Monday 9 June when Ellie's (male) co-owner opened The [Boring] Saturday Paper. Or was it 31 May? It doesn't really matter. Having scrolled through Australia's only non-news newspaper, Hendo settled on a piece by Rick Morton titled 'Tender little Ministries'. Not having any idea what this meant, he looked to the sub-heading which read as follows: 'As the author prepares for an extended stay on the other side of the world, the details of the life he leaves behind take on new significance'. Well maybe yes – but to whom? In short, does anyone care that Comrade Morton is heading to Paris 'for a year, maybe longer'? Here is how the piece commenced: I have been taking extra-large gulps from the industrial vat of mouthwash in the bathroom. The idea came to me in a moment of domestic clarity – it won't be finished before I go. Teeth brushed, I clocked the drum of Listerine and knew it couldn't come with me. Too big. Better take bigger sips , I thought. I am not dying – though my high-school friend's mum, who retrained as a lawyer late in life, found me in the local supermarket and has now done my will. I am moving to Paris. For a year, maybe longer. Or until my money runs out. As far as I know, the French sell mouthwash and I can afford at least one bottle while I'm over there, but that's not really the point. The point is that I really am leaving, swept from home and country in a spiritual death, and one must mourn the thoroughly ordinary. What a load of literary sludge. And does it even classify as non-news news to learn that The Saturday Paper's senior reporter appears to be addicted to Aussie Listerine early in the morning at Hangover Time? It was only then that Hendo focused on the photo of a cattle dog called Jack. He belongs to Comrade Morton and is dying, apparently. Certainly, your canine Jack is not expected to be around when his owner returns from Paris, novel in hand. This is what Comrade Morton had to say: Before the blank invitation of an arrival is the complicated work of departure, however. Leaving a home is a thousand little ministries. I started mourning the cattle dog early. I know this weekend will likely be the last I see him alive. He survived a paralysis tick last year, but now plain old age is creeping through him, as it must. I want him to know how much he is loved, and I am terrified that when the moment comes he will not remember unless I am right there with him, in the room. What use all of Europe at that price? One of the defining memories I will leave with the poor old grump is my attempt to clip his toenails. If you believe him, no greater torment has been visited upon an animal. Love occupies a lonely office. The cat will be fine. As for the chickens, I cannot say…. Go on. Alas, he did. Having read this, Ellie's (male) co-owner asked Ellie how she handles growing toenails. She advised Hendo that her (female) co-owner takes her to the Vet where the procedure can be done sans tourmenter for a small fee and without much pain (except that of the co-owner, who has to pay). Then The [Boring] Saturday Paper's senior reporter told readers – if readers there were – that he has lived in an unnamed town of 3,000 and later the Gold Coast, Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra and Hobart. [Interesting. Sounds like your man Morton is channelling the song I've Been Everywhere – as sung by Lucky Star. – MWD Editor.] This is how the soon to be Monsieur Morton concluded his piece: The way I see it, living is a little bit like reading a good book that you do not wish to finish. It is possible to become so anxious about the end of this experience that you set the book aside and read no further, for a time. I have done this by moving back to my hometown in late 2022. I have stayed because I was bruised and, increasingly, grumpy and unbearable, like the dog having his toenails seen to. Also because of the interest rates. One should not abdicate existence entirely, however. At some indeterminate point, having taken the time to grieve for whatever model of the world we have constructed, we must pick up the book again and read. In Paris, I will read. At the end, it was stated, 'Rick Morton is taking extended leave'. To which MWD declares: 'Thank God and, as the French would say, Bon Voyage . Jack [left] who is not going to La Cité de L'Amour and Ellie (right) who is not going anywhere except to her fave couch. AN ABC UPDATE SALLY SARA HEARS DENNIS ROSS ON HAMAS BUT THEN RUNS A REFUTATION OF HIS COMMENTS AND DENIES ROSS A RIGHT-OF-REPLY The ABC continues to attack Israel's role in the Israel-Hamas War (which Hamas started on 7 October 2023 when it broke a cease-fire agreement and invaded Israel murdering and brutalising children, women and men and kidnapping civilians) while going soft on the terrorist Hamas' totalitarian rule in Gaza. Here is a recent example. On Thursday 12 June Sally Sara interviewed Dennis Ross – the former US diplomat who has worked for Presidents George W. H. Bush, Clinton and Obama on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process – on ABC Radio National Breakfast. Dennis Ross criticised the two extremist ministers of Israel Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich. He also said that a two-state solution is 'not possible anytime soon'. This is how the interview ended: Sally Sara: Is there evidence of widespread theft of aid and control of aid by Hamas in your view? Dennis Ross: