Gina Rinehart calls for defence spending to be increased to 5 per cent of GDP
The mining billionaire and Australia's richest person said the spending should be more than double the current level of 2.03 per cent of GDP.
'We are all especially privileged to be here this evening, as we are free from a war on our shores,' Ms Rinehart said.
'It is my belief we urgently need to do more to defend Australians, starting with protecting our ports, airports, sea lanes and other vital infrastructure, and significantly boosting our smart sea mines, war drones and Israeli-style domes accordingly, and boosting our defence manufacture here in Australia, as well as our budget to 5 per cent of GDP.
'Five per cent of GDP … like Europe is moving towards. I have so much more to say on this, at another time.'
Her comments come the day after Mr Dutton vowed to increase defence spending to 2.5 per cent.
US President Donald Trump has called on allies to lift defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP. Rinehart has been a key supporter of Mr Trump.
Mr Dutton, Defence Minister Richard Marles, and former prime ministers Tony Abbott, Scott Morrison and John Howard also attended the event.
'So much of our wealth and opportunity, underwritten by past generations of heroes and contributors, stands at risk from the modern aspirations of others, their modern behaviour, from modern realities hitherto remote from our shores, our interests, our treasures, our lives,' Ms Rinehart added.
'That sacrifice won us time and with hard work, investment, risk, common sense, reliable electricity, vision, and blessed with natural resources to underpin a high standard of living, Australia has become a remarkable, successful home blessed with opportunities for all Australians.'
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
ABC host Sally Sara gave Simon Stiell - the UN's end-of-the-world-is-nigh-and-vegans-will-starve-by-2050 man - a soft interview just two months ago
Read Gerard Henderson's Media Watch Dog column every Saturday morning on Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was interviewed on Insiders last Sunday by David Speers. Shortly into the interview, the Prime Minister was shown this photo on a large screen. When Media Watch Dog first noticed this photo of the mother and child in Gaza it seemed unusual in that the toddler Muhammad Zakariya Ayyoub al-Matouq looked so ill while his mother looked well. However, on Sunday 27 July, ABC TV Insiders (presenter David Speers, executive producer Samuel Clark) decided to show this photo to the Prime Minister where the following exchange took place: David Speers: You mentioned the image of the young boy and I want to show it and, you know, a warning that it is distressing. It is confronting to any viewers who might be concerned, but a lot of people will have seen it. This young boy, there are various images of him, it has been very powerful, it clearly stirred a lot of global reaction. I mean, how have these sorts of images made you feel personally? Prime Minister: Well, it's not just that image but many of them just break your heart. That's an innocent young boy and for anyone with any sense of humanity, you have to be moved by that…. It would seem that ABC TV Insiders ran the photo with little or no checking. This is poor journalism. It was not long before the journalist David Collier in London revealed that the toddler was suffering from cerebral palsy, among other illnesses – not starvation as the photo implied. Samuel Clark was one of the many journalists who rushed to judgment on this issue. Including ABC TV Media Watch on Monday 28 July. The Australian reported on 31 July that the ABC's Media Watch does not believe that it has acted unprofessionally in this instance. It remains to be seen what Samuel Clark and the Insiders team will provide as a correction next Sunday. MWD will return to this matter in the next issue. On Thursday night's ABC's Radio National Hour, Fran Kelly interviewed Reserve Brigadier General Amir Avivi, former deputy commander of the Israel Defense Force's Gaza Division. At the end of the interview, Fran ('I'm an activist') Kelly felt the need to pre-empt criticism from the leftist mob that make up Radio National audience. This is how the interview ended: Fran Kelly: Reserve Brigadier General Amir Avivi was deputy commander of the IDF Gaza division, and these days, heads an organisation called Israel's Defence and Security Forum. We have sought comment from the Israeli government, but so far, with no success. And I know many of you will fiercely disagree with the views of Amir Avivi that you just heard. And I want to remind you that last night, we did speak to the ambassador for the Palestinian Authority in the UN for a different view. And that interview is up on the ABC listen app if you missed it, just search for my name or for the Radio National Hour. This was a largely unnecessary comment, as one could infer from the interview that Fran Kelly herself fiercely disagreed with the views of Reserve Brigadier General Amir Avivi. Comrade Kelly was in interrupter mode, conducting a combative interview with Avivi: Amir Avivi: Israel is bringing inside Gaza endless amounts of food. The problem is and that Hamas seizes this food. They are controlling the area, not Israel – Fran Kelly: Well, that is not what's reported on the ground. It's not reported from NGOs eyewitnesses, the doctors who are treating – Amir Avivi: At the end of the day, we have a false, meme campaign to try to vilify Israel, while Israel is the only country on this globe giving food to its enemies – Fran Kelly: Brigadier General, I think you know, and I know this is both beyond memes. I mean, this is this description of starvation has been described by the organisation that ranks famine globally as the worst-case