Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant the accuracy of closed captions. These are derived automatically from the broadcaster's signal.
The Drum -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) And we really want to know how
the ABC is working, or not, for you. We're launching
a new online community and we need you to be a part of it. So come on, get amongst it. Head to abcyourspace.net.au
and start talking.

This program is live captioned by Ericsson Access Services. Hello there. Welcome to The Drum, I'm Tracey Spicer. Coming up - simmering tensions on the first day of the Republican Party's national convention with conservatives split over Donald Trump.

What drove a 17-year-old Afghan refugee to attack passengers on a German train? And a plebiscite on until
same-sex marriage could be delayed until next year.

And joining me on the panel, politics editor for The Monthly Sean Kelly, composer Deborah Cheetham and in Melbourne the Australian's foreign editor Greg Sheridan and you can join us on Twitter. It's supposed to be a time for the Republican Party to rally around its presidential nominee, but the bunting and balloons at this year's GOP national convention have failed to disguise the Trump.
simmering discontent with Donald Trump. Many high profile Republicans have chosen not to attend the 4-day event in Cleveland and a group of anti-Trump delegates staged a protest on the convention floor. Mr Trump did appear on stage briefly to introduce his wife, Melania. Her speech has already been compared with one given by First Lady Michelle Obama in 2008. Barack and I were raised with so many of the same values like you life.
work hard for what you want in life.The values that you work hard for what you want in life.That what
your word is your bond, that you do what you say you're going to do. That your word is your bond, and you do what you say and keep your promise.That you treat people with dignity and respect.That you treat people with respect.Because we want our children and all children in this nation to know that the only limits to the height of your achievements is the reach of your dreams and your willingness to work hard for them.Because we want our children in this nation to know that the only limit to your achievements is the strength of your dreams and your willingness to work for them.Other speakers backed Mr Trump's hardline immigration policies and took a swing at his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.My son, Sergeant Brandon Mendoza was killed 2 years ago by an illegal alien.My best friend, my rock, my son Dominic, my only child, was also killed by an illegal immigrant.Trump will put America first. Not crooked Hillary. I will say it again, like I said it before, Trump is sent from God. Yes, it's certainly begurn - begun as an eventful convention. One of the lighter highlights was the apeernings of Scott Baio who used to be in Happy Days. Everyone still jokes about Donald Trump but he managed to overcome his rivals within the first hours of this convention. Are people still underestimating him, Sean?Look, Donald Trump absolutely has a chance of winning this election. The overall analysis of the polls right now put his chances at about 1 in 3 and of course in a 2-horse race you can't count him out. But the problem is a convention like is this a singular chance for the Republican Party to put forward a message to the American people and in particular to swing voters. You have to remember an American presidential election, unlike an Australian federal election, is not compulsory voting. So you have all these swing voters and a lot of them tend towards the Republican Party but you still have to get them out to vote and a lot of those voters respond to signalling. They're not paying attention to the cut and thrust of policy debates, the cut and thrust of insider Washington politics and so they look for vague signals being sent. If every establishment member of the Republican Party included respected figures like House Speaker Paul Ryan is sending the message "Sure, sure, vote for Donald Trump but don't blame us when it ends in disaster." That sends a message to those voters that they don't need to bother to turn up to the polls to vote this time and that's the real problem. The problem for Donald Trump, I think, is convincing all of those voters who are not engaged on a point.
daily basis to get out there.Great point. Greg Sheridan, how split is the Republican Party on Donald Trump, especially after Mike Pence being named as the vice-presidential candidate?Well, the Republican Party is profoundly split. I think this is a crisis for them for
the Republicans and could haunt them for decades. I hope in the interest of, you know, global civilisation that Trump loses by the maximum margin possible and so the Republicans are not tempted to go down this road again. It's interesting that Bush senior and junior, Mitt Romney and John McCain refused to attend. Having said all that, I agree with Sean. You can never count one candidate out in a 2-horse race. Trump has confounded all our predictions, including mine, time and again. There seems to be enormous structural reasons why he cannot possibly win. I thought it was quite a good night for the Republicans. Look, I think his wife stealing her cliches from Michelle Obama. The media will attack his wife. That will be another example of the media shooting Bambi. I don't think plagiarising Chee slay - cliches is a first order offence anyway. I thought that was quite a successful night for him overall.I want to broaden this out a little bit because obviously international and domestic politics play into the convention. These simmering racial tensions in America that we've seen increase in the past month will that be an advantage or disadvantage for Donald Trump?It's interesting, Trump versus Hillary Clinton and we said in the presidential election when Obama first came to power that gender would lose out in the end. So I'm fearful that gender will also play a part here. People will perhaps forget some of the rhetoric that we've heard from Trump as we steam roll towards that November date and whatever that party is putting forward at that time maybe what those swing voters come out and vote in favour for. So I'm fearful of that election result.It's worth remembering that I just kind of say there has been a number of events in the last month that you would expect to play for Trump, Brexit, a number of terrorist attacks on foreign and domestic soil for the US and you would have expected perhaps to see his numbers rise but over the course of the last month, the polls have remained basically the same and those polls are showing Hillary Clinton with a lead at the moment, similar with a lead that Obama won over Mitt Romney with in 2012.That's absolutely 12 tonight