There is, the UN denies it, but then the UN agencies also denied that Hamas had built up tunnels and bases underneath UNRWA headquarters. So, I am highly sceptical of their denials, because they weren't making any serious effort to ensure that the aid trucks weren't being looted. In many cases, I know for a fact that there were payoffs made, like $6,000 per truck, to allow it to go through. So, I mean the fact that the UN agencies are saying there's no evidence of this, suggests to me that they turned a blind eye to it. Sally Sara: Given that the levels of hunger in Gaza at the moment, and knowing that the population of Gaza, around half of the population is made up of children, even if there are issues with aid, is the underlying important mission to get the aid through anyway? Dennis Ross: I think, absolutely, the first priority we ought to be addressing is what is a genuine humanitarian need. And the idea that, in fact, one is going to squabble at this point over who's most effective in terms of delivering it, or the UN says, look, we won't be a part of this, because this is weaponizing assistance. How about you just focus on the delivery of the assistance. Sally Sara: But even if there is disruption and theft by Hamas, should the aid be pushed through anyway? Dennis Ross: I have a problem with providing aid that allows Hamas to maintain its control because in maintaining its control, the suffering of Palestinians is guaranteed…. No one has guaranteed more suffering for Palestinians than Hamas. And Hamas exploits the suffering for their purposes, including to stigmatise the Israelis. It is rare indeed to hear criticism of Hamas on the ABC. So it was not surprising when Sally Sara ended the interview this way: Sally Sara: Dennis Ross will need to leave it there. Thank you for your time this morning on Breakfast. Dennis Ross: Sure, glad to do it. Bye, bye. Sally Sara: That's Dennis Ross there, former US peace negotiator and special Middle East coordinator under Presidents Bush, Clinton and Obama. And last month, the United Nations World Food Programme said there was no evidence that Hamas was stealing food aid in Gaza. How about that? Comrade Sara announced that the United Nations World Food Program said there was no evidence that Hamas was stealing food aid in Gaza. And Mr Ross was denied the right of reply. [No surprise, really. The transcript of the full interview can be found here. – MWD Editor.] On Wednesday 11 June, ABC TV's News Breakfast presenter Bridget Brennan interviewed Jacob Grumbach. Here's how the interview commenced: Bridget Brennan: Let's return to the situation in Los Angeles, where Donald Trump has deployed the National Guard, and now Marines, amid ongoing protests against an immigration crackdown. Jacob Grumbach is an Associate Professor of Public Policy at the University of California in Berkeley. Joins us now. Good morning to you, Jake. Thanks for joining us on the show. Jacob Grumbach: Thanks for having me Bridget…. Comrade Brennan did not challenge the learned professor's view that the United States under President Donald J Trump is no longer a democracy but has become a competitive authoritarian regime. Early in the interview, the ABC TV co-presenter used the 'F' word following an earlier comment about competitive authoritarianism: Bridget Brennan: And that's something that many experts on democracy and fascism have been warning about in recent weeks and months. But would you say this development, just in this last week, in these last couple of days, has meant there has been a significant slide in terms of democracy in the United States? A soft question – A Dorothy Dixer to be sure. However, like many journalists, Comrade Brennan seems to regard fascism as something contemporary that she does not like. It's possible to do so if you are ignorant about Europe in the first half of the 20th Century when real fascists were around. And then there was this – after Comrade Grumbach did an unchallenged anti-Trump rant: Jacob Grumbach: All of these represent violations of the rule of law and the Constitution that take the US down from that consolidated liberal democracy status to a more middling, competitive authoritarian regime that's closer to something like Hungary currently. Bridget Brennan: Wow. Jake, let's talk about the community sentiment right now…. Wow, indeed. This is barracking – not professional journalism. HISTORY CORNER NICK BRYANT INTERVIEWS LIKE-MINDED JAMES CURRAN AS EACH AGREE WITH EACH OTHER THAT AUSTRALIA IS STILL (SORT OF) BRITISH You have to admire James Curran who currently is the Australian Financial Review's 'International Affairs Expert' and also Professor of Modern History at Sydney University. Previously, he worked as an academic and a public servant before entering the world of journalism. Dr Curran (for a doctor he is) is also an author who likes flashing his linguistic skills. Professor Curran is very able and articulate. However, he is of the political left – and this should be recognised by interviewers. For his part, Gerard Henderson's most recent manifestation of Curran-admiration occurred when the AFR journalist was being interviewed by ABC (and ex-BBC) journalist Nick Bryant on Saturday Extra . The date was 7 June – two days before the King's Birthday holiday in most of Australia. Here's how the discussion commenced: Nick Bryant: One thing we do know for sure is that many Australians will