scenario famine playing out – Amir Avivi: We saw the picture in the New York Times showing a kid starving, then it turns out the kid is in Italy, not even in Gaza – Fran Kelly: I say again, Amir Avivi, the IPC, which is the globally recognised peak body the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, has said that this week that the worst case scenario of famine is currently playing out in the Gaza Strip, and it's predicting widespread death, and it's been backed in that description by the World Food Programme, by UNICEF, by many others. Amir Avivi: The UN is probably one of the most biased organisations that exist. I want to remind you that UNRWA, that this is the representation of the UN in Gaza. These guys participated in the kidnapped and killing of Israelis – Fran Kelly: Brigadier General, you know that that is an exaggeration. A UN investigation found that 9 UNRWA staff members may have been involved in the October 7 attacks, and they were terminated from the agency. The previous day, Kelly interviewed Salah Abdel Shafi, Palestinian Authority Ambassador to the UN in Vienna. Shafi received a soft, interruption-free interview. How's that for balance? CAN YOU BEAR IT? Ellie's (male) co-owner is still grieving the loss of Laura Tingle to Media Watch Dog . As ABC TV's 7.30 political correspondent along with her weekly appearance on ABC Radio National's Late Night Live , La Tingle provided great left-of-centre copy. There were false predictions, Liberal Party bashings along with Late Night Rants on Twitter/X, appearances at the Sydney Writers' Festival and so on. It is MWD's hope that Annabel Crabb can fit into Comrade Tingle's leftist Roman sandals and supply lotsa material for MWD . Only time will tell. But MWD digresses. On Late Night Live on Monday 28 July, the left-of-centre Annabel Crabb was interviewed by the left-of-centre David Marr about Sussan Ley, the Coalition and so on, and they essentially agreed with each other. Comrade Marr then interviewed the left-of-centre Irish journalist Fintan O'Toole about Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu and the United States – and they essentially agreed with each other. Quelle Surprise! At the start of the interview, Marr reminded O'Toole that, the last time he was on the program, he predicted that Kamala Harris would defeat Donald Trump in November 2024. Hopelessly wrong – but not wrong enough to prevent another analysis of US politics on LNL by your man O'Toole. Then, towards the end of the interview, your man O'Toole expressed disappointment that he had not become a victim of the Trump authoritarian state – or some such. Let's go to the transcript: David Marr: Are you finding it easy to go through customs and immigration when visiting the United States? Are they stopping you? Are they quizzing you? Fintan O'Toole: I was terribly disappointed, I have to admit. I was, I was going over in May – just on a family trip with my siblings. And I was kind of sure, you know, because I've been doing a lot of online stuff as well, you know, for the New York Review . And then it's all about [the need for] resistance to Trump and all that, you know – David Marr: And no? They just let you in? Fintan O'Toole: And I thought, actually, I was, I have to confess, I was almost disappointed. I was just waved through. I wasn't asked any questions. Am I not important enough to be harassed? So, there you have it. Comrade O'Toole was disappointed that he wasn't stopped from entering what he seems to regard as the land of the Trump Fascist Dictatorship. Could it be that US customs officials do not read O'Toole's false predictions and anti-Trump rants in the leftist New York Review of Books ? And here's another question. Can You Bear It? On Tuesday 29 May ABC Radio National Breakfast presenter Sally Sara interviewed Simon Stiell – the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change's executive secretary. You know, the kind of taxpayer-funded international bureaucrat who flies around the world at the top end of emissions-emitting planes, stays at 5-star hotels and travels in limousines in order to tell mere mortals about the danger of emissions. Lest they bring about the End of the World. Or something like that. It was a very soft interview – as was illustrated by Comrade Sara's inaugural question: Sally Sara: You say that this is a defining moment for Australia. What is at stake as our Federal government decides its next climate target? Simon Stiell: Well, first of all, it's a defining moment for all countries…. Your man Stiell urged Australia to 'accelerate its transition away from its dependence on fossil fuels' to 'new green technologies'. Like green hydrogen, apparently – the future of which does not look all that rosy at the moment as various countries junk their green hydrogen plans – some of which are taxpayer funded. Let's go to the transcript: Sally Sara: The Paris Agreement judges countries, of course, on their domestic emissions, but Australia is a top exporter of natural gas and coal on top of our climate targets. In your view, should the federal government be limiting the exploration and export of fossil fuels? Simon Stiell: Absolutely. Science tells us we need to transition away from all fossil fuels as rapidly as possible. So yes, addressing your own domestic emissions is part of it. But exporting carbon emissions also needs to be addressed, and there, we need to look at that global picture in terms of not just the supply of fossil fuels, but it is cutting our dependency on the demand for fossil fuels. And that requires, again, global, global efforts. By now, Comrade Sara was calling the one-time Grenadian politician and property developer by his first name – Simon. She did not challenge your man Simon's predictions that by 2050 Australia's Gross Domestic Product