Is Trump using AUKUS as a 'Trojan horse'?

ABC Listen.

Podcasts, radio, news, music, and more.

Nearly two years ago, Erin Patterson served beef wellington to her family at that now infamous mushroom lunch and her murder trial has finally begun.

I'm Stephen Stockwell.

Each day we're racing straight from court to a Mushroom Case Daily studio to bring you all the evidence from the trial.

We'll have a new podcast every evening that court is sitting.

To make sure you don't miss new episodes, hit the follow button on the Mushroom Case Daily podcast.

You can find it 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 stare at 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 Carvellis and I'm in Melbourne on Wurundjeri country.

And I'm Frank Kelly on the Gadigal Land of the Aura Nation in Sydney.

And PK, the breaking news as we record this podcast on Thursday morning is that the $368 billion AUKUS Defence Pact with the US and the UK is being reviewed by the Trump administration to ensure it's aligned with Donald Trump's quote America First agenda And the agreement, which would secure Australia a nuclear submarine fleet, is a key pillar of our defence strategy in the Indo-Pacific and in the US-China superpower struggle for dominance in that region.

But you have to say, Pika, it's been controversial since the beginning.

It's faced significant criticism here at home from two former Prime Ministers, Paul Keating and Malcolm Turnbull.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Richard Miles, though, is playing down this news that the US is going to review it.

In fact, he says Australia welcomes this review.

The review that's been announced is not a surprise.

We've been aware of this for some time.

We welcome it.

It's something which is perfectly natural for an incoming administration to do.

But PK, the Prime Minister is about to jet off to Canada for the G7, where he's slated to meet with Donald Trump face to face for the first time since Trump was elected president.

That meeting, though, isn't nailed down yet, which government insiders, you know, know, they say that's normal for these sideline meetings.

But there's an awful lot riding on him getting a meeting, PK, and on it going well.

Domestically, the opposition is really piling the pressure on Albanese to convince Donald Trump to wind back the tariffs that have just been upped on steel and aluminium exports.

And now the pressure will be to get the US President to commit to AUKUS.

If he doesn't get those commitments or he doesn't even get a meeting, which would be very difficult for Albanese to manage, I think.

Well, we'll be talking about all of that more closely with Charles Croucher, who's Nine's chief political reporter and he's also a former Washington correspondent.

So perfect.

Yeah, perfect combination.

That's right.

Look, I'm looking forward to having that conversation

with Charles as well.

But Fran, this is

really now a very complex relationship with the United States.

And I want to put it in a deeper context.

There's increasing internal pressure and and sort of shadowing about what that meeting will now look like.

The coalition has just put out a statement.

Now I know that they're in a weakened position at the moment after the election thumping win for the government.

But you know they are the opposition

and they're kind of really increasing a bit of pressure now on Anthony Albanese in relation to the fact that the meeting is not yet nailed down.

And now with this AUKUS pressure,

it's pretty serious, right?

Like they are now, the government could try and say this isn't a big deal, but we've got the UK reviewing AUKUS, we've got the US reviewing AUKUS, and Malcolm Turnbull makes the point, you know, and he's very critical of AUKUS as the former prime minister, but he says, well, we're not even doing our own review to see if it's in our own interests.

And I think that's a very meritorious point, can I say, because

we are kind of waiting for their reviews, hoping for the best.

And that puts us, I think, in a significantly difficult position.

Now, at the same time, we've made a decision, and I think a lot of people would think probably a reasonable one, but you know, the decision has its critics, that's for sure.

Australia joining with the UK, Canada, New Zealand, Norway to place sanctions on two Israeli ministers for inciting violence against Palestinians in the West Bank.

These two ministers are the most extreme proponents of what we regard as an unlawful and violent settlement enterprise, which

by

their actions

go against the notion of a two-state solution.

We do think that's important for peace and security in the region.

Now, these are two far-right ministers in the Netanyahu government, Ben-Gavi and Smotrich.

