Topics: Trump-Netanyahu phone call, AUKUS, Sky News poll

LAURA JAYES: Joining me now is Liberal Senator and former Australian ambassador to Israel, Dave Sharma. Dave, great to see you. this a surprise? mean, they were hand in glove getting into this war, but now they seem at odds about how they get out.

‍

DAVE SHARMA: Well, I wouldn't overinterpret or over-dramatize the media reporting. I've seen different accounts of the phone call. look, clearly, they're two different countries. have different national interests. Including in the conclusion of this conflict. Israel is predominantly focused on Hezbollah and removing the threat from Hezbollah. Iran is trying to protect Hezbollah, and the United States wants to reopen the of Hormuz. Having all those different objectives, if you like, reconciled, it's bound to cause some friction. I think— mean, look, Israel and the United States in an operation of this intensity and scale, of course, they're going to be points of difference and disagreement. But I think fundamentally they're still in alignment. We're talking tactical decisions that are causing points of difference.

‍

LAURA JAYES: It's more than tactical, it? Pretty early on, I would say that they both had different views about what they— the mission actually was. And they do now.

‍

DAVE SHARMA: Well, look, I think you've seen, I mean, the highest level of coordination between the United States and Israel in their entire— Israel's history in this operation, Operation Epic Fury, as United States calls it. Israel has a different name. It’s been a joint military operation, which is unprecedented in its history. And I think in large part they've wanted to ensure that Iran can no longer pose a threat to its region. Iran can no longer pursue nuclear weapons and Iran can no longer fund and support and arm terrorist proxies in its region. And on most measures, not all, but most measures, that operation has been successful But, we are at the end stages of that operation. The ceasefire has been in effect now for about 6 to 8 weeks. A ceasefire that's being not always strictly observed but has largely held. But, in terms of the final deal here, obviously the United States is having direct talks with Iran or through proxies, but directly negotiating. Israel is not part of those direct negotiations. It's inevitable that a bit of daylight will start to emerge. But I would say it's not a huge amount of daylight. It's what you'd expect for something where—

‍

LAURA JAYES: Is it though? Are you downplaying it? Because, I we have seen staunch defense of Benjamin from Donald Trump. Of course, this has not been denied from the Trump administration. That doesn't mean it is strictly true. But if even part of it is true, you don't have the expletives. does show that there's frustration on Trump's side. And he does think that Netanyahu is being ungrateful. this entirely, this have been predicted?

‍

DAVE SHARMA: Look, think you need to— know, obviously the Trump administration has had some pretty big public blowups with all sorts of leaders, whether it's the UK Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, or the German Chancellor more recently, or Ukraine's president not that long ago. But those relationships still remain close and intact. The Canadian Prime Minister, Mark Carney. So, this is part of the modus operandi of the Trump administration. There's some public disagreements or flares come out quite often, more than you'd see in previous administrations, but you've got to accept that that's the baseline normal here. I don't think that what we're seeing with Israel is any different to what we've seen with US-UK or US-Canada or US-Ukraine for that matter. I don't, I don't think— I think there's, there's clearly some points of disagreement and difference here. Trump is very focused on securing a negotiated outcome with Iran. Israel is more focused on making sure that Hezbollah does not continue to rain rockets down on it and pose a continued military threat. That's legitimate for both of to have those different interests. But it does mean that there is— there are some public and private differences here. Like I said, I don't think this is a rupture or a crisis or a strategic gap or anything else like this. I think it's not quite business as usual, but not too far from it.

‍

LAURA JAYES: Yeah, I would call it a rupture, but that's all right. We can choose different words to describe this. But it is notable that even after this phone call and you see Iran saying, this is a problem with negotiations. they would say that Hezbollah is backed by Iran and that exactly is exactly who Israel is striking at deep into Lebanon. But it's significant, isn't it, that even after this phone call, those strikes continued from Israel?

‍

DAVE SHARMA: Look, from what I understand, mean, what Israel is hitting is largely Hezbollah targets in southern Lebanon that are being used to launch drone and missile and rocket attacks against Israel. But what Israel has pulled back from is a larger and more advanced ground and air operation into the suburbs of Beirut. Now, I understand that was what was really the subject of the discussion between Trump and Netanyahu. I don't have any privileged access there. That's just on the insides. you'd recall, mean, the United States and Iran have continued to exchange fire periodically despite a ceasefire being in place there. So I think Israel has wound back its operation. But look, obviously, if they see a drone being launched from the side or a rocket being launched from a site in southern Lebanon that's targeted on a town in northern Israel, they will hit that site. I think you'd have to expect, know, unless Hezbollah is respecting a ceasefire as well, you can't expect Israel to do so. Hezbollah is part of this, part of these negotiations with Iran.

‍

LAURA JAYES: Absolutely it is. And Hezbollah can only exist with Iran's backing. Let me ask you about AUKUS, though, because this looked like a done deal, that there was strong bipartisan support, but that is significantly fractured. And Richard Marles is flat out trying to convince some on his own side that it's worth it.

