'Not if, but when' we recognise Palestine

ABC Listen.

Podcasts, radio, news, music, and more.

It all starts with a bizarre customer service experience.

We started to have problems.

As outrage ripples across YouTube, an army of vigilantes is spurred into action.

The one thing you cannot do is try to get somebody's video taken down.

But the stakes are higher than anyone anticipates.

Soon, reputations will crumble as the feud takes on a life of its own.

Beef.

Hear the final Showdown Now and background briefing free on the ABC Listen app.

Today the Australian people have voted for Australian values.

Government is always formed in a sensible centre, but our Liberal Party reflects a range of views.

Politics is the brutal game of arithmetic, but no one's going to vote for you who don't stand for something.

We've always been about the planet, but we've got to make sure that people have their daily needs met.

People are starting to see that there is actually a different way of doing politics.

Hello and welcome to the party room.

I'm Patricia Carvelis and I'm joining you from Ronderie Country in Melbourne.

And I'm Frank Kelly on the Gadigal Land of the Aura Nation in Sydney and the new parliament is sitting again this week of course.

Labor's massive majority getting, well looking pretty comfortable spread across the chamber.

But PK I think generally this was not a comfortable week for political leaders on either side of the aisle, and it had little to do with domestic pressure.

Since we spoke here a week ago on the party room, Western allies France, Britain and now Canada have pledged to recognise Palestinian statehood at the UN General Assembly in September.

I can confirm the UK will recognise the state of Palestine by the United Nations General Assembly in September unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agree to a ceasefire and commit to a long-term sustainable peace, reviving the prospect of a two-state solution.

And these declarations have led to constant questioning of our Prime Minister about when Australia might do the same.

And the answer, I think it's fair to say, has evolved as the week's gone on, and that goes for both sides probably.

Basically, every minister and every shadow minister has been pressed on this whenever they've fronted up for an interview.

And you you would know you've been doing a lot of those interviews.

We're going to be joined by Phil Coorie, political editor with the Australian Financial Review, shortly to take a closer look at the Coalition's position on this question.

But PK, where do you think the government's at as we talk on this Thursday morning?

And I'm...

time stamping it deliberately because positions are changing and evolving and Australia I think this week has definitely moved closer to recognition hasn't it yeah absolutely it has and when you say the position has evolved, well, the position is now, it's a matter of when, not if.

So, that's the biggest shift, right?

So, just to give you some context, last year, in the middle of the year, sometime, Penny Wong gave quite a significant speech, which really gave us the first indication that Australia had changed the concept of the timeline, that recognition doesn't happen at the end of the peace process, that it can happen earlier, right?

As part of that whole process towards a two-state solution.

Remember, Israel was only formed on the concept of a two-state solution, something that has not been realized.

And so

the evolution has been to now say, we're waiting for the conditions to change and then we're going to go.

Not maybe.

We definitely will.

And even that second statement Australia signed

just, I think it was on Wednesday, because every day there's been a new development, really talked about that.

I mean, it was really upfront.

It talked about the Palestinian Authority's reforms that it's promised, democratic elections, changing the education system.

All of this, Fran, is key to the government's preconditions, which is about saying that

Hamas isn't part of the answer, that the Palestinian Authority has to reform, that a future Palestinian state is demilitarized.

All of this is key.

The big question now, and I'm going to throw it back to you, is

when, right?

Because the government says it's not a question of timelines, but of course, I think timelines are reasonable questions for us to ask.

I mean, we have seen what has been

for sure not me just hypothesizing and making educated guesses, well sourced, I can tell you.

All of this is in coordination.

None of this is random.

The Prime Minister, let me tell you, is not waking up and going, oh, oh my goodness, the UK is going to declare at the UN

General Assembly in September this position.

Oh, Mark Carney, he's doing this thing.

Oh, how am I going to work this out?

It's all coordinated.