They have a lot of power in the Netanyahu cabinet and they've been active in agitating for and allowing the expansion of settlements in the West Bank.

They have been agitating for continuing fighting in Gaza, the return of Jewish settlements in the Strip.

They have said things that are so outrageous, alarming.

Can I say condemned by a lot of Israelis as well?

So this is how outrageous these guys are.

So to me, it's not terribly surprising that nations like the UK and Australia would sanction these particular figures because they are so

outrageously out of step with sort of basic human rights language and actions.

And we have essentially sanctioned them in a way that means that there are travel bans, assets frozen.

You know, it's largely symbolic, Fran, but it's ruffled feathers.

The coalition has been critical of it.

Yeah, Penny Wong has sanctioned democratically elected officials in Israel, which is a key ally of Australia.

She's used a regime, the Magnitsky-style sanctioned regime, which was established to deal with issues like human rights abuses and terrorist acts.

And when you read the government's statement, it suggests that it's actually actually lowered the threshold for applying sanctions because these sanctions are...

So the US is annoyed by it.

Marco Rubio put out a statement about all of these nations doing it.

At the same time now, this AUKUS relationship is being questioned.

Australia obviously wants deals on tariff reduction.

Well, good luck with that, friends, because there's so much complication.

There's a lot of loaded kind of pressure on the Prime Minister, wouldn't you say, at the moment, trying to resolve all of this.

That's right.

There's, you know, people say, look, we've got to bring something to the table to bargain with.

But meanwhile, the US is piling on all this pressure of things that say, look, no deal, you know, over AUKUS and over Israel and this sanctioning of these two ministers.

The sanctioning of these two ministers is interesting, PK, because we got the signal, I think we talked about this on the podcast a couple of weeks ago, from these other countries that they were going to put on these sanctions.

And Australia wasn't on that list.

And there was pushback from Ed Husick, the former Labour minister, and others on Australia not doing enough, calling for Australia to sanctions.

Then, when the sanctions were about to be moved, Australia's name was on that list and Australia was part of it.

That got immediate blowback from Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, said this was not helpful in ceasefire arrangements and ceasefire negotiations.

And then the opposition moved in and they're very critical.

We've seen a long line, I love to say this, a conger line of shadow ministers coming out and accusing Labor of diminishing the Magninsky-style sanctions legislation, which is all about bills that Western democracies have put in place to sanction people who are involved in human rights abuses, and said that we're diminishing that, we're lowering the bar, now it's dangerous territory to get

involved in sanctioning politicians for the words they say.

But PK...

Look, this is a tough one for the government.

It has been all along for Foreign Minister Penny Wong to get the tone right.

When she announced this yesterday, I must say I thought the sell of the announcement was pretty underwhelming.

And I thought, well, she's not going to really get the plaudits there from those who've been urging the government to do this because she's kind of downbeat about it.

But at the same time, there's this immediate

uprising of criticism.

So I guess she's trying to walk a middle path.

But the opposition making this point

about

about

the problems of what the government's doing here and lowering the bar.

I think that's, you know, we should just put some truth back into this argument here because these two ministers

were both marching through the Jerusalem Muslim Quarter this week with groups who were chanting death to Arabs and may your villages burn.

And one of the ministers, Ben Gavir, instructed his department to provide hundreds, if not thousands, of assault rifles to civilian settlers to quote, massively arm them and turn the world upside down.

So, you know, that's more than words, PK.

That is enabling violence in breach of a UN ban on settlements in the West Bank.

So I think the government's on firm ground here, but

it cops it no matter what it does.

And Penny Wong has become

a bit of a target now for both sides, really, those supporting the Palestinians and those supporting the Israelis.

And I wonder what you think, if that explains her kind of, you know, low-level pitch here.

That is what explains it.

She's trying to walk a very fine line.

A line, can I say she's been trying to walk the entire time she's been foreign minister?