- true and I would say out of tonight going down the law and order road is a very perspective road for trump. The number of speakers tonight who said blue lives matter, defend these police who are being wickedly shot around America, that's a very powerful sentiment and he's got a lot of police endorsements and if Trump is to stage a recovery, I think law and order and the blue lives matter theme is very powerful for him. Yes, let's have a listen to what Giuliani had to say at the convention along those lines.What happened to there's no black America, there's no white America, there is just America? We must not be afraid to define our enemy. It is Islamic extremist terrorism. You know who you are. And we're coming to get you.Very passionate speech by Rudi Giuliani. I see you shaking your head, Deborah.Only some people in the world get to say there's no black and white and it's not black people. There are black Americans that are suffering and black lives matter is a campaign that we should all be aware of and to plagiarise on black then becoming blue, you know, only get
certain white people in the world white.
get to say there's no black and white. That's a position of absolute privilege to be able to say that.Greg Sheridan.He was actually quoting Barack Obama. It's Barack Obama who said there's no red America, no blue America, there's only America and there's only the United States of America. There's no Protestant, no Catholic, so that's long-standing sentiment of black Americans. So there has been some terrible police shootings of innocent blacks, no doubt. But the best academic studies actually indicate blacks are less likely to be shot by American police when they're picked up than whites are. So there has been a hysteria about this and a certain grotesque political correctness has come into play. Jennifer Lopez posted a hashtag all lives matter. She was indicating solidarity with everybody. She had to take it down because this was seen as disrespectful to the Black Lives Matter campaign. I think that is just ridiculous.I'm sorry, Greg, Greg is ignoring the fact that African-Americans are disproportionately picked up by police across to America and that has to figure into those statistics otherwise you're being misleading. It's a complex thing, difficult to deal with in a TV show. While the black middle class has grown bigger than before, it's a good sign of success, a large number of blacks have been left behind in ghettos which are very heavy in crime statistics. So blacks are disproprortion Natalie victims of crime, they are disproportionately people who commit crimes. As a result they have a disproportionate number of encounters with police. Overall, America is well policed. In a nation of 325 million people awash with guns, there will, of course, be terrible incidents. But this hysteria has been unhelpful on both sides and President Obama is trying to calm it down.Can we not use the word hysteria word again? That is really putting it out that.
there, Greg, I take you to task on that. And also I would say that if a President, regardless of his colour and what you perceive his race to be, if a President says there's no black, there's no white, that's a very different position of absolute power to the average African-American or Hispanic person on the street there that is living day-to-day suffering at the hands of the discrimination that is endemic in that and many places around the world and in fact here in Australia. So when you quote Obama there, that's not really taking it to the man in the street, is it?Well, you know, Deborah, I would say to you the least interesting thing about a person to me is their race. I think there's only one race, it's the human race, and the ideal of Martin Luther King was that every man should be judged on the content of their character, not the colour of their skin. And the idea that you tackle a problem by referencing race as the dominant reality, I think is a mistake and doesn't reflect the social reality in most of America.Unfortunately the problem is the thinking of the black people, it's in the thinking of those who would persecute them. And so yes, it is very complex to talk about on a television show at 5:30 in the afternoon, but where else, where better?Yeah, but there's no evidence of systemic persecution. I mean racial discrimination is illegal in the US, the President of the US of America is African-American, the black middle class is bigger than it's ever been in American history and getting bigger all the time, the most unsuccessful cohort in America is what you might term the white underclass. I mean this idea that blacks are routinely persecuted in America is just not really true.I don't know what authority you have to say that as a white man sitting in Melbourne. That's ridiculous. So my arguments are illegitimate because I'm a we
white man in Melbourne? So why are we having this discussion at all? That's just an absurd, this dominance of identity referencing and identity categories and you're only authentic if you've got the right identity is utterly absurd and destructive.(cyan) That is because you can live most of your life anonymously, but when you're black you can never live anonymously. I cannot walk down the street and be an anonymous person. I am judged by the colour of my skin and whether that's right or wrong - You're not judged by me for the colour of your skin. I've got nothing to apologise to anybody about that.I'm not asking you to apologise.The the issue of race and religion is central to the next issue we're talking about tonight which is a 17-year-old Afghan refugee has been shot dead by German police after attacking train passengers with an axe and a knife in Bavaria. At least 3 people were seriously wounded and several others injured in what authorities say as probably an Islamist attack. The teenager is said to have shouted "God is great" in Arabic and police say they've found a hand painted ISIS flag in his bedroom. It's believed the teenager arrived in Germany without family 2 years ago living in a shelter and more recently with a foster family. I'd like to go to