What makes me so interested is

how does Australia frame when it goes when it green lights now it's told us it is going to be a little perhaps slower even though it says time is it's not about the time well it's kind of a bit you know time is of the essence September is that next key sort of moment where the declarations will happen is Australia realistically going into that forum and not declaring when our close friends are clearly going to well we might not maybe

but we've said everything else and it brings me to this and then I'm totally I said I was was going to throw to you and then I kept rambling.

I'm sorry.

But it brings me to this.

Like

they keep saying we want to strike when it matters most.

I will say rather cynically, but I'm going to say it.

They've told us they're going to say yes, though.

So there's no,

we're not really surprised, are we?

Like, it's not really going to be a big thing.

Like, you know what I'm saying?

Like, they've said that they want to, that they're going to.

Just wait.

Well, it will be a big thing because it will be a contentious thing here domestically.

So, yeah, everything you said is right in that big speech a year ago, which was a big shift from Australia.

Foreign Minister Penny Wong basically said it's not a matter of if it's when.

But she also said then that Australia would act in concert with other countries when the momentum builds.

And the momentum, you know, is building, that's for sure.

The shift is now, as Labor, used to be frontbencher, now backbencher Ed Husick said this week, the moral momentum is here.

Moral momentum cannot be ignored and that momentum is significant in the moment and it requires of us a reconsideration of our approach.

I think there's no denying that.

The Prime Minister has let us know he's been in constant contact with Kia Stama.

Penny Wong spent the weekend with her British counterpart David Lammy who was here in Australia for talks.

So there's constant talks going on.

Now what we read this morning is the Prime Minister has met with members of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and reportedly told them that recognition of a Palestinian state is not imminent.

But PK,

I feel like the definition of imminent is changing every day because it's inevitable.

Australia will be part of this united push for that by that September UN conference, I'm sure of it.

And I think it's important to talk about why this all seems to be happening now with such a rush.

Part of the reason was there's a UN conference happening in New York this week, organised or hosted by France and Saudi Arabia.

And for that, the Palestinian Authority statement that you mentioned had been prepared.

It was meant to come out in June, but the conference got delayed because of

the conflict between Israel and Iran.

So that's been happening this week.

They've got this declaration.

All these countries have signed on to it, including importantly, significant Arab countries have signed on too, saying Hamas must have no part in any governance of a Palestinian state.

So that's significant too.

But I think the reason why it's come in a rush is because Israeli ministers, particularly the hard-right ministers in the Netanyahu cabinet, are now openly speaking about Jewish settlements in Gaza as a foregone conclusion.

Benjamin Netanyahu is reportedly putting the idea of annexation of Gaza to his cabinet this week if Hamas doesn't agree to a ceasefire within a fortnight.

So these Western countries are looking at all this and going, well, we need to act now now on a two-state solution before there is no Palestine left to confirm statehood on.

So that's why the rush, I think, it's Israel's open ambition to resettle Gaza and the West Bank that's added to this push.

Well, there is so much land that's already been taken over by settlements, France.

Not to mention obliterated in the conflict.

It's already very messy.

And so if the international community is going to get serious about all of this, and that seems to be, the Western international community, because a lot of other countries have been on board for a long time.

So that's what I'm referring to, Canada, Australia, UK, then

they're going to have to lean in pretty significantly because

this is a far cry from where we're at, you know, 30 years ago.

Like we are in a different realm now and we have basically quite a radically right-wing government in Israel.

And let's not forget Gaza being governed, governed, and I think it is still a relevant issue,

by Hamas, which is not a great fan of Israel's existence.

So there's a lot of work to bring those two camps that aren't really big fans of coexisting into a space, that's where the Palestinian Authority is key if they can get their skates on,

into a space where they, you know, respect each other's existence.

And that's a pretty hard thing to pull off.

Anyway, we're going to revisit this in a moment again

in some detail with our guests.

But let's just talk quickly, Fran, if we can, about the Treasurer's roundtables and

all the work he's trying to do preparing

for

this kind of big, all these summits to try and get some kind of reform economic momentum.