And I suspect it's

pretty difficult and grueling to have to deal with that.

So in essence, she has moved Australia further along in support of Palestinians.

There is no doubt about it.

This is a pretty significant move and also closer to a two-state solution.

But she's been very measured and mindful of taking sides or looking like she's anti-Israel per se.

Now, that hasn't stopped her being accused of that from the pro-Israel lobby.

They believe that she has actually diluted Australia's support for Israel.

That is the argument that they make.

At the same time, if you are arguing for Palestinian rights, you're saying that Penny Wong's come too late, hasn't done enough, needs to go further.

That also has domestic implications.

Don't forget that, right?

It has implications for the way people behave in Australia and the way we've seen social cohesion in many ways splinter in the last term.

She's aware of those ramifications, so she doesn't try and use hyped-up language ever.

And I think that's what you want from people who are in roles of

positions of power and authority, Fran.

They do have a certain responsibility to ensure that they don't inflame a situation.

Yeah, I think that's absolutely right.

And that is top of mind for the government because in the lead-up to the election, they were getting hammered for not doing enough to, you know, calm anti-Semitic allegations and accusations and attacks in this country.

I remember the former Liberal treasurer Josh Frydenberg saying that anti-Semitism would be on the ballot paper.

Now we've gone past the election.

The government did extremely well in the election and I think they're trying to just cool all those arguments and atmospherics that were around.

And for the opposition to be contradicting the government around this when a two-state solution is a bipartisan position, I think lacks authenticity.

There's difficult balances to be struck by all our political leaders on this now and always, really.

Yeah, there certainly is.

Should we bring our guest in?

Let's do it.

Charles Croucher, Nine's chief political correspondent.

Welcome to the party room.

It's so nice to be back.

It's a good party if you keep coming back.

Yeah, it's great to have you, Charles.

Quite a bit happening.

Yeah.

Yeah, the party's really warming up.

Charles, as the PM prepares for a meeting with Donald Trump on the sidelines of the G7 in Canada next week, the Trump administration, we've just been talking about this, has really upped the ante with the AUKUS agreement between the US, UK and Australia, now under review in Washington to

ensure it aligns with Donald Trump's America First policy.

Our Defence Minister Richard Miles says it's business as usual, but former Australian ambassador to the US Joe Hockey says the stakes are actually much, much higher than that.

If we do not get the

Virginia-class submarines in 2032, we have no options left.

We have no submarines.

So this is all or nothing for Australia and for the what do you think, Charles?

Why has the U.S.

announced this now?

And do you think Donald Trump, the timing is everything?

He's looking for a bargaining chick.

Maybe when he talks with the PM to get a commitment of 3.5%

GDP spending on defense, is that what the play is here?

That would seem to be part of the play at least.

Look,

it's hard to predict what happens with this administration, particularly with Donald Trump.

But look, people inside our government seem really confident.

Firstly, Richard Miles says he was given a heads up by Pete Eggseth, the Secretary of Defence, that this was coming.

Elbridge Colby, who is the man that will head this review, doesn't have a great history when it comes to AUKUS, and particularly speaking about America's need to build boats for themselves first.

before providing the technology to Australia, providing the boats to Australia as well.

The UK have just pledged a heap of money, you know, multiple billions of pounds to their own nuclear program, but they're also upping the amount of boats that they want to see produced.

That's going to put BAE under pressure.

It all sort of stems back to the fact that we are the bottom of this three-country pecking order.

And if we get the nuclear-powered submarines on time, which is already well into the 2030s

and already well beyond when there may be a conflict, be it to do with Taiwan or otherwise in our region.

So

while there is confidence in Australia, there is that old adage, I was sort of thinking about it this morning, a Sir Humphrey adage from Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister, where he said, never set up an inquiry unless you know in advance what its findings will be.

Now, I'm not sure Donald Trump or the current administration run

with the logic that former governments have run with or yes minister ran with.

But if that is the case, then they know what the result will be.