will decline 'in the region of $6.8 trillion based on climate experts'. Not $6.7 trillion on the optimistic side – or $6.8 trillion on the pessimistic side. But $6.8 trillion. Nor did she query the UN bureaucrat's claim that Australia should cease exporting fossil fuels. Strange that – because company taxation revenue from fossil fuels helps to fund the taxpayer-funded broadcaster's staff – including Comrade Sara. However, Sara did put it to the one-time property developer that 'green hydrogen hasn't delivered as yet, has it?' The UN executive secretary replied, 'Not yet, but the potential is there, the potential is there'. He seems to be one of those types who seems to believe that to make a point stronger it helps to repeat yourself, it helps to repeat yourself. Then there was this: Sally Sara: Simon Stiell, thank you very much for coming into the studio for Radio National Breakfast this morning. Yes, thanks a lot. Thanks a lot. It would seem that the Breakfast team was late out of bed on the morning of 29 July. In any event, RN Breakfast missed The Australian's page one lead story that very morning – which was headed: 'UN overheater turns ALP target dial to the max'. The story, by Sarah Ison, Geoff Chambers and Matthew Cranston, commenced as follows: The UN's climate chief has declared Australia will let the world 'overheat' and fruit will be a 'once-a-year treat' if Labor does not lift its clean-energy ambitions…. UN climate change executive secretary Simon Stiell demanded Australia not 'settle for what's easy' when enshrining its 2035 target. The top climate diplomat…also warned unambitious interim targets would lead to a nosedive in Australia's 'high living standards' and make the current grocery price crisis 'look like a picnic'. 'Mega-droughts [will make] fresh fruit and veg a once-a-year treat. In total, the country could face a $6.8 trillion GDP loss by 2050,' Mr Stiell warned at an event hosted by the Smart Energy Council in Sydney on Monday. 'Australia has a strong economy and among the highest living standards in the world. If you want to keep them, doubling down on clean energy is an economic no-brainer. Bog standard is beneath you. The question is: how far are you willing to go? It would seem that delegates to the Smart Energy Council's knees up in Sydney were delighted to hear the former property developer turned eco-catastrophist's warning that the good people of Australia will be confined to one vegan meal per annum along with his comments about Australia's potential 'bog standard' on emissions. It would seem that no one at the Smart Energy Council conference told your man Stiell that Australia produces just over 1 per cent of global emissions. How smart is that? Moreover, Sally Sara did not raise this when she interviewed your man Stiell. And here's another question: Can You Bear It? On ABC Radio Saturday Extra on 26 July presenter Nick Bryant interviewed Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson – the authors of Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again . This is what Bryant had to say about his knowledge of President Joe Biden during the 2024 United States presidential election. Nick Bryant: Alex, one of the questions that I'm fascinated by, and I feel complicit in this myself as somebody who reported on his campaign for the presidency in 2020, is why we didn't make more of it? I remember being in Iowa in 2022, Donald Trump had just been impeached for the first time. We all piled into Iowa. I remember seeing Joe Biden at a small community event in one of those small venues that host these campaign events during the Iowa caucuses season. His speech was a disaster. It was this kind of wandering soliloquy. He would tell a political anecdote that served no political purpose. He would see somebody in the front row that reminded him of their father or even their grandfather. Iowa vets its candidates very seriously. He came fourth in Iowa. He came fifth in New Hampshire, another state that takes its role in vetting candidates very seriously. Then he went to South Carolina. He won the primary there, he showed he could win the black vote. But doubts remained about his energy levels and his cognitive abilities. Why didn't we make a bigger deal of it back then? Alex Thompson: Because once he won the nomination, people started shutting up about it, because then it was either him or Trump… Note that Comrade Bryant directed his question to Thompson, not Tapper. How convenient for Comrade Tapper. After all, unlike Tapper, Thompson did query Biden's capacity to continue as president beyond January 2027. See, for example, his articles in Axios on 26 September 2023, 10 December 2023 and 9 February 2024. Perhaps Bryant did not want to ask tough questions of the high profile Jake Tapper. Unlike Megyn Kelly who managed to get an apology out of the CNN Trump antagonist when she interviewed him on her The Megyn Kelly Show . Under professional questioning, the CNN presenter said that he had apologised to Lara Trump for terminating a CNN interview with her on 18 October 2020 when she had attempted to speak about President Biden's evident 'cognitive decline' in the lead-up to the 2020 election. The Megyn Kelly/Jake Tapper interview is covered in MWD Issue 736 – which went out on 11 July 2025. So there you have it. Ms Kelly was happy to take on Tapper. But not Comrade Bryant. Can You Bear It? AN ABC UPDATE IT'S SARAH FERGUSON VERSUS LEIGH SALES AND VICE-VERSA FOR A NEW IDEA LOGIE GONG Ellie's (male) co-owner is just so excited about the 2025 New Idea Logies which will be decided on the night of Friday 1 August. Hendo just loves it when journalists put their cynicism in abeyance for a night and dress up (or down) in their finest. Then there are awards when invariably arrogant media blokes and sheilas tell their colleagues