you first, Sean, almost immediately upon this occurring, this fellow was being called an Afghan refugee, how important is it to language when it comes to framing incidents like this?I think there's clearly a policy discussion about immigration and refugees in western Europe. I do have a problem with this immediate labelling of the incident as probably an Islamist attack. I think when you are going to label something an Islamist attack you have to be very, very careful and you saw exactly the same type of language being used by French ministers very shortly after the Nice attack and again it was a probablistic discussion. It wasn't a statement of fact. I think authorities have to be very, very careful. With that said, there is, I think, an increasing justification to draw a distinction between two different types of terror attack. Attacks by lone wolves, by disaffected young people, young men, who are acting alone and reaching out for the nearest cause to cling to and systematic coordinated attacks by groups of people with connections to parent organisations. And I think that that is where the discussion of language in this area needs to had head fairly quickly. Deborah, is the issue of language important here or do people on the streets have a right to be scared given recent terrorist attacks?I think language is really important. And why aren't we just saying, you know, an angry 17-year-old man has taken an axe and possibly killed other Afghan refugees on that train. No, we're saying an Afghan refugee killed people on a German train and suddenly, I guess, we'll assume that they were all German nationals. How do we know? The point is that what has led this young man to do that or even in the fact of terrorists who have been proven to be terrorists, what has led them to take these actions? I'm interested in that. But racial profiling is a really difficult issue and it's a problem for us.On the overall issue of immigration and its alleged link with terrorism, Greg, a recent study of 3 decades on data on immigration weighted with the number of terrorist attacks found overwhelming proof of long-term benefit of migration when it came to economics and also when it came to decreasing terrorism in fact, doesn't demonising marginalised communities make them more prone to radicalisation?I'd like to know the study. If that study is true then Japan should be a hotbed of terrorism because it has no immigration but oddly enough it's not a hotbed of terrorism. I've been proimmigration but not all immigrants are the same, not all immigration experiences are the same. Language is important but I've noticed in the news report in which you introduced this item, you said an Afghan refugee attacked people on a German train. Now I think Sean makes an interesting distinction. There are attacks State but
coordinated centrally by Islamic State but we're dealing here with a new and difficult phenomenon which is that Islamic State have directed people who are inspired by its ideology, without any further need for contact from them or endorsement by an imam or anything else, simply to go out and slaughter infidels. And a number of people have responded to that call. The guy in Orlando, Florida, rang up the news and said, "I'm doing this in support of Islamic State" and yet of course there were still people saying is he really a terrorist or not? Now, if a 17-year-old Afghan refugee is wielding an axe on a train and shouting alla - Allahu Akbar, I this
think it's reasonable we'll have this discussion. The thing that is facts
more sacred than language here is facts so we should always get the facts right. Did he shout Allahu Akbar? And is it true according to news reports that he's recently become involved in jihadist websites and so forth? But the problem here is not an unsympathetic media. The problem is the social reality of these people committing these acts of atrocities. I mean Chinese and doing
Indian immigrants in Europe are not doing this. You just can't simply take the old liberal position, which I was inclined to take, all are no
immigration is good, and say there are no problems after that.And yet to just briefly pick up on Deborah's point and throwing it to Sean, there's also the issue of damaged and disaffected young men. as
So there is a gender issue to this as well.There is a gendered issue and a class issue that's related to that gender issue and Greg has written a lot about the problems with immigration in France in particular and he's talked about the problems of integration and he's absolutely right. One of the big problems, and this absolutely aveckts young men who are often expected to provide for their families is unemployment, absolutely rife in Islamic areas of France. Islamic people in France are overwhelmingly worse off socioeconomically in France. Now that lack of integration is a problem and that is when, to bring it back to the language issue, this is the problem with language. Well integrated communities as in Germany, for example, which has also a very significant Islamic population, are much less likely to be radicalised and that is something that you have to be aware of and the problem with language, the problem with divisive language is that it is more likely to radicalise people by driving a wedge between non- Islamic areas of the population and Islamic areas and that's why we need to be careful.And the statistics do bear that out. Now Australians wanting to have their say on the legalisation of same-sex marriage might have to wait until next year judging by the PM's latest comments. The issue became one of the key points of difference between the two major parties during the election campaign. It was brought to a head within the Coalition last year when, after a 6-hour debate the joint party room decided against giving MPs a conscience vote.Strong support for the position that the Coalition has held since 2004, that marriage is between a man and a woman.Instead, Tony Abbott flagged a plebiscite in the next term of Government. A when
position Malcolm Turnbull adopted when he took over the leadership. There is no greater virtue in a free vote here or a plebiscite. They are each means of resolving the matter, one, I grant you is more expensive. But nonetheless, nonetheless it is a very legitimate it.
and democratic way of dealing with it.Labor went into the election promising to legalise same-sex marriage within 100 days of winning. And it ramped up its the