And we have have to sit and hope that it's the result we want.

Yeah, but maybe because of that, it's a Trojan horse to get really to that percentage of defence funding.

I mean, the Defence Secretary, Pete Hegsketh, has been pushing pretty heavily on that.

He made it very clear.

And look, it's one of those bargaining chips that I assume Donald Trump will take to the meeting with Anthony Albanese if it happens in the coming days.

He wants to see, he's made this pretty clear through the Defence Secretary, you said, Australia's spending increase up to sort of 3.5% of GDP.

It's a whole extra percentage point on where we're heading at the moment.

It's a lot of money.

It is, yeah.

A lot of money we don't really have at the moment, too.

We're already operating with 10 years of sort of deficits in the future.

So,

look, Australia's been pretty clear.

They think, and our government thinks it will decide what projects and how much it spends on defence.

The other part is simply saying we're going to spend an extra percentage point of GDP doesn't get to the crux of exactly what we're spending it on.

Simply putting a figure without projects seems like a weird way to spend as well.

Yeah, it's dumb, isn't it, really?

Yeah, and it's not the way anyone would operate any kind of business.

But this is obviously not a business.

It is a country in its defence, the most important part.

A couple of people weighing in, Malcolm Turnbull this morning said it's time to wake up and that we need other options.

There is a literally a denial of reality in Canberra.

So this is like saying, you know, I'm going to have a party in the garden on Sunday and you say to me, what will you do if it rains?

And I look back at you and say it won't rain.

The AUKUS caucus in the US, in the Congress, have gone, you spare.

They say that they'll be effectively cheering in Beijing.

The Greens say it's a good chance to get out.

And John Bolton, who knows more about this field than almost anyone in the US or Australia, says it would be a catastrophic decision and be short-sighted if the Americans put creating their own boats ahead of sharing this technology, sharing the burden of defending freedom and sovereignty and all those things in our region, that if they put themselves first, it could mean that they will put themselves first in line if it comes to a conflict.

Yeah, well, you know, gift to China is the kind of vibe there, isn't it?

Yeah.

That's how it's been seen.

You know, Richard Miles getting out there, trying to sell this message, very confident AUKUS is going to happen.

He can say he's very confident all he likes, but this is a terrible look, right?

Let's just be blunt here.

It is a terrible look that he went to the US and handed over a very large check, right, of your money to people listening, to our money, and that we're getting reviewed, right?

We're getting reviewed in the UK.

They're having a review.

I think Malcolm Turnpel's argument about us not having our own review about what's in our interests is a very good one.

It's just, we're starting to look like we are just recipients of other people's sort of decision making, Charles.

It goes back to that line that the Prime Minister said after

Liberation Day or whenever it was that the tariffs put on when he said this is not the action of a friend.

It's hard to see this creating doubt, creating uncertainty, opening the door again to all the critics as being the action of a friend when it comes to something as pivotal as defence.

and as vital as this program.

You know, so much money is going to be spent on this program.

There are industries and jobs and careers and livelihoods that depend on it.

And then in the long run, there is potentially the security of the country that depends on it as well.

So

to be

flippantly just announcing there's going to be this review or for it to come out in the Financial Times and you're, you know, impacting two of your closest allies as America is doing, it does seem like it's not the action of a friend.

And it's the action that...

will embarrass the two governments that are impacted by it.

It's kind of interesting though, isn't it, that we didn't get worried or nervous, particularly when the British government held a review.

I mean they're still in the midst of that.

I don't think we've got the final part of it, but they've done some of it and the statements from the Defence Minister and Kia Starma over there, the PM, is largely that they're in favour.

But they did hold a review and we didn't get too nervy about that, did we?

So this goes to the atmospherics again, the timing, I reckon, the fact that it is Elbridge Colby, the Under Secretary of Defence, who is a known orca sceptic.

It says something about the relationship, doesn't it?