how 'HUMBLED' they really are to receive this or that award. Without explaining how come they had campaigned to get a (Logie) gong in the first instance. Media Watch Dog understands that the following ABC comrades and programs have been nominated for the following categories: Best Current Affairs Program 60 Minutes , 9Network 7.30 , ABC 7NEWS Spotlight , Seven Network A Current Affair , 9Network Australian Story , ABC Four Corners , ABC Ray Martin Award for Most Popular News or Public Affairs Presenter Ally Langdon, A Current Affair, 9Network David Speers Insiders , ABC Michael Usher, 7NEWS , 7NEWS Spotlight , Seven Network Peter Overton, 9News , 9Network Sarah Ferguson, 7.30 , ABC Tara Brown, 60 Minutes , Dangerous Lies: Unmasking Belle Gibson , 9Network Best Factual or Documentary Program Big Miracles , 9Network Ego: The Michael Gudinski Story Seven Network Miriam Margolyes Impossibly Australian , ABC The Assembly , ABC Tsunami: 20 Years On , 9Network Unbreakable: The Jelena Dokic Story , 9Network Believe it or not, the various ABC presenters have been urging their viewers/listeners to vote for them – and not their ABC colleagues. Here's a pitch from 7.30 presenter Sarah Ferguson who has been nominated for a Logie as has 7.30: Sarah Ferguson: That's the program for this evening. And one more request for you. There's only a week left for you to vote for us at the Logies. I think the instruction is there on the bottom of your screen. I'd very much like you to do that. Thank you very much for your company. Meanwhile, look forward to seeing you next week. Good night. Sarah Ferguson is competing with ABC TV's David Speers in the Most Popular Presenter Award. And here is Leigh Sales' pitch for a Logie vote as told to Chris Bath: ABC Radio Drive – 28 July Chris Bath: You want to do some last-minute Logies lobbying? Leigh Sales: Oh yeah, yeah. You've got to, I've got to plug Australian Story . And also my other show, The Assembly for the Logies, which are this Sunday night. So if you haven't voted for the Logies yet, it's very easy. You don't have to sign up for anything. You just jump on Google, TV Week Logies. And then if you want to vote for Australian Story , if you like what we do, and The Assembly , which we're in the middle of shooting another season at the moment. Jump on and sling us your vote. We would be very appreciative. Chris Bath: How could you not? Leigh Sales for the Logie, ladies and gentlemen. And her shows, and The Assembly . Leigh Sales' Australian Story is running against 7.30 Sarah Ferguson along with Four Corners. For its part, MWD hopes that both Ms Ferguson and Ms Sales win – so that they can get up on the stage in their finest and tell the audience how HUMBLED they are to win the gong they have fought hard to attain. A JOHN HEWSON MOMENT IN WHICH THE ONE-TIME LIBERAL LEADER LINKS PUBLIC ADVERTISING WITH ALLEGED SECRET CORRUPTION Wasn't it great to hear former Liberal Party leader – and now vehement Liberal Party critic – John Hewson talking to presenter David Marr on ABC Radio National's Late Night Live (aka Late Night Left)? The date was Thursday 24 July. This is how the segment was presented: Former Liberal leader John Hewson says after two years the National Anti-Corruption Commission has failed in its mission to properly investigate allegations of systemic corruption. Hewson takes issue with the lack of action over things like procurement contracts and political pork-barrelling. He says we need an integrity commission which is prepared to have public meetings and that without that it can't be effective. GUEST: John Hewson, professor at the ANU Crawford School of Public Policy and former Liberal opposition leader. PRODUCER: Catherine Zengerer Dr Hewson (for a doctor he is but please don't call him if there is a medical emergency) received the LNL invitation after he wrote a boring column in The [Boring] Saturday Paper titled 'Sack the NACC' which was published on 12 July 2025. Essentially, LNL invited Hewson to receive a free kick to fang the National Anti-Corruption Commissioner (NACC) which was set up by the Albanese Labor government in its first term and came into operation on 1 July 2023. Hewie (as he used to like being called) apparently believes that there is massive corruption within the Commonwealth Public Service which the NACC has not been able to discover. You get the idea where the learned doctor is coming from – or, perhaps, going to – with this exchange early in the interview: David Marr: Do we know whether any of these [alleged instances of corruption under the previous Coalition government] are actually being investigated now by the NACC? John Hewson: I don't think so, no. We don't know, but they've had lots of representations to them about other contracts too. I know in the defence area there are a lot of contracts that have been referred to them and defence is notorious for... David Marr: There's work there. There's work there. Yeah. John Hewson: Procurement contracts that blow out in cost and seem to be favouring particular groups. I've always been suspicious of that when I go to the Canberra airport. I see all the billboards around the terminal, which are mostly global defence contractors. They obviously have taken the view that it's a bit of a honeypot in Australia. David Marr: But, John, if they're advertising in public, that's not corrupt. It's what happens in private. John Hewson: That's what makes you wonder what goes on behind the scenes that's made it so attractive to them. Turn it up. Your man Hewson can smell corruption in Canberra because the defence industry advertises its wares at Canberra Airport. Even Comrade Marr – who is not a supporter of what some call the military industrial complex – understands that public advertising does not corruption make. So, it came to this. In