It's been an interesting period of a lot of positioning, the trade union movement and the business community.

community, everyone trying to make sure that, you know, while they keep getting told they have to compromise, compromise, they hope maybe they don't have to compromise too much.

Yeah, and the treasurer says, you know, we want you to bring your ideas, fear not, basically.

But as you say, there's all this jockeying going on.

The business groups reckon they were snowed at Anthony Albanese's jobs roundtable in his first government.

And so they're bracing themselves for, you know, what they think will be,

you know, demands from unions for more regulation, more trade-offs.

This week, the ACTU did say it may demand that employers guarantee workers job security before introducing AI into the workplace.

Now that's obviously, you know, a limitation that it's hard to see how it can be met really.

Obviously, AI is central technology to

changing how we work, it's changing the pace of breakthroughs in how we work, you know, what's possible to achieve in less time with fewer people, unimaginable change and breakthrough in just the last five years.

But central to this new investment in new technologies is Australian business and Australia lags behind other countries in R ⁇ D.

So government incentives, subsidies, regulations will be part of this due.

There's going to be a lot of calls for government spending.

PK, the budget can't sustain that without trade-offs.

You know, this week we've seen universities say we want a place at the table.

We want government to start investing more in our sector and commercialising our research.

We've got the independent MP Zali Stegl just today calling for the costs of climate change to become a more central part of this upcoming productivity roundtable.

So it's really shaping up to be a bit of a beast this summit.

I think maybe hard to tame.

Let's see how the treasurer goes in wrangling all these conflicting interests and

hopefully coming to a point where it's more about cooperation, not contest between all these elements of our economy because our productivity is lagging and significantly lagging when it comes to new technology and technological breakthroughs.

And we really need to do more on this front in particular.

Should we try and wrangle our guest?

Let's do it.

Phil Coorie, political editor with the Australian Financial Review.

Welcome to the party room.

Thank you.

Now, Phil, you've been bearing the chill of this second sitting week in Canberra.

Let's start with Gaza.

PK and I have been talking about the pressure on the Australian government to recognise a Palestinian state as other countries and friends and allies have done it.

But the pressures from within too, frontbencher now, backbencher, Ed Husick had said, quote, there's moral momentum for movement now.

And that's, you know, that moral momentum, I think I've said earlier, is part of the reason why I think these floodgates have opened on action from other countries.

Phil, where do you think the government is at on this in terms of timing?

And do you get the sense it's being pushed along faster than it's comfortable with?

Or is it part of the push?

No, look, I think in terms of pressure, Fran, it's a bit like internally, it's a bit like pushing on an open door.

This has a feeling of, well, as Jim Chalmers said this morning, it's basically a done deal, didn't he?

It's when, not if.

And I think it's a matter of when, not if Australia recognises a Palestinian state.

So could we see it before September,

before that UN meeting?

Well, I don't want to put a timeframe on it.

It's been a long-standing bipartisan policy that we see a two-state solution in that part of the Middle East.

From my point of view, that progress that is being made, that momentum that we're seeing in the international community is welcome.

And it's in this, you know, we've been all along as this crisis in Gaza has gone on, we've been acting in concert with like-minded countries, you know, the Canadians, the British foremost amongst them, with sort of various statements we've put out condemning various acts and so forth.

And sort of not seeking cover, but I guess

security and numbers with like-minded numbers often put us at odds with the US but

and you can see it happening here I think this will culminate when the PM goes to New York and the end of September for the United Nations General Assembly I suspect if we haven't

you know backed back the calls to recognise the Palestinian state by then it will be done then and that's where all roads are pointing you know the French have put it on the agenda there and whether we will probably take the more caveated approach of the UK and the Canadians that we'll recognise a Palestinian state as long as those conditions are met that Hamas has nothing to do with it and hostages are a loose and I mean the UK caveat's quite enormous.

It's basically unless Israel you

agree to a ceasefire.

I mean that's you know that's a caveat that will not be met obviously.

Yeah look friend I go back to the start of this you know after the you know the Hamas terror attacks on October 7 2023 I remember Joe Biden you know I think it was only a couple of weeks after, told Netanyahu,

don't overcook your response.