Yeah, and also, you know, you're dealing with Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth, who aren't known in defence circles, haven't walked in these circles for decades like so many of the secretaries of defence have done in the past.

It just, there's an element of,

be it real or manufactured, this element of a rogue actor in there or unpredictability that makes it a little worrying for those that are involved in Australia.

However, they are putting on that brave face so far.

So brave face, but a very complicated relationship and looming meeting with Donald Trump.

The opposition is heaping pressure on Anthony Albanese now.

They were a bit more sort of circumspect in the last week or so, but they're now going up and putting it up to 11.

A lot of pressure on the Prime Minister to try and get something out of this meeting with Donald Trump.

Well, to get a meeting in the first place, Peter.

Well, yeah, yeah.

We'll go to that, actually, if you can, Charles.

I mean, yeah, no meeting yet.

I mean, but there's also no confirmation, is there, that Trump's going to the meeting?

Has that happened that I missed it?

I mean, it would be a hell of a snub for a U.S.

president to snub the G7, the most important allies, the most important economies that support the U.S., particularly when it's being held in Canada

and not too far to travel from D.C.

to Calgary.

So that would be a hell of a snub.

I assume he'll go.

I assume there'll be a pull-aside or some kind of meeting with Anthony Albanese.

But there are these factors, both controllable and uncontrollable, that are putting pressure on the president's time.

Obviously, what is going on with the immigration raids and the public response to that will put pressure on the president's time.

There is a this huge parade,

a military parade that is being held in Washington to celebrate an anniversary or a birthday of the army.

Unbelievable.

That's going to tie the president down there.

He wouldn't miss that, particularly.

I think it's on his birthday, which the timing is coincidental, we're told.

Then he makes way to get up to Calgary.

And of course, there'll be lots of demands on his time because we're not the only country that have been hit with tariffs.

What has happened, though, and what has given the opportunity for the opposition to come out and demand a result from Anthony Albanese is that Keir Starmer has managed to get

halving of the tariffs for the Brits.

We've seen some deal between America and China in the early hours this morning regarding critical minerals, a short period, but at least it's a step in that direction.

So there are moving pieces going around.

And it's a bit of that FOMO mentality that if we're not in the room with the US, if we're not at the table, we might be on the menu.

And so getting in the room, putting the case forward and doing it without the interference of some of those people that are very pro-tariff and in some ways anti-Australian that surround the president would be important on that leader-to-leader level, not just for our steel industry and our aluminium industry, but for the beef producers, the winemakers and all other forms of industry that come out of here that are so important to the U.S.

and so important to our economy.

Now, this all comes, Charles, with the backdrop, the elephant in the room in this conversation, which is the LA protests entering their sixth day.

An 8 p.m.

curfew has been put in place in downtown LA by the city governor.

Donald Trump, of course, people have no doubt heard, has sent in the National Guard, the Marines.

The U.S.

Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, says they could be in place for 60 days.

You're a former U.S.

correspondent.

You've talked about your own colleague being shot at by a rubber bullet.

You asked the Prime Minister about that issue.

I mean,

this is incredibly dangerous, what's unfolding in the U.S.

And it is kind of like a war, an internal war within or something, like the president sort of turning on his own people, trying to provoke something here.

I think he's found an issue that he's probably got 70, 30 sort of support on, and he's wedging California, which is always an easy target for any,

particularly Republican, but any president.

You know, California is seen as this big liberal bastion, the biggest state.

You can pick on the big guy because they're there, but in doing so, he's picking on the little guys, really.

I mean, this is, in so many cases, the president's policy was going to be worst first.

That is, we are deporting those with criminal records, in particular, violent criminal acts, and getting them out of the United States.

And I think that's why you see such support for getting those people out of the country, because, of course, it seems like a threat.

But this really started when the immigration agents went into the garment districts.

You know, we're talking about sort of 50 and 60-year-old women here that are sewing, probably for below minimum wage.

It doesn't feel like that is worst first.