be enjoying a public holiday on Monday to mark the King's birthday, a date in the calendar that isn't even celebrated in Britain with a day off. It speaks of what I sometimes think of as the slow death of British Australia. The Anglo overtones, which is still so much a part of Australia's national identity. I've been talking to Professor James Curran of Sydney University, the co-author of a brilliant book, The Unknown Nation: Australia After Empire . James Curran, thanks for joining us on Saturday Extra . James Curran: My pleasure Nick. You bet it was. After all, Comrade Curran's The Unknown Nation , which he co-wrote with Stuart Ward, was published on May Day 2010 – i.e. a decade and a half ago. It is likely that listeners – if listeners there were – would have been unaware of this – and Comrade Bryant did not tell them. By the way – for those who do not co-own or own a canine and listen to Saturday Extra when walking same – your man Bryant invariably describes his guests as BRILLIANT. The oh-so-brilliant Sage Curran made the following comments about Australia – none of which were challenged by Sage Bryant. It depends on what Curran means by 'most'. Circa 1960, around 25 per cent of Australians were of Irish (overwhelmingly Catholic) background. They did not regard themselves as being 'British race patriots'. And then there were Australians of Italian, Greek and Maronite Lebanese backgrounds in the 1960s. Likewise, they did not regard themselves as Brits. According to Sage Curran, Australians at Federation defined 'themselves as a purer and better form of Britain'. How does he know this? MWD hears avid readers cry. Alas, Comrade Curran does not tell us. Then Curran had this to say: Federation was achieved - I mean, yes, it created the nation state. But the nation state was conceived within this broader orbit of the British Empire. And, you know, Australian political leaders on both sides of politics, or all sides of politics, at that time, were quite happy about that. There was, yes, some sentimentalism around about what had been created, sure. But that never really took itself to the point of wanting an open break or rupture with Britain. Sentiment or no sentiment, Australian political leaders valued the British Empire primarily because it was seen to provide security of sea lanes for a large continent with a small population. What's wrong with that? Curran continued: James Curran: This country did have a very strong sense of nationalism, but it was identified with another country off the coast of Europe, another tiny country off the off the coast of Europe. And so all the trappings of nationalism, oaths of loyalty, that little kids recited in schools. [The following grab was played: "I will serve the Queen and cheerfully obey my parents, teachers and the law..] James Curran: Flags, anthems, songs, the privileges of Knights and Dames, all of these were associated with Britain. I mean, we had all the trimmings and trappings of belonging to this broader sense of empire. Well, that may have been the experience of some 'little kids'. But Ellie's (male) co-owner never came across an oath of loyalty to the Queen in his school days. In fact, the Queen was rarely discussed. Growing up a Catholic in Australia – our focus was on the Pope in Rome rather than the Queen in Buckingham Palace. This led to yet more agreement between your man Bryant and your man Curran: Nick Bryant: Lots of things surprised me about this sort of slow detachment from Britain. I mean, one of them is that the national anthem up until, what?, 1984 was God Save The Queen . I know there was a plebiscite in 1977 but what struck me was, like 18 per cent still wanted God Save The Queen . James Curran : Extraordinary, isn't it? I mean, from the time [Gough] Whitlam is elected [in late 1972], the national anthem, it's a bit like going to a tennis match. You know, you can watch a change, with governments. Whitlam has a plebiscite. They decide on Advance Australia Fair , but it still has the offending British verses in it. Then [Malcolm] Fraser comes into power in [late] '75. The first cabinet meeting they hold in early '76 he says, "No, it's God Save the Queen again. But if you want a choice of a more distinctively Australian song, for example, if you need to sing it at a gold medal ceremony at the Olympics, you can have a choice of four songs. God Save The Queen , Advance Australia Fair , Song of Australia , and Waltzing Matilda ….' But, yeah, you're right. 1984 we finally decided [on Advance Australia Fair ], and some public servants got rid of those verses about Albion's Shore and Cook sailing. And, you know, they [the verses] were finally expunged. This exchange was somewhat confused. Under the Whitlam Labor government in 1973 the Bureau of Statistics held a national opinion poll (not a plebiscite) of 60,000 Australians. Advance Australia Fair was supported as Australia's national anthem by 51 per cent of those polled – followed by 20 per cent for Waltzing Matilda . In 1974 Advance Australia Fair became the Australian national anthem due to a decision of the Whitlam government. However, the Fraser government returned God Save the Queen as the national anthem in 1976. The Hawke Labor government restored Advance Australia Fair as the national anthem in 1984 – and it has remained so since then. In 1977, the Fraser government conducted a plebiscite – attached to a constitutional referendum