Hewson's view there is corruption in Canberra because, having seen defence industry advertising, your man Hewson wonders 'what goes on behind the scenes'? Really. It was not long after this exchange that the learned professor seemed to lose confidence and went into 'That's right' mode. When David Marr put it to the man Paul Keating used to call 'The Visiting Professor' that corruption is much wider than 'brown paper bag stuff', Hewson's immediate response was to say, 'that's right'. There followed 'That's right', 'Yes, that's right', 'No, I think that's right', 'Yes, that's right', 'That's right', 'Yes, that's right', 'That's right, yeah', 'That's right', 'I think that's right', 'That's right', 'That's right', 'That's right', 'That's right every single time', 'That's right', 'That's right' and 'That's right'. Yeah, that's right. John Hewson's first response to 16 of David Marr's questions was to declare, 'That's right'. Listen to the responses here. The Visiting Professor only broke away from his 'That's right' response when the presenter raised the issue of the Liberal Party. Let's go to the transcript: David Marr: John, do you find yourself at a considerable distance these days from your old party? John Hewson: Yes, I tend to have been referring to them as the current Liberal Party. But, you know, they've lost their – on so many fronts – their rigour and discipline that we put in place, seems to have gone. Particularly in policy terms and in unity. I mean, I remember when I became leader in 1990, I said, we've got three major problems. One was disunity. You'd had the Howard-Peacock years, and you had disunity between the Nats and the Libs. The second one was a lack of policy credibility where the Howard tax package in '87, was it? It didn't add up. And in 1990, Andrew Peacock couldn't remember the health policy. So, we went into that period without any substantial standing in policy credibility. Although all the time you hear the myth propagated that we are better economic managers than the government. How about that? John Hewson reckons that, after he became Liberal Party leader in 1990, he identified 'three major problems'. Namely, (i) a lack of unity, (ii) a lack of policy and, er, he didn't say what the third problem was. [Could it have been Hewson himself? Just a thought. – MWD Editor.] Hewson criticised John Howard for taking a tax policy to the 1990 election that contained an error. True. But Hewson did not mention the 'Joh Bjelke-Petersen for Prime Minister campaign in 1987' which derailed the Liberal Party and broke the Coalition. He also criticised Andrew Peacock for not taking a health policy to the 1990 election. But did not mention that Peter Shack, the shadow health minister, was primarily responsible for this error. Also, John Hewson did not mention his total failure in leading the Liberal Party to the 1993 election when Labor (under Paul Keating's prime ministership) won a fifth term. Hewson's campaign was a shocker – highlighted by the fact that he could not readily explain how a goods and services tax would apply to a birthday cake when interviewed by Mike Willesee on Network Nine's A Current Affair. Moreover, John Hewson failed to mention the disunity that prevailed when he was replaced as Liberal Party leader by Alexander Downer in May 1994. This is discussed in Media Watch Dog on 8 March 2013, Issue 173. On 23 October 2013, Hewson told Radio National's Julian Morrow that he stood down as Liberal Party leader in 1994 'for personal reasons'. Not so. After criticism by such Liberal identities as Peter Reith and Malcolm Fraser, Hewson challenged his colleagues to 'put up or shut up'. They took the first option. Hewson announced a spill of the leadership positions. Downer defeated Hewson by 43 to 36 votes on Monday 23 May 1994. The contest was so bitter that, on the Friday before the ballot, Hewson released an open letter to 'Liberals and all Australians'. In this, Hewson declared that he was 'not from 'the Establishment'' and did 'not attend a private school'. He added: 'I got an education through my own hard work, not my parent's [sic] money. I didn't belong to the 'right' clubs or play the 'right' sports or even believe in the 'right' religion.' The implication was clear – Hewson was running a class war line in an attempt to save his leadership. He even pointed out that he was not a member of the Melbourne Club. But Hewson failed to acknowledge that he lost the support of his colleagues in the Liberal Party Room due to his woeful performance in the 1993 election campaign. Former senior Liberal Party parliamentarians who become Liberal Party critics are invariably offered ready access to ABC microphones. Think Malcolm Turnbull. Think John Hewson who got a gig on LNL to bag the NACC for not finding former Coalition ministers corrupt – without demonstrating any such corruption. In the words of Sage Turnbull, John Hewson is yet another former politician of the 'miserable ghost' genre. That's right, eh? Verily, A John Hewson Moment. [I note that on 26 May 1994, shortly after he was deposed as Liberal Party leader, John Hewson was quoted in The Australian as saying that former politicians like Malcolm Fraser should stay out of the public debate over the Liberal Party and their successors as leaders. He added: 'If you want to give advice, fine. I mean there are plenty of opportunities to give that advice privately.' I also note that Dr Hewson no longer follows his 1994 suggestion about giving advice to the Liberal Party 'privately'. How convenient. – MWD Editor.] HISTORY CORNER Wasn't it terrific to see Michael Rowland (formerly co-presenter of ABC TV's News Breakfast ) back in business at the taxpayer-funded public broadcaster on Tuesday 29 July? This is great news for Media Watch Dog since Comrade Rowland is likely to produce