And that's why it's causing that drama.

You mentioned PKA who lives in LA, love LA, know how much of that economy and that whole state runs on migrant labor, but also also undocumented labor.

Yeah.

And so to remove all those people, a percentage of those people would cripple not just LA, but the United States in general.

And to have that fear in the community that every knock at the door would be someone that could be dragging you, your loved one,

your kids' parents off

and either locking them up, sending them to El Salvador or sending them on a plane back home would be a bad way to live.

And that's some of the frustration you're seeing.

And in the same place,

for those officers generally that are having to stand there, and you know, it's a very different scenario for them as well.

That they, this isn't what they'd be used to doing.

The idea of Marines being on the ground and not defending the country is bizarre,

let alone, I'm not sure it's entirely legal, and we'll see what plays out with that.

But

this is a very human

reaction to what feels like a very political action.

Again, we saw it wasn't just Lauren, my colleague, that was sort of caught in fire, deliberate or otherwise, throughout the week.

There are plenty of people that were, but it just eliminates any kind of margin for error on the action of officers who would be probably confused, probably conflicted in some situations because there has been violence scared.

And leaders have traditionally tried to avoid the chance where something that goes wrong can cause bigger problems.

It doesn't seem like it's happening now.

No, it doesn't.

Look, you were at the National Press Club where the Prime Minister gave his big address this week and he delivered a couple of messages there, but just two things I want to talk about.

First, you did ask him about your journalist, but also now there have been subsequent journalists.

He says it's already been raised with the Trump administration.

I spoke with Lauren this morning.

That footage was horrific.

It is not unreasonable to think that she would not have been targeted with a rubber bullet.

And so we have already raised these issues.

There is some pressure on him to raise it directly with Donald Trump, but I've just looked at the list of things to discuss.

Caucus, tariffs, good luck.

Lauren DeMasi.

But it is interesting that they did raise it with the administration.

It just shows that there is a real seriousness here.

We have got four so far, and it might be higher by the time people hear this in their ears.

Four Australian media working on the ground that have been affected by this

violence in whatever way.

So it's pretty serious.

It is.

Like the last thing they want, and this is coming from

Lauren herself.

Like the last thing they want to do is be the story.

Oh, it's the worst.

She's much happier being out there telling the stories of those involved on all sides of this.

And that's what she's back out there doing, you know, as we speak now.

So while sort of at first glance, this is something that should be raised face to face with the president, as you said, on Donald Trump's careometer, it's going to be quite low.

The issue of a journalist in the first place, a foreign journalist even more so.

And on the litany of issues that Australia have to prosecute and have to get out on the table with the president in what is a first meeting.

I mean, it's a hell of a task for Anthony Albanese if this meeting comes along.

So, look, raising it through the right channels, whatever those channels are.

There were people in the room at the press club from the US Embassy here in Canberra.

There's still not a US ambassador to Australia, which mirrors what happened last time Donald Trump was in power.

It took a long time for Ambassador Culverhouse to be appointed.

So that's where we're at now.

It is a big task, particularly when there's no guarantee and there's no...

the formal channels and the formal process you would usually go through in any of these diplomatic endeavors isn't there with this White House.

It operates in a different style and those well-known establishment diplomats that

run around in Washington circles aren't there.

So we'll see.

That's part of the challenge and part of the fascination of the next few days, albeit with

a big level of risk for the country, for the economy, for democracies and journalism, and the importance of that as well.

But real practical outcomes for Australians that will be decided, seemingly, in the next couple of days.

Yeah, when you put it like that, it's a very important meaning, isn't it?

Charles, look, just finally, we'll let you go, but PK was mentioning that speech the Prime Minister gave at the National Press Club.

And he was there to set up his agenda for the second term.

He did the same thing in the first term.

And he has this slogan now, this buzzword, progressive patriotism.

That's his sort of organising principle.

For a progressive patriotism, where we are proud to do things our own way,

where we recognise our democracy, our commitment to fair wages and conditions.