on other matters – to gauge support for what was termed Australia's National Song. Contrary to Bryant's claim – this was not a Whitlam initiative. Advance Australia Fair received 43.3 per cent of the vote with Waltzing Matilda at 28.3 per cent, God Save the Queen at 18.8 per cent and Song of Australia at 9.7 per cent. Nick Bryant is surprised that God Save the Queen received around 18 per cent of the vote. That's one way of looking at the issue. Another is to say that, half a century ago, around 80 per cent of Australians wanted something other than God Save the Queen. But this runs contrary to the Curran/Bryant thesis and was overlooked during the interview. And so it went on. Comrade Bryant went on to make his point about 'the slow death of Anglo Australia' by pointing to the fact that it took Australia from 1931 to 1942 to ratify the Statute of Westminster. Well, so it did. But that's close to a century ago. The Statute of Westminster gave Australia and other British dominions independence with respect to foreign policy and defence as well as domestic matters. Australia ratified this in October 1942 when the Commonwealth Parliament passed the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act. This is the exchange where, Quelle Surprise! Nick and James agreed with each other: Nick Bryant: And a recurring theme is the kind of delays in sort of enacting this stuff. I mean, a classic example is the Statute of Westminster, right? I mean, that came into effect, I think, in 1931 but it took Australia 11 years to actually kind of ratify it. James Curran : Exactly, over some kind of obscure incident during World War Two. And when they did it, Labor prime ministers, of Irish Catholic descent mind you, were bending over backwards to say, "this doesn't dilute our Britishness". And so, yeah, there is a pattern there I think. Nick, you're absolutely right. Yep. Nick's comment is 'absolutely right'. And James' reference is a joke, you see. The 'obscure incident' was presumably Japan's attack on the United States in December 1941 which commenced the Pacific War. Prime Minister Curtin was conscious that Australia's reliance on the US during the Pacific War should not dilute our relationship with Britain. A reasonable position – whether he was of Irish Catholic descent or not. At this stage, Comrade Curran threw the switch to ridicule by adding: James Curran: …no matter at what point, be it the Statute of Westminster or when Britain first applies for membership of the European community, here are these decisions which are seemingly both unwanted and unwelcome ones for Australia. There's Britain saying: 'Look, it's time for you all, you know, all, you little sort of dominions, like little chicks, hop out of the nest, make your own way. You don't have to join our wars. You can make treaties of your own. Off you go.' But as I said at the start, there's this nervousness about grasping the nettle. We don't want to do it. This is just sneering – the reference to 'little chicks' and so on. There were genuine disagreements between Australia and Britain over trade – which was affected by Britain's entry into the European Common Market. But this was an example of Australia's growing assertiveness. It's alienated types like Curran who interpret it otherwise. Curran told Bryant that it was not until the late 1930s that Menzies said: 'Look we need our own diplomats abroad.' Sure – but Australia was not yet 40 years old at the time. Curran refers to the Fall of Singapore on 8 February 1942 in the following way: But look, it's not until the late 1930s that Robert Menzies says, "look, we need our own diplomats abroad", and so, I think in Washington, China and Japan, our first sort of, our first diplomats are sent. But, before that, we'd been sort of running our foreign policy through the British Foreign Office, even after the Fall of Singapore. So with all the faith and trust that Australian leaders had put in that concept of Empire defence, Singapore was the last bastion to, you know, 'save us from the marauding Asian power'. Even after that was shown to be complete folly, Curtin – and Chifley after him – tried to resuscitate Empire defence. More sneering here. The British tried to protect Australia when the Pacific War commenced. But it was fighting Nazi Germany at the time. As to the assertion that Australia asked Britain to 'Save us from the marauding Asian power'. This is a reference to Imperial Japan – Curran ignores the fact that Australia did not have the military capacity to overcome Japan. It needed any available assistance. After Britain lost two naval ships – the HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales in December 1941 – the British government decided it could do no more in the region. And then there was this anti-British rant: Nick Bryant : … if the Brits had tried to annoy Australia more, you couldn't have done much better than Gallipoli. High interest rates during the Great Depression, disregard for Australia's security after the Fall of Singapore, as you were saying. Joining the Common Market at a time when Australia's biggest trading partner was Britain, nuclear testing in the [Australian] outback, the Dismissal crisis. [Voice of Gough Whitlam saying, 'Well, may we say, God Save the Queen…'] Nick Bryant: When the Governor-General actually gets rid of an Australian Prime Minister. [Voice of Gough Whitlam saying, '…Because nothing