much material for Ellie's (male) co-owner. Michael Rowland presented a segment from Melbourne titled 'Lower the Voting Age', concerning whether Australia's voting age should be lowered to 16 years. He interviewed school student Sania Ali and university student Will Shackel. She wants votes for 16-year-olds; he doesn't. Your man Rowland described Mr Shackel as being 'a prominent voice in favour of nuclear energy' but did not mention that Ms Ali is (according to Crikey ) a member of the Labor Party. Let's go to the transcript for one highlight of the event: Michael Rowland: Will is not too sure though about expanding that democratic process to include those under 18. Will Shackel: There are a lot of 16- and 17-year-olds who in principle deserve the right to vote. Either they pay taxes, they are engaged, they care about issues like I did when I was 16. But when you look at the vast majority of 16- and 17-year-olds most are not engaged in politics. I think a lot would struggle to identify the Prime Minister from the Opposition Leader. Sania Ali: So, the Prime Minister is Anthony Albanese, and the Opposition Leader is Sussan Ley. This is a somewhat unprofessional edit – even for the ABC. Will Shackel was saying that a lot of 16-year-olds 'would struggle to identify the Prime Minister from the Opposition leader'. But he was not suggesting that a politically-savvy young person like Sania Ali was one of this lot. Moreover, quite a few Australians of all ages would have trouble identifying even the Prime Minister. But the real 'highlight' of Comrade Rowland's report occurred when he spoke to camera in front of Melbourne's Royal Exhibition Building and said this: Michael Rowland: Australia's electoral base has been expanded a number of times since the first sitting of federal parliament here in Melbourne's Royal Exhibition Building in 1901. Women and Indigenous Australians were given the right to vote and in 1973 the Whitlam government lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 at a time when young Australians were fighting and dying in Vietnam. This is hopelessly wrong. All Australian military combat forces had been withdrawn from Vietnam by the William McMahon-led Coalition government by December 1971. Well before the Gough Whitlam-led Labor government came to office in December 1972. In short, young Australians were not 'fighting and dying in Vietnam' in 1973. By the way, votes for 18-year-olds came into law with the passing of the changes to the Commonwealth Electoral Act in March 1973. It is a left-wing myth that Gough Whitlam withdrew Australian combat military forces from Vietnam. Yet it appears that Rowland's howler passed unnoticed through 7.30 executive producer Joel Tozer and 7.30 presenter Sarah Ferguson without correction. In short, a Hat Trick for Historical Ignorance. [I notice that the only politician interviewed for 7.30's 'Lower the Voting Age' segment was Greens' Senator Jordon Steele-John. Not surprisingly, he supports votes for 16-year-olds. It is not at all certain that the Labor Party or the Coalition will support such a move. This was not mentioned by your man Rowland. – MWD Editor.] DOCUMENTATION NINE'S CBD AUKUS RELATED CONSPIRACY THEORY DEBUNKED As avid Media Watch Dog readers know only too well, in the view of Ellie's (male) co-owner, the CBD column in Nine Newspapers – The Age and Sydney Morning Herald – has little to do with the Central Business District in Melbourne or Sydney. For example, take the CBD column on 30 July headed 'AUKUS critic from US tangled Aussie connection'. It was written by Kishor Napier-Raman and Madeline Heffernan. However, MWD suspects that the lead writer of this segment was none other than Comrade Napier-Raman of what Paul Keating once called the Hyphenated-Name-Set. This is how the piece commenced: We are sure that there is nothing personal behind the intense scrutiny that US defence official Elbridge Colby is applying to the $368 billion AUKUS nuclear submarine agreement Australia has with the US and UK. Colby is under-secretary of defence for policy, the third-most senior official in the US Defence Department, responsible for briefing US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth. But Colby has family ties to Australia, and none of them are pleasant. As has been reported, Colby's grandfather was William Colby, a CIA director in the 1970s. But what has escaped attention so far is how the former CIA director later became an adviser to the Nugan Hand investment bank. It is difficult to find a more infamous name in recent Australian history. Somewhat hyperbolic don't you think? What about, say, the serial murderer Ivan Milat? Well, Comrades Hyphenated-Name-Guy and Ms Heffernan are 'sure' that there is nothing personal behind Elbridge Colby's scrutiny of the AUKUS nuclear agreement between Australia, the United States and Britain – if so, why write about it in Nine's CBD column? Here's the report of MWD 's one-person-band Investigation team which, unlike the ABC's unit of the same name, is very, very small. But not small enough to pick a conspiracy theory when it sees one. Unlike CBD. Here is the report: Nine's Nugan Hand Bank Conspiracy Analysed By Ellie's (Casual) Researcher Nugan Hand Ltd. was formed in 1973 by Francis 'Frank' Nugan and Michael 'Mike' Hand. Nugan was an Australian lawyer and Hand was an American ex-marine. The bank grew very rapidly because it was offering interest rates way above the market. In 1978 Frank Nugan was one of several facing charges related to his brother's food distribution company Nugan Group Ltd (Frank Nugan was a director of the company). It had also been alleged at a NSW Royal Commission hearing into Drug Trafficking that the Nugan Hand Bank was being used to transfer drug money. On 27 January 1980 Nugan was found dead from a gunshot