But the thing that did come out of that press club speech is that he announced another economic summit, just like he did in the first term.

This time it's about productivity.

Charles, the treasurer, has been raring to go on productivity for a while.

But, you know, if we look at the past, how instructive is it?

What do these big roundtable meetings deliver?

They seem like a good idea to me.

But, you know, do they actually help bring people together, break down the animosities and the barriers between the parties around that roundtable?

What do you think?

Well, it depends if you go into that mentality we spoke about earlier.

They never set up an inquiry unless you know in advance what its findings will be.

Never set up a roundtable unless you know what the outcomes will be.

That's what some of the business community thought happened last time.

The business community, from the one, the people and the representatives I've spoken to are going into this with their eyes open to the fact that happened, but also with a willingness to work with the government because

let's face it, they have to.

Such is the dominance of Labor in the lower house.

And if the coalition's on board, then they can get things through in the Senate as well.

Productivity is going to be the buzzword for at least the next couple of years.

I'm not sure anything can dominate as much as cost of living and inflation did in the last term.

If any one challenge will take up so much of a treasurer's time or of the government's time, but that is what is coming out of almost all of the numbers we're seeing at the moment is this need to increase productivity to get the GDP back up and to start growing the economy more, because seemingly having tamed inflation with interest rates on the way down unemployment has stayed low people are still out there working which is a good thing now it is a matter of seeing all that hard work turn into to profits for businesses to increase wages for workers and for the country moving forward so it's a challenge um there's no right and wrong rule how do you get around ai and automation and all those things and make it work in with productivity because that seems like the simplest way of getting fewer people producing more.

But how do you do that while keeping more people in jobs and making life easier for those as well?

So simple challenges once you get through Donald Trump.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

So easy.

Charles, always great to have you on.

Thank you.

Great to chat to you both.

Thanks, Charles.

Fantastic.

See ya.

We'll move to questions without notice.

We'll give the call to the Leader of the Opposition.

Thank you very much Mr Speaker.

My question is to the Prime Minister.

Order.

The bells are ringing.

That means it's time for question time.

This week's question comes from Michael, and it's a written one, but I'll allow it, Michael.

Hi, Fran and PK.

Senator Cox's defection from the Greens to Labour has got me wondering if the concept of gardening leave exists in politics.

I work in finance.

When someone quits to go work for a competitor, they may be required to take a long period of leave before they can start at their new company.

This is so that they do not take the most up-to-date company secrets to their new employer.

I'd imagine that Senator Cox coming from a relatively small party room would have some useful insider information.

Is there anything stopping her from spilling the beans?

Thank you for your wonderful podcast.

I've become a politics tragic since discovering your show.

Michael from Sydney, I love to hear it.

Spread the word.

Please send it to five of your friends.

Bit of propaganda from me.

That is such a great question.

Gardening leave, yes, it exists in journalism too.

Can I say if you're going to jump, you know, ship, go to another sort of competitor media organization.

For us, it's not so much just the insider information.

It's whether you're, you know, storing up a secret story that you then will take to the next place.

And I've seen it happen many times.

No.

doesn't exist for politics because really nothing exists.

You're not meant to do this, guys, but people can.

There's no way you can stop them.

And it's such a great point that I have not seen anyone else make.

So Michael from Sydney is the winner of political analysis of the week.

I speak to political journals as my day job and none of them have made the point that she comes with insider knowledge, which means perhaps she can arm the Labour Party with key information about the Greens and how they campaign and operate.

You're right.

I think she does.

And of course she can spill the beans.

And given she's so angry, as we know from her explosive resignation letter, I suppose she might.

And there is no stopping her, Fran, is there?

There is no stopping her.

Absolutely.

It is a great point.

You're way ahead of the the curve, Michael, as Pik just said.

And I guess it explains in part, I mean, there's a lot of reasons why the Greens might be very unhappy about Dorinda Cox doing what she's done, quitting and going to Labour.