will save the Governor- General.'] This is just a left-wing conspiracy. The Governor-General Sir John Kerr dismissed the Whitlam government because Gough Whitlam wanted to govern without supply and the Coalition Opposition, led by Malcolm Fraser, refused to grant supply. Kerr's decision – right or wrong – had nothing to do with Britain and he acted in accordance with the Australian Constitution. The discussion continued with Bryant agreeing with Curran and Curran agreeing with Bryant covering the period up to the failed Republic Referendum in November 1999. But by this time Australia was very much a multicultural society and no longer in any sense essentially an outpost of the British Empire. What was missing from the Bryant-Curran love-in was any reference to the Conscription Plebiscites of 1916 and 1917 where a majority of Australians voted 'No' to conscription for overseas services to assist in Britain's war against Imperial Germany. The (alienated) pair also missed the Bodyline Test series in 1932-33 in which the overwhelming majority of Australians supported the Australian Cricket Team against England. And the interview ended with a left-wing rant about AUKUS (Australia, UK and US Trilateral Security Partnership). Let's go to the transcript – but note that your man Curran spoke in English and then translated into French for us mere mortals – where the learned professor bags AUKUS: James Curran: I think the agreement is, whilst it is ostensibly about submarines and AI and quantum computing and all the rest of it, there is nevertheless this deep cultural underlay to the whole thing. It is part of this kind of attempt to, I guess, reinforce the sense that this country still sees itself as something of an isolated European outpost on the edge of Asia, and it needs the old buddies for protection. Now you couldn't have got a better enunciation of this than from a French official just after the time of the AUKUS announcement. I was on a boat with him on Sydney Harbour, and the French official, of course, remembering that the French [submarine] deal had been cancelled, said to me in French. He said, ["French"] "I understand why, he said, you've gone back to Uncle Sam". But in the next breath, he said, [French] "But I don't understand why you have gone back to Mummy". And it's a legitimate point. The UK submarine industry is a complete farce at the moment for various reasons, including workforce and all sorts of challenges. They haven't finished their boats yet, and we don't know what the design yet of the SSN AUKUS is. Nick Bryant: James Curran, whether speaking in English or fluent French, I always learn something from you. Thanks for joining us on Saturday Extra . So, there you have it. After railing against Australia's historical closeness to the US and Britain, Comrade Curran ended up sucking up to the French. Despite the fact that many believe that the French proposal to turn a nuclear powered submarine into a conventional powered submarine would not work. MWD believes that James Curran should be heard on the ABC and elsewhere. But a bit of viewpoint diversity on such occasions would not go astray. * * * * DOCUMENTATION There's nothing a left-wing ABC presenter or producer likes quite as much as a current or former Liberal Party member who criticises the contemporary Liberal Party. That's why former Liberal Party prime ministers obtain soft coverage on the taxpayer funded broadcaster. Namely, the late Malcolm Fraser after he left politics and Malcolm Turnbull – along with other Liberal Party critics. So it was no surprise, then, that Matt Kean – the former NSW Liberal Party treasurer and energy minister, received an invite to appear on ABC Radio National's Saturday Extra on 7 June 2025. This followed Kean's Talbot Oration at the Australian Museum in Sydney the previous evening. It so happened that Ellie's (male) co-owner was walking the said canine on the (cold) morning of 7 June when he heard Nick Bryant interviewing Matt Kean. This is how the interview was introduced: Nick Bryant: Now, the climate wars in Australia often appear to be a conflict without end. But this week, a former senior Liberal Party politician warned those who stood in the way of action to combat global, global warming faced political oblivion. Matt Kean, who served as a Liberal treasurer in New South Wales, was delivering the annual Talbot Oration at the Australian Museum in Sydney. He's now the chair of the Climate Change Authority. That's an independent statutory body set up to advise the Australian Government on climate change policy. Sure, the Climate Change Authority presents as an independent statutory authority established under the Climate Change Authority Act 2011 during the time of the Rudd/Gillard Labor government. Its members are government appointments. Kean was appointed Chair by the Albanese Labor government in June 2024. This is a part-time position. Comrade Bryant did not tell listeners that Kean's full-time job is with Wollemi Capital which presents as follows: Our vision is to be a specialist climate investor and operator of global relevance and inter-generational impact. We strive to source opportunities in the sectors where our domain expertise is strongest, the need to advance decarbonisation is most critical and the prospective financial returns are greatest. In his Talbot Oration, Kean said that he had been in politics but was 'now in public