He said, you've got to contain your rage.

And he used the example where the US, you know, didn't get it right after 9-11

and they lost the support of the world.

You know, they went and invaded Iraq.

And ironically, talking about the circle of irony, that Iraq invasion led to the direct election of Hamas

in Palestine

in 2006.

You know, there was a direct consequence of the destabilization of the Arab world.

So that's how these things, you know, if you don't get them right, can make your problems worse.

But, you know, Biden cautioned the Israelis, you have every right

to exact reprisal and get your hostages back and those sorts of things.

But if you go too hard and fast, you'll lose the sympathy of the world.

And I think that's, you know, the point we're at today.

Yes, I think that is so well put because that's key here.

Remember, I just think it's really important that we just draw this contrast.

Remember, it was very hard for the Albanese government to walk the line for ages.

And it made sense because Israel had endured what was unconscionable and unbelievably traumatic, right?

October 7th.

And then this war was happening, and the government was trying to walk this line of saying, Well, we don't, we think it's too much what's happening with the war, but equally clearly, Israel has a right to defend itself.

There was this slight line.

Whereas I feel like something has shifted.

It's been so long, so disproportionate, so over the top, so brazen, right?

That that point you make, Phil, is that I don't feel like when I see the Prime Minister now, there's this oops, oops, oops, oops.

No, that's right,

they're not

working on eggshells anymore.

That's right.

And look, I was critical of the government at the time.

I still think they lacked a moral clarity in their initial reaction.

I mean, there was no ambiguity to be had in the immediate aftermath of those attacks.

You know, it was clearly, you know, Iranian-backed Hamas had done it.

And, you know, Labor's sort of instinct was to worry about how it would affect them in terms of domestic politics and I didn't think that was one of their finest moments in the way they they didn't react clearly at the time to those attacks but as you said it's it's become easier if you like to take a stance as Israel you know has just you know over-egged it especially in recent months so back to sort of the where we are now you know what you were saying before I came on air or if I joined you about

I see this you know it actually gives these these countries you know, the Canadians and us and the British and others, leverage, you know, leverage to force an end to this dispute.

I mean, it may not come to the fact that there is a recognition of a Palestinian state, but I think now the very threat of it is, well, it's a lot more than the threat now.

It's got a real momentum to it, and it'll probably, it'll happen, and that will make the Israelis sort of bring them to heel a bit, if you like.

And it's not just about, you know, getting rid of Hamas out of the Middle East.

And, you know, good luck with that.

That begins with Iran, you know, but but the Israelis will think twice now about their current approach.

Yeah, I don't know.

I don't know that we're going to get Israel to agree to a ceasefire.

I think that we might see the numbers calling for or pledging recognition of a Palestinian state grow and by the time September that vote will happen and we'll be a part of it.

There's no state, yeah.

But Phil, what about the opposition's position on this and other issues this week?

I mean,

the coalition frontbenchers who've spoken out on recognition don't support recognition now.

They say it should come at the end of the process because otherwise it's rewarding Hamas.

But also a whole string of shadow frontbenchers stood up and sounded to me like they were denying there's any starvation in Geyser either.

I mean some do and some don't.

Dave Sharma, who was once Australia's ambassador to Israel, stood out in acknowledging that people aren't having enough food and that's unconscionable.

I think the evidence is pretty overwhelming that there's a high, you know, there's malnutrition, there's shortages of food.

Now, you know, who's to blame there and how much is Hamas commandeering supplies?

You know, people can have those sorts of arguments and discussions, but I don't think the civilian population of Gaza

should be held hostage, so to speak, because of those discussions.

And I'm pleased that Israel has taken steps in the last 24 hours to withdraw military operations from some areas and to allow and assist food drops by air by neighbouring countries as well.

I think that shows you that they recognise that this is a problem.

Susan Lee and others, I mean,

how do you see their position?

Awkward?