wound to the head in his car near Lithgow in New South Wales. He had purchased the gun on 8 January. A coroner ruled it a suicide. Following Nugan's death, it became clear that various Nugan Hand branches owed millions - over $50 million was unaccounted for worldwide. There were also allegations the Bank had invested in gun running and drug smuggling and that it had facilitated tax evasion and money laundering schemes by its clients. In June 1980, Mike Hand fled Australia using a false passport and disguise. After going through Fiji and Canada he returned to the US. In 2015 Hand was living in Idaho under a false name. In February 1981, following rumours that Nugan had faked his own death and an alleged sighting of him in the US, his body was exhumed by NSW authorities and his identity was confirmed by dental records. Fancy that. A 1983 Royal Commission set up to investigate the Nugan Hand Bank found it had been involved in money laundering and widespread abuse of tax and banking laws. It also found there was no proof of gun running, drug smuggling or of CIA involvement in the Bank. However, a Commonwealth-NSW Joint Task Force on Drug Trafficking did find that Nugan Hand was involved in moving drug money. When he died Frank Nugan had in his wallet the business card of William Colby, legal counsel of Nugan Hand and a former director of the CIA. He was the CIA head responsible for the release of the so-called 'family jewels' – documents detailing past legally dubious operations run by the CIA. Colby had been appointed by President Nixon in 1973 and was removed by President Ford during a cabinet reshuffle, supposedly at the urging of Henry Kissinger (Colby's successor in the job was future President George H. W. Bush). On 27 April 1996 William Colby went for a solo canoe in Maryland. On 6 May his body was found near his home. His death was ruled accidental drowning, possibly following a heart attack or stroke. His grandson Elbridge 'Bridge' Colby is the defense official charged with reviewing AUKUS. So what? CBD said this of William Colby's death: Colby's death was officially ruled accidental, but remains the source of ongoing conspiracy theories which have divided his family. It's true that there are conspiracy theories that allege William Colby was murdered and there is a divide within his family. But these are unrelated. In 2011, William's son Carl Colby released a documentary film about his father in which he says he believes his father's death was a suicide. Other members of the family (including Elbridge's father Jonathan) have publicly disputed this, regarding his death as accidental. MWD cannot find any mention of any members of the family believing in the conspiracies around his death. According to available evidence, CBD's evident conspiracy about the death of William Colby is absolute tosh. Nine Newspapers boast that they are 'Independent. Always.' But not independent of conspiracies, it would seem. [Well done. However, this may have worked best in your (hugely) popular Can You Bear It? segment. Just a thought. – MWD Editor.] * * * * Until next time. * * * *
Sky News AU
3 hours ago
- Sky News AU
'Wake up call': Securty expert says Australians must take security more seriously following ASIO boss' espionage warning
Strategic Analysis Australia founder and Director Peter Jennings told Sky News host Steve Price that comments made by the boss of ASIO should be a wake-up call to all Australians on the threat foreign espionage poses. ASIO chief Mike Burgess at a conference in Adelaide revealed foreign espionage was costing the Australian economy $12.5 billion a year as he unveiled the inaugural cost of espionage report. Reacting on Sky News on Friday, Mr Jennings told host Steve Price that it was not surprising. 'This is industrial level espionage and intellectual property theft," he said. 'And of course it's being directed against Australia because we're a high technology country with very significant alliance relations with the United States and other developed economies, and it will be happening all the time.' Mr Jennings said that Australia needed to be taking steps to protect its military and economy from people who were looking to take advantage of the situation, adding that businesses needed to be aware of the risks they are facing. 'Mike Burgess touches on this in his speech as well, how naive Australians are to imagine that it couldn't possibly happen here or it wouldn't happen to my business,' he said. 'And Mike actually quotes Australian officials saying, oh, well, no one would be interested in going after my information. This is industrial level espionage and intellectual property theft' Mr Burgess on Thursday said "Many entities do not know their secrets have been stolen, or do not realise they've been stolen by espionage, or do not report the theft.' He also said that there were many countries that were committing this espionage. 'The obvious candidates are very active – I've previously named China, Russia and Iran – but many other countries are also targeting anyone and anything that could give them a strategic or tactical advantage, including sensitive but unclassified information.' Mr Burgess also said that he could not understand why some people were mentioning on social media that they carried a security clearance. "On just one professional networking site, the profiles of more than 35,000 Australians indicate they have access to sensitive and potentially classified information. Around 7,000 reference their work in the defence sector, including the specific project they are working on, the team they are working in, and the critical technologies they are working with," he said. "Close to 400 explicitly say they work on AUKUS, and the figure rises above 2,000 if you include broader references to 'submarines' and 'nuclear'.