service'. This is not strictly accurate. He is a government-appointed board member of the Climate Change Authority. But Kean works full-time in the private sector for a company – which is a climate investor that focuses on decarbonisation in the area where 'prospective financial returns are greatest'. By the way, according to Who's Who in Australia , your man Kean has a and a Graduate Dip CA – with a background working for PricewaterhouseCoopers. But no qualifications in engineering and/or science relevant to the climate. After a brief period at PwC, Kean became a political staffer and later a politician and now works for a climate investor. Media Watch Dog just loves it when a presenter puts the view of the interviewer to the interviewee and they agree with themselves. Here's how the interview commenced: Nick Bryant: Let's deal with the politics. First of all, you basically seem to be warning the conservative parties in Australia – get with the program on the transition towards renewables, or you're not going to be returning to power anytime soon. Matt Kean: Well, I think that's right. How about that? Kean told Bryant that he agreed with himself. He continued: …I think those [in the Coalition] that want to ignore the Australian public, those that want to ignore science and the economic reality for Australia, face political oblivion, and they're taking the political low road there. It was a soft interview. Bryant raised with Kean what he called 'the Trump effect' – to wit, a US president who cries 'Drill, baby, drill' and asked Kean 'What's the effect of that globally, Matt?'. Let's go to the transcript: Matt Kean: Well, cries to drill, baby drill, do not fool nature. They don't change the physics of climate change. I've said previously in public events that, you know, Donald Trump becoming president of the United States for a second term has had an impact. It is concerning. I mean, I wake up each morning with a touch of dread to know what's the latest political or policy twist from the White House going to be…. Sure, the United States is one of the four nations on top of the carbon emission table. The others are China, India and Russia. Kean made no mention of this trio. Nor did Bryant. Only Trump got criticised – not Xi, or Modi or Putin. Kean said to Bryant: 'Let me say to you Nick, climate change is a challenge of our generation and it needs to be a once in a generation response'. But neither Bryant nor Kean acknowledged that Australia, which produces just over 1 per cent of global emissions, can affect the climate to any significant extent. Indeed in his I-agree-with-you-and-you-agree-with-me interview, Bryant did not challenge any of Kean's assertions. Including his claim that renewables are 'now the cheapest form of energy'. Australia has never had more renewables – and energy has never been more expensive. Also, Bryant did not contest Kean's claim that green hydrogen is the way to go with respect to emission reductions. In spite of the fact that several green carbon ventures in Australia have failed to deliver in recent times. Let's go to the transcript from the early part of the interview where the following exchange took place: Nick Bryant: You're a Liberal politician. You know the tension, the conundrum that the Australian conservative movement now faces, a significant majority the Nationals party room is opposed to net zero. That creates tension, obviously, within the Coalition. You actually spoke in your speech about how to repair that kind of breach. How do you go about doing it? [Interesting. Your man Kean was a Liberal politician – he's not been a politician of any kind for a year. Surely your man Bryant should know this. – MWD Editor.] Matt Kean: Well, I think what we do is we need to find common ground. When we legislated the biggest renewable energy package in the nation's history, we did so in the New South Wales Parliament on the conservative side of politics. So we brought not only the Liberal Party together, but we brought the National Party along with us. And the way I did that was working to find those common interests that could bring the conservative parties together. And we did it. We did it, and we brought not only the conservative side of politics together, but we sought bipartisanship with Labor and the progressive independents. That's what we did in New South Wales. We found that common ground. What a load of tosh. What Kean and his supporters seldom discuss is his own record as a senior minister in NSW. For example, in February 2022, it was announced that the Eraring coal-fired power station in NSW would close in August 2025. Kean publicly backed the decision. At the time Angus Taylor, the minister for industry and energy in the Morrison government, said he was 'bitterly disappointed' with the decision, fearing that this would lead to energy shortages in NSW. Taylor was correct. Kean was wrong. In May 2024, the Minns Labor government in NSW did a deal with Origin Energy to keep Eraring open for an additional two years beyond August 2025. This decision was made after new modelling showed NSW could face energy shortages if Eraring closed in 2025. In other words, if NSW had followed Kean's policies there could have been energy shortages in the state within a year. Recently, it was announced that Origin Energy has opted out of a profit and loss-sharing arrangement with the NSW government for the financial year 2025-26. This