I mean, okay, I mean, there's the controversy over that photo that the New York Times ran, and that never helps your argument.

But that's not the only photo and the only thing that

lining out with pots and potatoes.

But just on that New York Times picture, yes, the child they had to then add to their story had a precondition to, but the child was also starving.

Doesn't mean they're not starving.

No, that's what what I mean.

But

there's no disputing that people are very hungry there and

aid's not getting through for it, whether it's been deliberately withheld or whatever.

I thought Albanese made a good point in caucus when he said on Monday or Tuesday, when he said it was beyond comprehension, the denials about hunger in Gaza.

But he said

if Israel's saying it's harmless, harmless propaganda, well let the media into Gaza, you know, because you can't go in there.

Western media is not allowed in there.

So as we know, the first casualty in these sorts of situations is always the truth, and you've got claim and counter-claim by Israel and Hamas.

So, but you know, the images are there.

I mean, the Jordanians aren't dropping food packages, you know, for no reason.

And hunger and privation is definitely a problem there.

And I just thought the opposition could have been more forward-leaning in acknowledging that.

It's not just that they're not forward-leaning, they seem to be almost denying it.

They're saying Israel, Israel, and they're quoting israel's defense saying it's not so and israel says that hamas is stealing all the food and you know these are arguments that have been there all through this war um but many of the aid agencies have come out and denied it and said this is not what is happening now sometimes food trucks are being mobbed but it's by starving palestinians it's not hamas so the opposition's more than just prevaricating it seems to be absolutely denying some of them.

Do you see it that way?

Well, some are, yeah, like Sharma wasn't.

I mean, I think he was a bit more open yesterday morning.

There's just this sort of reluctance to acknowledge what other people can see.

I guess it goes to their pro-Israel allegiance.

And I can sort of see the argument that if you do...

you know, give in, if you like, to these demands for a Palestinian state, you're giving Hamas what they want.

And I guess that's the point

the Liberals are making.

But I don't think you can make it in isolation anymore because no one's really got clean hands in this on either side.

And as Albanese said yesterday, this isn't about teams.

It's about just people just want to stop seeing people getting killed.

You're sick of the misery and the heartache and everything that emanates from this.

And I thought that was a very good line.

And we see the extreme, the right and the left on politics in this country have teams, but the vast majority don't.

They're just sick of it.

They're upset by it and they want to see it stop.

And Phil,

I spoke to the Palestinian Authority UN ambassador in Vienna on my show last night, and his response to all this diplomatic messaging and switching and this momentum is, in a sense, who cares?

We just want food to come to the Palestinians.

We just want them to stop being bombed.

We just want them to be able to live a life.

So it's, you know,

we're completely distracted now by all this diplomatic going on and shifting, but really it's just got to end.

And that's the thing.

And that's why you're using the threat of recognising a Palestinian state is important as much in terms of being used for leverage,

if not to force the Israelis just to sort of back off a bit.

Now, I just want to sort of segue if we can to, okay, this has now dominated definitely the last week and even, let's be honest, longer.

But we've now pretty much, Thursday, we record the party room.

There's one more question time after we record, but really we're at the end of the fortnight.

Everyone's lined up and worked each other out.

There's been some legislation from cheaper medicines to childcare reforms to the 20% HECS debt reduction.

all of that's the sort of legislative agenda for the government.

And then the opposition on their feet in question time, their strategy has been to me, just going to say what I really think, like I always do,

a little curious, Phil, like a little curious.

You know, none of us have seen anything like this.

Probably you, Fran, you were around in 96 after Howard routed Chinese.

Yeah, well double that, right?

So I remember Catherine Murphy saying they were walking around as as if their, you know, their belts had broken and their pants were around their legs and they just didn't know what to do.

That's a lot of murphy.

But yeah, well, there was back then there was 94 coalition MPs and 49 Labor MPs.

Now it's 94.

you know, Labor, 43, but the difference is that 43, you know, should be more, but they've got teals.

And there's just, there's just no belief on that side.