But this is one of the reasons.

I mean, yes, they lose a senator.

Yes, she got elected as a Green.

And there is something to that unhappiness.

I do get parties who are upset about having campaigned for someone to be elected and then bang, they've lost them.

But maybe this is the real reason why they're so upset and are talking about trail.

And, you know, they're just furious that she's got insider knowledge and that it now goes to Labour.

Now, you know, how's that going to help Labor right now?

I'm not sure.

But I guess there's a lot of things in a party room about relationships, sensitivities, where the tensions lie between the personnel, for instance, who might be more moderate, who might be more radical, who to work on, who not to work on, those sorts of things.

So fair point, Michael.

Excellent point.

Our next question comes from Ellie.

Hi, Fran and PK.

Thanks for all your hard hard work.

My name's Ellie and I'm just calling up from Western Australia to ask your opinion on gambling reform in Australia.

Obviously the Murphy review was released in June 2023.

It's now June 2025 so it's been two years without a government response.

One of the interesting things I heard Anthony Albanese say last year was he's consulted with everyone and he doesn't agree with the view of anti-gambling lobbyists who want gambling stopped completely.

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any evidence of any gambling reform advocate who holds that view.

I was just wondering on your opinion regarding lobbyists in Canberra.

Do you think that this reform has been shelved due to lobbyists and political donations?

Seeing as 76% of Australians want this blanket ban on advertising and there is a bipartisan support for a report that's two years old.

Thanks guys.

Great question, Ali.

Yeah you're right.

There's not a lot of evidence to say that you should keep this and it's a great thing.

He's trying to balance the interests of a couple of different sectors and there is a lot of lobbying here.

Absolutely he's trying to ensure that free-to-air television that relies on some of this advertising is still commercially viable.

He doesn't want to firstly

destroy them.

Can I say it's contested whether this would destroy their business model, but let's accept their rhetoric just for this purpose.

He doesn't want to be the one that does that, so he wants to try and balance something.

I think there is a lot of pressure, though, still on him to deliver here.

I think even with this big thumping majority, you know, yeah, honeymoons go for a little while, but then they evaporate and they can evaporate quickly when they do.

And the people will be pretty upset if the government doesn't use their chance now with the big majority to try and do something that is less fearful.

They were in a lot of fear in the last six months of government.

They should feel less fear right now and they should enjoy that less fearful position and perhaps be braver in the way that they approach things.

And that thamping majority, as we've said before, brings with it some critics within its own, some pressure within its own party room.

And there are plenty of people in that Labour Party room who want those Murphy reforms implemented and they know that the public by and large want them implemented.

But the point you make Ellie about the lobbyists is true.

And Piquet mentioned the free-to-air lobbyists push and reality.

But another big lobby is the sporting bodies.

We've seen the power of the AFL in the whole Tasmania AFL stadium debate.

The football codes in particular, the sporting codes, the big sporting codes, have been really muscling up on this.

They don't want to lose this revenue.

It's a big money spinner for them and they don't want to lose it.

Now, the government has proposed some changes, which would be quite significant, but not the full Monty.

And at the time, they were indicating that they would support it.

They ran dead on it before the last election.

They need to get going on it now.

I think you're right.

I think the public wants it.

And I don't think this is going to fade away at all.

And I think, as I say, a lot of that pressure is going to keep coming from within the Labor Party caucus.

It's going to come in very strongly.

Yeah, watch that space.

Well, that's it for the party room.

Send your questions in.

The partyroom at abc.net.au is the address to send them in.

And you can just record a voice message and then just attach it to that email address, and we'll receive it.

And remember to follow us, we're in the Politics Now podcast feed.

That's where you find the Party Room podcast.

It's there on the ABC's Listen app, so you never miss an episode.

Insiders on Background is in your feed on Saturday, so you can listen to that.

And of course,

we will be back.

See you, Fran.

See you, PK.