indicates that Origin Energy believes that Eraring will turn a profit for that year. Meanwhile, in 2025 energy customers in NSW are destined to have higher energy price rises than in most other states. Asked on Sky News' Credlin program on 13 March as to what was causing the price hike, Aidan Morrison, energy research director at the Centre for Independent Studies, blamed Kean. Morrison said NSW energy consumers were now seeing 'the actual costs flow through from the renewables energy program … the big NSW electricity road map that Kean produced … when he was energy minister'. Don't expect Kean to acknowledge the failures of his own energy policies. He's too busy talking about himself to journalists and being photographed for magazines, giving talks before adoring audiences at the Australian Museum and receiving soft interviews on the taxpayer-funded public broadcaster. **** Until Next Time ****
Sky News AU
2 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Nuclear Science expert Dr Adi Paterson criticises Labor's current energy policy and targets for zero carbon renewables amid soaring power bills
A top Australian energy scientist has questioned how Labor's current energy policy could deliver cost effective solutions to consumers on dilute renewables amid soaring power bills. The former head of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), Dr Adi Paterson, told Sky News on Friday evening that the cheapest form of energy is nuclear plus renewables and as few batteries as possible. Despite his expertise in nuclear energy, Mr Paterson said he could not understand how the government thinks its current policy is the best way to provide low cost to consumers. "I cannot understand how our government thinks that the current energy policy, which is based on dilute renewables, can get us to a really reliable low cost to consumers, the cost at the meter," he told Sky News host Steve Price. "This government fundamentally mixes up the cost at the fence of the facility, which is really cheap if you do solar and wind, with the cost of the meter to the consumer, which goes up if you have too much solar and wind. "And we know that the cheapest form of energy working with renewables, not fighting with renewables, is nuclear plus renewables and as few batteries as possible. "We're pursuing this crazy dream which is on the input side of the energy is we want to be a world leader in zero carbon with renewables, which has never been done anywhere and which is a grave mistake." This comes as NSW Premier Chris Minns announced on Thursday the government would hold talks to to save the potential collapse of the nation's largest aluminium smelter as it struggles with crippling power bills and poor availability of renewable energy. Rio Tinto-owned Tomago, located north of Newcastle, is reportedly seeking billions of dollars in public funds to prevent collapse. The producer uses about 10 per cent of NSW's power supply and makes about 37 per cent of Australia's primary aluminium. Its collapse could lead to more than 1,000 people losing their jobs, while 5,000 indirect workers could suffer. NSW Premier Chris Minns stressed Tomago was a 'big employer in NSW, it's a dynamic part of the state, the Hunter and manufacturing is a big part of its future'. 'It's difficult for me to speculate about what the next steps are,' Mr Minns told reporters. 'In order for us to have an effective intervention, we need to have commercial discussions with the owners and operators of (Tomago). That's what we're doing.'
Sydney Morning Herald
3 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
To defend itself, Australia mustn't kowtow to its rivals. Or its allies
Which is why Albanese left Canberra quite untroubled by the prospect of not meeting the US leader at all. And, if a meeting were to occur, Albanese had no intention of grovelling, no basket of delicacies to offer. Even though Trump tells us that he's open to extravagant gifts. When Ramaphosa said to Trump, 'I'm sorry I don't have a plane to give you,' the US president replied: 'I wish you did. I would take it.' Australia has had an offer on the table in an effort to persuade Trump to exempt the country from the tariffs he has imposed on every other nation and penguin colony (with notable exemptions for Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Cuba). Loading 'The ball is now in the US court,' Trade Minister Don Farrell told me five weeks ago. 'We have put our proposition to them, and it's open to them if they want to accept it.' It included an offer of setting up a reliable supply chain for critical minerals to help break China's stranglehold. The offer is still in the US court. Albanese is not going to plead. The Coalition is still demanding that the prime minister insist on an urgent meeting with Trump at any cost. Opposition defence spokesman Angus Taylor on Thursday said that Albanese must do 'whatever is necessary to meet with President Trump … as quickly as possible'. Maybe the opposition hasn't quite adjusted to the quiet patriotism that Australians feel about this. The country wants its leader to be on his feet dealing with Trump, not his knees. Or maybe the Liberals do get it, and they're trying to set Albanese up to fail. Loading In a poll published this week, non-partisan Pew Research found that, among 24 nations, Australia was one of the countries with the greatest distrust of Trump. Seventy-seven