I mean, a couple of them are sort of being stoked, but there's no belief on that side they can win in three years because of just the sheer mathematics involved.

And it's, I just, when they sat back and they took their seats for the first time last week, the sheer scale of the loss and the task ahead of them, you know, it was sort of driven home.

And,

you know, because there's so few of them, they get fewer questions.

So, you know, when you talk about strategy, they only get to ask the two and

then the next one goes to the crossbench.

So there's even trying to get something going is difficult.

So all they're doing is just prodding, really.

They're sort of prodding on safe space like taxes and and

trying to already sort of unwind Albanese Medicare pledge about

housing, just sort of go to those obvious areas.

But look, seriously, you could just ignore it for the next year in terms of consequences.

It's just part of their rebuild.

The fact they're not killing each other is probably triumph enough, I think.

Well, Phil, I think we should mention something that the Prime Minister wanted to keep the spotlight on this week, and that's the impending under-16 social media ban.

We want Australian parents and families to know that we've got your back.

We know this is not the only solution and there's more to do,

but it will make a difference.

He told us that Australia will hold an event on this at that UN meeting or in New York anyway during that UN meeting in September.

This week the government announced it will include YouTube in that ban.

Why have they decided to go after YouTube, you know, the home of the Wiggles, Eddie Woo, other school resources?

Why have they extended it here?

Because it was recommended by the eSafety Commissioner.

Originally, YouTube was exempt from the banner, because it's not really classified as social media YouTube.

It's not in the same category as Snapchat and Facebook and those other things, but the eSafety Commissioner, in a review, said actually quite a significant amount of harm to kids is done from stuff they see on YouTube.

Sure, the algorithm takes you down dark holes.

Yeah, before you know it, two clicks and you're somewhere else and it's not just very good.

I'm usually in a Led Zeppelin video or something.

I'll be George Michael live aiding.

You can make your own judgments.

But So it was based solely on her recommendation, but there are quite a number of exemptions for YouTube in terms of

because schools use it all the time, you know, for educational stuff and whatever.

So it's not like all YouTube.

It's just,

look, I'm already strayed to the extent of my expertise on this, but I think if you've got, you know, you can't have a YouTube account as a kid or something like that.

And my daughter was railing against this last night.

Well, yeah, my kids think it's...

Yeah, it's

the kids get outraged, don't they?

Oh, I've got to ask my kids how to turn on the parental lock.

I'm hopeless.

And I'm sure they're giving you very transparent advice on the like, yes, yes, we'll help you censor us.

Yeah, but look,

it is a serious issue insofar as, you know,

what it's done to a lot of kids, you know, social media and stuff like that.

And, you know, any of us with teenagers, it's a constant source of stress and worry.

So I guess you've just got to follow the advice of

the experts, but whether it works or not.

It's interesting, the PM said he's going to to take it.

He'll have a little seminar on the side of the UN.

This is not new.

Scott Morrison was onto this and he, I remember we, a couple of G20 meetings, he tried to put this on, you know, trolls and online content and harm to kids and he put on the agenda at a couple of G20 meetings as well.

So it's trying to get sort of broader global action on it.

But I think Albanese will get as far as Morrison on it, which is sort of nowhere.

But it doesn't hurt you to be seen to be sort of taking this crusade to the world and trying, because uh you know us alone can't really stop this but look it'll be a bit i think it'll be a bit of a sideshow at the UN to be honest the main game over this certainly going to be what we were talking about before in the Middle East.

Yeah, I think the Middle East is kind of the biggest show in town, isn't it, really?

So the whole world, every domestic debate has been absolutely dominated by it.

As always, Phil, you have been an excellent guest.

I wouldn't mind, though, just before you go, just picking your brain about something that I think,

you know, it's looming.

We're not quite there.

We'd love to get you back on when we know a little better.

But just productivity.

We kind of touched on it a little earlier.

Clearly, everyone's getting ready, lining up with their positions.

Huge issues are going to be discussed at that forum.

Everyone's positioning.