criticism of the plebiscite over the course of the campaign.Instead of providing a taxpayer-funded platform for homophobia, we will gift every Australian an equal right in respect of love, nothing less.I know a plebiscite designed to deny me and many other Australians a marriage certificate will instead licence hate speech to those who need little encouragement.Unlike a referendum which amends the constitution, a plebiscite isn't binding on the Parliament. And Malcolm Turnbull cast further doubt over the outcome when he confirmed Coalition MPs would be given a free vote, although he said he expected them to respect the result.One thing that I would say is an absolute certainty is that if the plebiscite is passed or carried by the Australian people, same-sex marriage will be legislated for by the Australian Parliament.He also indicated the plebiscite would be held by the end of the year.Given that the election is on 2 July, we do have ample time between then and the end of the year, so I would it to be held this calendar year.But last night, Mr Turnbull told 7:30 there may not be enough time to get the enabling legislation through. If it is not held, you know, in the latter half of this year, and recognising that Parliament will be sitting for the first time on 30th of August, then it would be held early next year. My commitment to get it - to have it dealt with as soon as practicable, is there but we are, of course, in the legislation. We have to obtain the support of the Senate. We don't even know who the senators will be at this stage.Greg Sheridan, is Malcolm Turnbull simply being pragmatic or is he facing a lot of pressure behind the scenes from the conservatives in the party?No, I think he's just being pragmatic. I mean I personally changed my mind on this issue. I'm now in favour of legalising same-sex marriage and I generally don't support plebiscites as a means of government. But I think once you've promised the people the right to have their say, you cannot possibly go back on that and that would be, that would be an act of political suicide if Turnbull went back on the promise for a plebiscite. I do believe that we can have a perfectly civilised, sensible discussion about this matter from people who take both sides, I don't think people should be abused for whatever position they take, nor indeed for their sexuality or orientation. The Parliament does have to sit late because of the close election. I think Turnbull will certainly present plebiscite legislation as soon as he can. If the Senate rejects the legislation, I think that throws you into a very difficult conundrum because whether he would be ibl to stop Liberals from crossing the floor anyway, they can do that if they want to on a matter of conscience and supporting a Labor resolution for a same-sex marriage legislation, I think we're in the lap of gods good
then. But I'm sure he's acting in good faith on this, the PM. Deborah, is there a fair argument that proper process has to be followed when you're talking about fundamental change such as this? Absolutely not in this case and I would say to all the senators who have children who are yet to come out to you, think very carefully about the impact of the hatred that will flow, the vitriol that will flow through this process. I think that Malcolm Turnbull and many other politicians on both sides of politics have broken so many promises. Why not break one more and just legislate and while I'm at it, happy anniversary to my darling Toni. 10 years we've been together and I don't think wave broken up any straight marriages yet but there's still time, I suppose.God bless you, Deb rasmtThank you.You must be concerned about some of the material that was deseminated in the seat of Bennelong during the election and some of the hate campaign that was run by religious groups. How concerned are you that it's
the longer this drags on the more occur?
it's likely these things will occur?I know exactly what it will be like because I've lived that. That's my reality of growing up in the '70s and the '80s and coming out as a young woman and having to find my way through the hatred and the judgement and this plebiscite will only incite more of that and we're turning to the Senate. What is the Senate? It is very difficult time ahead of us, I'm afraid.Sean, how likely is it that we will see same-sex legalised within the period of a Turnbull Government? Look, I think it's very likely. I completely agree, the plebiscite is a terrible idea but I think it is almost certain to go ahead now. I think it will go ahead within 9 months. I think to be fair to the PM he has been fairly consistent in possible.
saying it will go ahead as soon as possible. He has said that was likely before the end of the year but he has been putting caveats around that. I don't think he's changed his language overly much. I think the plebiscite go ahead, I think it will pass and I think this is really important, there is every chance that it won't pass as well and once you raise something like this to a question of public debate, that the soft votes that we see in polling right now in favour of same-sex marriage will fall away and they will fall away precisely because of the fear that Deborah's talking about. Because of the homophobic arguments we will see promulgated by some of our elements in society. Because those elements that are against same-sex marriage, not all of them but some of them know that their best bet of defeating marriage reform is by fermenting homophobia. So woe are going to see hateful arguments. The plebiscite is not homophobic but it does provide a platform for homophobia. We are going to see that, that is going to be damaging and I hope the plebiscite will pass but nobody should accept that as a done deal.Platform for homophobia? I hope not. I think all of us with a public microphone have an obligation to speak decently and civilly about each other, especially about matters of inherent identity such as sexual orientation. I wouldn't have done it by plebiscite but I do think once you've promised a plebiscite you can't go back on it and I fervently hope and honestly believe that Australians can have a decent, respectful discussion about this. I will be voting yes myself but I respect people who will be voting no and most of them that I know are not Home Fobs.Thank you very much. That's all for The Drum. Thanks to our panel, Sean Kelly, Deborah Cheetham and Greg Sheridan. Tomorrow we're joined by Bob Brown and Phillip Ruddock. See