per cent of Aussies said they did not trust Trump to do the right thing in world affairs. This was identical with sentiment in Canada, yet Trump hasn't breathed a word about annexing Australia. The median distrust rating across all 24 countries was around six in 10. Australians have firm views about the US president. We will not reward a lickspittle leader. Does that mean we want to dump the AUKUS agreement with the US and Britain? From the news coverage this week of Trump's decision to review the deal, you could be forgiven for thinking that it's deeply unpopular. But a separate poll this week revealed that the opposite is true. The Lowy Institute survey poll found that 67 per cent of Australians support acquiring US nuclear-powered submarines, the first and most contentious element of the AUKUS pact. The poll of over 2100 people was conducted in March. When it was first announced, Lowy's poll found support at 70 per cent. 'Over the past four years, the Lowy Institute poll has shown that Australians' support for acquiring nuclear-powered submarines remains strong,' said Lowy's director, Michael Fullilove. The strident anti-AUKUS campaign led by Paul Keating and the Greens has made no real impact. The Australian electorate is discerning enough to judge Australia's national interests. And to tell the difference between distrust of Donald Trump on the one hand, and, on the other, an agreement between Australia and the country that Trump leads temporarily in order to acquire a national asset. (With Britain, of course, the third participant.) Australians have firm views about AUKUS. We will not reward a sellout leader. Which leads us to a key point largely overlooked in the week's frenzied coverage. America is not the point of AUKUS. The reason it exists is not out of love for the US. Or Britain. It came into being because of mutual fear of China. Beijing has built the world's biggest navy so that it can drive the US out of the Western Pacific and dominate the region. If it dominates Asia and the Pacific, it dominates the majority of the global economy. Which ultimately means it dominates the world. If you don't understand this, you haven't been listening to Xi Jinping. Or taking him seriously. Loading Australians understand the country's vulnerability. For years now, seven respondents in 10 have told Lowy's pollsters that they think China will pose a future military threat to Australia. The experts agree. The doyen of Australian defence strategy, Paul Dibb, says that Australia's navy and air force would not last a week in a confrontation with China. 'A few days' is all it would take for the People's Liberation Army to destroy Australia's forces. Not that Beijing wants to invade the continent. Australian strategists believe that China can more effectively and efficiently coerce the country by merely deploying some of the 300-plus vessels in its navy to Australia's northern approaches. Extended live fire drills, for example, would deter commercial shipping. Australia's supply lines, imports and exports, would be interrupted. The broad concept – cutting Australia off from the US and the world – is the same one that Imperial Japan was putting in place in World War II. Loading Knowing this vulnerability, an intelligent island continent would put a high priority on submarines to patrol our approaches. Unfortunately, successive Australian governments proved more complacent than intelligent. The six Collins Class submarines were supposed to be entering retirement about now. Which brings us to the second key point overlooked in the week's sound and fury. Journalists asked Defence Minister Richard Marles what would happen if the Trump administration review were to terminate AUKUS. What, they asked, reasonably enough, is Australia's Plan B? He answered that there was a plan, and we had to make it work. More pungently, Jennifer Parker of ANU's National Security College wrote in this masthead: 'Calls for a plan B overlook a blunt reality: AUKUS is already Plan C.' Remember Tony Abbott's Japanese subs and Malcolm Turnbull's French subs? Australia is becoming a byword for fecklessness. China's shipyards are producing two nuclear-powered submarines a year. Australia hasn't produced a single submarine since 2001. It's entirely possible that the Pentagon's AUKUS review, led by Elbridge Colby, complicates the plan. But an Australian with deep and long experience of dealing with Washington predicts that it will not scrap the three-nation treaty: 'I don't think he will recommend kyboshing the AUKUS agreement because, if he did, he'd be effectively ending the alliance. Not formally, but it would fundamentally change the equation.' Either way, with or without AUKUS, Australia's priority should be to prepare itself to stand on its own. AUKUS was supposed to add a serious new capability but not to be the be-all and end-all of Australian defence. 'Things have dramatically changed,' Paul Dibb tells me. 'With the Chinese navy on our doorstep doing live fire drills and the unreliability of our great ally, we now need to do much more to develop the independent capability to deal with contingencies in the South Pacific and relevant contingencies in the South China Sea, events where the US would have no interest in getting involved.' Australia needs to be able to stand on its feet, not its knees, in dealing with its ally. It needs to be able to do the same with its rivals.