Am I right in thinking AI is going to end up being one of the most dominant things there?

It seems like the unions are really positioning on AI.

The government's trying to be a bit more business friendly on AI.

I suspect so because it's the big new scary thing that's coming at us at a thousand miles an hour and it's a really easy tool by business to employ if you want to save money and boost profits and productivity and it comes at the expense of jobs and

it won't be the only thing there Patricia but I think it'll be the big flashpoint because the ACTU is really gearing up on this and

trying to put limits and restrictions and there's splits within the government about how heavy it needs to be regulated.

You know, you've got people like Andrew Lee and Jim Chalmers sort of advocating the light touch regulation and others who want to go a lot heavier.

It will test Labor's relationship with

the trade union base.

It will bring those sorts of tensions, I think, into the show.

So, I mean, I was at a government service seminar the other day, a thing we do at the Financial Review, and these are people who deliver services to government, private and public sector, and this sort of thing.

And all anyone was talking about was AI and how we can do this and do that.

and and while that was going on one of the morning sessions you know the financial sector union put out a press release saying you know Combanks just replaced 45 people with robots Matt Komen should be kicked off the panel at the productivity summit and I sort of announced this to the room and I said these are the sort of political realities

this sort of thing's going to happen.

But look, I suspect it's just going to happen and they'll still be fluffing around talking about regulations.

It's so true, Phil.

It's happening.

And I'll be honest, right?

But you know, the problem is we've got to stop flapping around and look to what other countries who are racing ahead on this are doing and stop trying to reinvent all the arguments, basically.

Yeah, yeah, but there's different strategies, right?

Like the UK has more of a light touch approach.

The EU has gone more heavy-handed.

So there are different schools of thought about how to deal with it.

The truth is, it is upon us.

I mean, at Lassian's boss, Mike Cannon-Brooks, you know, he got on a video.

He was sacking people yesterday while his old mate was at the press club talking about the beauties of the world.

I know, right?

So, you know.

God tell you the scariest thing I've heard about it, and I'll go back to my 15-year-old daughter.

She had a sleepover a couple of weeks ago, and one of her friends complained she'd just been dumped by AI.

Oh, my God.

Are you serious?

Yeah, like

when I was young, you had to sort of man up and say it's not you, it's me.

And then the next generation started doing it by text message.

And now this friend of my daughter's got an AI-generated message from her ex-boyfriend.

Oh, I thought you mentioned him with an AI companion.

No, there's that.

No, no, no.

This scalywag used AI.

You got chucky.

You got to send you a note.

Get a lie.

Frame your own breakup.

What an idiot.

100%.

Anyway, I'm probably trivialising it, but...

No, you're not.

It's kids these days.

No, it's not.

But it does give me confidence that the kids will sort of work their way around this.

We may be worrying about it more than we need to because the kids have already mastered this and that.

You know what?

I hate to sound like

a wowzer or whatever.

I'll codge you.

Yeah,

which I am.

But yeah, they kind of work it out.

But also, we've cooked them with social media.

We actually have cooked them.

So we do have to...

I'm not like a regulate, crazy person, but I do think that you need to have conversations about all of this, right?

Like it can't be happening and then you realize later it happened, which is what happened with social media, Phil.

It's all you can do.

It's all, look, I'm not offering anyone advice, but I just find

you can't control it.

You just got to try and make sure they're

acting responsibly.

Yes.

What's the other word that gets used instead of regulation out?

Guardrails.

Safeguards.

Well, I feel safe talking to you at least.

Thank you, Phil.

Really great to have you on the pod.

Good on you, guys.

Always great, Phil.

Thanks so much.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

My question is to the Prime Minister.

Well, the bells are ringing, and that means it's time for question time.

And this week's question comes from Alex.

Hi, Fran and Piquet.

This is Alex coming to you from Boonarong Country in the beautiful Wyndham area in Melbourne's West.

Huge fan of the show.

Thank you for everything you're doing.

My question today is around Dorothy Dixes, which are always hilarious.