‍

DAVE SHARMA: Well, look, I think, the Coalition part of bipartisan support for AUKUS remains strong and intact. But what we've seen is on the Labor side, the support fracture. And we've seen a senior Labor figure, former cabinet minister Ed Husic, come out saying it needs to go back to caucus. We've got an assistant minister, Josh Wilson, who's historically been on the record as opposed to all— because we've got any number of trade union leaders and senior Labor factional figures saying this needs to be revisited. I think Labor needs to get its own house in order and its own troops in line and reassure not only the public but importantly the United States and the United Kingdom that this commitment on Labor's side, which we know has always been a little fragile is rock solid because, we're getting to the pointy end of arrangements with AUKUS.

‍

LAURA JAYES: What about the budget? you— mean, I've heard Tim Wilson tell Pete Stefanovic this morning they're going to move amendments on this bill. Are they— have any kind of hope that they will get up though, particularly in the Senate? And will you ultimately vote against these tax cuts? I know it's a political wedge, but is that what are you going to do, or are you going to wave them through?

‍

DAVE SHARMA: Look, firstly, the position we ultimately take on this legislation is not going to be up to me, so I can't— I can't speak on behalf of us. look, just start with the obvious point: Labor's done a huge betrayal of the public's confidence here by breaking promises that they gave before the last election, by not taking these changes to an election, by not seeking a mandate for them. And it's only right and proper that if they're to engage with a breach of faith of that magnitude, that at least the Parliament has some time to examine and consider them. Now, some of these changes are going to a Senate inquiry. Labor didn't want them to, but it's a very truncated and short Senate inquiry, not nearly long enough to hear from Australian stakeholders and business owners and investors and, small operators about the impact these changes will have on them. It should be much longer, and we would like to see a longer time period for the full consequences, unintended and negative and otherwise, be examined for the full details of this policy to be fleshed out, because we're still only getting those things drip-fed to us and to assess the consequences before we take a position on them. Prima facie, our position is we're entirely opposed to these Labor tax increases and we don't think they do anything to improve the operation of economy or get productivity growing or get the economy moving again.

‍

LAURA JAYES: What about this poll? after poll. We've got another one today here on Sky News, a Sky News poll that shows that One Nation is certainly on the march. that you needed any more confirmation of that. There's been an electoral win in Farrer as well, but it's eating into Labor's heartland quite significantly. I don't think the budget helped that. But now there's calls from One Nation for the right, i.e., the Coalition and the Liberal Party and One Nation to work together. Can you see that happening? you advocate for that happening?

‍

DAVE SHARMA: Look, I think our job as Liberals in the Coalition is to be a credible alternative government to Labor. And I'm not interested in, I think, know, talking about moving around the deck chairs and figuring out new constellations. I our conversations that we should be having are not with other parties in the Parliament, it's with the Australian public and the Australian people and convincing them why we have a better alternative view of how to manage Australia, how to get the economy standard of living. think that's our job. I know there's a lot of people who want to sort of play these games and move battleships around the board. fundamentally don't think that's our role. And I can understand why people engage in that speculation, but I just don't think it's healthy or productive for those of us who are seeking to represent the Coalition here.

‍

LAURA JAYES: Well, it's existential for the Liberal Party, really, isn't it? mean, I remember when you ran for Wentworth, I think you ran under the banner of a modern liberal. Which, know, One Nation is certainly on the march in the outer suburbs and the bush. Is there a problem there, that disconnect between wanting to be all things to all people, campaigning in the cities and then campaigning in the regions? Is that hard for the Liberals, increasingly harder?

‍

DAVE SHARMA: Look, I think to state the obvious, the two-party system, if you like, has come under growing pressure in Australia, but around the world as well over the last 3 to 4 years. But ultimately, I I'm someone who believes in the two-party system because ultimately I think you're better off having a single party that can govern in in the entire interests of the country, that represents regions and cities, that represents different states, that represents different demographics, because ultimately politics is about trade-offs between different constituencies and trying to identify the best national interest amongst competing sectional interests. A lot of these smaller parties - they don't seek to govern for the entirety of Australia. don't seek to formulate policy on behalf of the entirety of Australia. They seek to represent a narrow constituency and often enough just to channel or exaggerate or catalyse their anger. I don't think that's a healthy way to run a body politic. But look, I accept voters and other people might have a different view.

‍

LAURA JAYES: If you had to choose Prime Minister Albanese or Prime Minister Hanson, if they were the two choices, what would you choose,

‍

DAVE SHARMA: I don't accept that choice, Laura. I think it's our job as Liberals to make sure that choice between Prime Minister Anthony Albanese or Jim Chalmers or whoever else it might be on their side and Angus Taylor— that's the contest that we're interested in. That's the contest that I want to make sure one that the public is dealing with.

‍

LAURA JAYES: OK, so there was a choice between teaming up with One Nation to kick Albanese out or not, what would it be?

‍

DAVE SHARMA: Laura, I play Would You Rather with my kids all the time. It's a great game. If were sitting around a dinner table, maybe I'd have this conversation, these are hypotheticals. It's not my role to engage in this sort of speculation. It's my role to make sure that we are a competitive political alternative to all other political parties at the next election.

‍

LAURA JAYES: Sounds like we need a dinner party show. Leave it with me. We'll see you soon. Thanks, Dave.

‍

DAVE SHARMA: Thanks, Laura.

‍

[ENDS]