West Australian
4 hours ago
- West Australian
New parliament, same old props for Anthony Albanese in ascendency
Midway through Question Time on Tuesday, Anthony Albanese received a yellow messenger envelope from which he extracted a slip of green plastic. Health Minister Mark Butler had already discreetly handed his own Medicare card to the Prime Minister minutes earlier. When Mr Albanese rose next, sure enough, he brandished the Medicare card that was never far from his hand during the election campaign. He was so wedded to the bit that, on the day he called the election, a staffer had to be dispatched to the Lodge to retrieve the green and gold card that had been forgotten on the early morning drive to visit the Governor-General. The reiteration of the familiar gesture during this first sitting of Parliament spoke to the Government's determination to focus attention on its delivery of election commitments. It wants to keep talking about what it's doing and sees the Opposition as irrelevant. The attitude shows as well in how Mr Albanese is approaching interacting with new Liberal leader Sussan Ley – or, rather, not interacting with her. He ignores her in the chamber and out of it. Even letters sent to his office go unanswered, where previously Peter Dutton's missives would at least be acknowledged. The Coalition meanwhile was determined to focus on the very topics Australians have just comprehensively shown they like Labor's approach to: health and energy. It didn't carry out any sustained test of brand new ministers Sam Rae (whose aged care portfolio has plenty that needs examining) or assistant Treasurer Daniel Mulino, baffling people on both sides of politics. The toughest questions came from the crossbenchers, like Kate Chaney asking why just 5 per cent of the National Reconstruction Fund had been spent, or Helen Haines wondering what was happening for the nearly 90,000 older Australians waiting an extra four months for the home-care packages they urgently need. Ms Ley and her inner circle jettisoned their planned QT strategy on the fly the day Mr Albanese produced the Medicare card to instead hammer the Prime Minister on the cost of seeing a doctor. Despite the boosted bulk-billing incentives promised during the election not kicking in until November, they asked repeated questions about why it wasn't free now to see a doctor. Coalition frontbencher Melissa McIntosh brandished her own Medicare card along with a credit card during Monday's question time, earning her an admonishment from Speaker Milton Dick: 'The member will not use props!' Mr Albanese, too, received a light rap on the knuckles – 'I'm sure the Prime Minister will look after that card carefully and will continue with his answer' – but it didn't prevent his gleeful grandstanding. He delivered a lesson in the old adage of campaigning in poetry and governing in prose – and fine print. How many Australians today were using their credit card to see the GP? 'Too many is the answer, which is why we want 90 per cent by 2030 to just use this little card here, this piece of green and gold plastic,' Mr Albanese said. Energy Minister Chris Bowen could barely contain his enthusiasm at being given multiple opportunities to point out the Coalition's ongoing rift over net zero and climate policy. After the WA Liberals' State council used the weekend between the sitting weeks to call on the party to dump net zero, Mr Bowen linked Andrew Hastie's leadership ambitions with his enthusiastic support for the moves and hit job on local leader Basil Zempilas. 'The West Australian Liberal Party state council voted against net zero, the Leader of the Opposition in WA came out and disassociated himself from that which earned him an attack from the member for Canning,' Mr Bowen told Parliament. 'The member for Canning will undermine any leader of the opposition that he can find. He's taking a practice run in Perth for what he intends to do in Canberra, sometime in the next 12 months as we all know.' Ali France, who won Dickson from Mr Dutton, asked the first and last questions of the fortnight. 'How has the Albanese Labor Government been pursuing its agenda this fortnight? And how does this compare to other approaches in Parliament?' she inquired on Thursday. 'The Opposition have certainly been pursuing their own agenda – or, should I say, agendas, because there's more than one over there: fighting publicly over whether climate change is real and over whether they support net zero,' Mr Albanese said, continuing with a jibe about 'a split screen showing a split party'. The Prime Minister cautioned his caucus colleagues this week against hubris, telling them Labor had to maintain its humility and sense of service and purpose to keep in voters' good books. That hasn't stopped him and his trusty Leader of the House Tony Burke from rubbing their opponents' noses in the new way of doing things. This is compounded by the depth of the Government's frontbench and ranks of rising talent, in contrast to a decimated and divided Coalition. It's like a grand final team running on against an under-14s side, one longtime political observer put it. From slashing staff to slashing questions and committee leadership positions, they're taking advantage of Labor's numbers in both chambers and control of the ways of Parliament to hinder the Opposition's work in ways that will barely register with the public at large. Take the last-minute stunt on Thursday afternoon, where Labor did a switcheroo on the private members' business for Parliament's return at the end of this month, coming good on a threat to allow Nationals renegade Barnaby Joyce all the time in the world to debate his legislation to repeal net zero. Labor also backed the Greens to set up an examination of 'information integrity on climate change and energy', which might have escaped notice had the Greens not belled the cat on it being an inquiry into conservative campaign outfit Advance. The broad sense from Liberals willing to give her a chance is that Ms Ley's first parliamentary test went OK. She didn't make a splash, but she is giving voters a reason to look again at the party. The fights over net zero and soul-searching about the party's membership and women should have happened three years ago, Liberals from both sides of the party's broad church say. It might be leading to some pain now, but better now than on the eve of an election. Same goes for contributions like that of Longman MP Terry Young, who told Parliament the 'ridiculous practice' of quotas caused more problems than they solved. 'Men tend to be more drawn to vocations that involve maths and physical exertion like construction and trades, whereas women in the main tend to be drawn to careers that involve women and care and other people,' he said. The response from most Liberals asked about it was to put their head in their hands. It was a particularly stark contrast after a week of first speeches from Labor's two dozen new MPs, most of them women and many from diverse backgrounds. They told varied and often emotional stories of what had brought them to Parliament. But the one uniting strand throughout the speeches was their genuinely heartfelt thanks to Mr Albanese — far more so than is typical. Again and again the new MPs thanked him for believing in them when no one else did, for campaigning in their seat despite many writing it off, for asking them to run in the first place. 'Advice given to us when preparing our first speech was that it wouldn't be a bad career move to put in a 'thank you' to the Prime Minister,' Rowan Holzberger, who won the Queensland seat of Forde, said. 'Of course, I want to thank him for his performance during the campaign … But I really want to thank him for being like a big brother.' Once the excitement of the new dynamics of Parliament wears off and the Prime Minister falls back into old habits, there is potential for his bulging 123-member caucus to grow restless and unruly. The deep and personal loyalty to a leader on display during these speeches shows Mr Albanese will have as firm a grip on his party room as he does his Medicare card.