Today we've come
to a village built on soap, or at least the proceeds
of a famous soap empire which created 900 houses
for its workers. Welcome to the Antiques Roadshow
from Port Sunlight near Liverpool. (Doorbell rings) (Theme music)

Port Sunlight has
a very special place in my heart, because I used to live here. In fact, I used to live there, number 62, when I was four years old, and that's because my dad
used to work for the company that owned this village, the company that was originally
known as Lever Brothers.

I remember playing here, in the dell. But I was far too young to understand the historical significance
of my surroundings, and the name William Hesketh Lever
meant nothing to me.

But without him,
neither the factory nor the village, named after his favourite brand
of laundry soap, would exist. In 1889 Lever commissioned
the first of over 30 architects to create his perfect community, transforming 140 acres of marshland
into what you see today.

Up went the Arts-and-Craft-style
cottages with their own baths,
loos and cold running water, set against a backdrop of wide
French-style, tree-lined boulevards and all manner
of community buildings, like the dining room,
where Lever's workers ate, under the watchful gaze of his collection
of Pre-Raphaelite paintings.

In return, the workforce
are expected to follow a life of thrift, sobriety
and a desire for self improvement, which is no small ask. But then, Lever believed
that if his workers were healthy and removed from the temptations
of city life they'd work hard
and remain loyal to his company.

In the early 1900s,
one of Lever's most loyal workers was foreman and village photographer
Edward Jenkins. Here's one of his albums.

Take a look at this. This is Jenkins in the Port Sunlight
literary society. Talk about self improvement. And how elegant they are! They look like something out of
a French Impressionist painting.