My first question is, how do they choose who asks the question?

It always seems like a very random person in the government benches.

And my second question is,

can we get rid of them?

Is there anything that people can do to get rid of them?

Because they drive me crazy.

Thanks so much.

Keep up the incredible work.

Alex, that is is a great question.

Okay, Dorothy Dix's, which I like you saying, are always hilarious.

They kind of are, right?

They're also...

They do drive me a bit crazy, to be honest.

Oh, yeah, totally.

Tell me how wonderful,

the wonderful work the government is doing on, you know, area so that the government can then talk.

Okay, so how does it all happen?

Well, the government has a sort of everyone kind of can put forward the names of who's going to ask questions.

The opposition gets a number, the crossbench now, and the government, you know, because they're all representative of a number of the seats and communities, so that's carved out.

The government has its own tactics committee, and it's, you know, people like Tony Burke, who's the manager of government business, that kind of they kind of make a list of who should ask the questions.

At the moment, you can see what the government's strategy has been, which is to give,

you know, the first question time that I was there for last week, it was, you know,

the new member for Dixon who had replaced Peter Dutton, the member for Melbourne.

So to highlight their MPs that are perhaps in marginal seats or seats that they want, you know, to get on camera and to get those people in the spotlight to ask the question.

Now, can you get rid of them?

Well, the government has a right to a certain number of questions, so that would be kind of undemocratic not to allow them the chance to ask a question.

I know they all work in a very organised, we're all on the same page way, but the idea is having questions representative of the the seats and the government has a lot of seats so to get rid of them having the right to ask questions would be odd because it would be like oh you're the government so you're not allowed to you know represent your electorates so that's the quirk in that so yes they exist they drive you nuts i just see them as part of the system they don't actually drive me that crazy maybe it's just i'm so used to them um and i always love uh the hilarious way that the you know minister says oh and it's so great to have a new member for menzies or you know and then they're kind of bragging.

You can always see a bit of the hubris there.

I don't know, Fran, what do you reckon?

Well, yeah, that's how they use.

They are a bit of a reward, or they are used by the government to make big announcements and get announcements out there.

And in that sense, they do play some role.

Look, there has been pushes against them in the past.

And I'm not sure where we're at now, Picard.

I haven't been to question time for a while, but there are time limits on answers now.

There never used to be time limits, and so that was.

was a real problem.

But they brought in time limits, which means you can't just have Dorothy Dixon answers that go on forever and basically ministerial statements.

So that's one improvement.

Could you get rid of them?

No, you're not going to get rid of them.

No, you're not going to get rid of them.

And sorry, Alex.

Yeah, no, Alex, you're not going to get rid of them.

But no, no, no, embrace them, Alex.

I always find them,

I get to see the new member, stand up, work it out, especially now Labor has all these new members.

So it's a great way to become familiar with who they are because they won all these seats that they didn't expect to see wins.

So you see new people, a bit of performance from different ministers.

Yeah, I can see why people find them annoying, but I suppose, you know, governments get them and there's a mix.

There's also provocative questions from the opposition and the crossbench.

So it all comes out in the mix.

That's it for the party room today.

Sending your questions because we love getting them.

We're especially fond of voice notes, which you can email to thepartyroom at abc.net.au.

And remember, follow Politics Now on the ABC Listen app.

That's the feed where you'll find this party room podcast so you never miss an episode.

And David Spears will be back in your podcast feed on Saturday for Insiders on Background.

He's speaking to Thomas Mayo, who's of course one of the yes campaigners for the referendum, Indigenous leader, really, I think, of the next generation very much.

So it'd be interesting to hear what he has to say because the GAMA festival is unfolding this weekend.

We haven't focused a lot on those issues.

We will next week to see after what the Prime Minister has said.

That's always a very pivotal moment, Garma.

Of course, the Closing the Gap report has come out.

Some really, really,

some of the findings are very disturbing.

We will get into all of that.

But yeah, definitely listen to Insiders on Background on Saturday.

See you, Fran.

See you, PK.