Speaker 1: From the Skying Center. This is Paul Murray Live. Thank you, Sherry,
Speaker 1: welcome back. Hopefully it's a beautiful time with the family.
Speaker 1: So we all thought it, Now we know it. She
Speaker 1: did it. Aaron Patterson has been found guilty on all
Speaker 1: three counts of murdering after that meal, a meal that
Speaker 1: we have discussed over such a long period of time. Now,
Speaker 1: I know you've heard most of the basics. I won't
Speaker 1: go over them for you, but I want to say
Speaker 1: well done to a few people here, including Victoria Police.
Speaker 1: A difficult case to put together, but one that became
Speaker 1: clearer as they dug deeper, well donder them.
Speaker 2: Today three people have died, and we've had a person
Speaker 2: that nearly died and were seriously injured as a result,
Speaker 2: and that has led to these charges. I asked that
Speaker 2: we acknowledge those people and not forget them the killer.
Speaker 1: And of course on this program, we don't name them
Speaker 1: after moments like this. I do at the start of
Speaker 1: the program, but I won't be doing it again because
Speaker 1: focus should always be on the victims, not on the perpetrator.
Speaker 1: Did have a friend who was willing to not just
Speaker 1: attend every day of the court but also today after
Speaker 1: the verdict.
Speaker 3: One loyal friend has stayed by her side throughout the trial.
Speaker 3: A silent anchor admit a tide of judgment.
Speaker 4: Ali.
Speaker 5: She said to you see you soon?
Speaker 6: Were you hoping to see her?
Speaker 1: I will see her now. There is a little bit
Speaker 1: of information which you may well know by now, But
Speaker 1: if for whatever reason, you haven't, I want to show
Speaker 1: you that the jury knew, the courtroom knew, but for
Speaker 1: obvious reasons, because the thing was playing out before a court,
Speaker 1: we weren't able to show you. Here it is tonight
Speaker 1: from Channel nine.
Speaker 3: In a hail Mary attempt to convince the jury, Aaron
Speaker 3: Patterson sat in the witness box. She was up against
Speaker 3: more than fifty prosecution witnesses and admitted to an avalanche
Speaker 3: of lies, conceding she misled police when she told them
Speaker 3: she had never owned a food dehydrator and had never
Speaker 3: fourished for wild mushrooms. Her lawyers tried to argue it
Speaker 3: was all a tragic accident and she panicked, telling the
Speaker 3: jury she might be a liar, but she's not a killer.
Speaker 3: We can review where Aaron Patterson was held throughout the trial.
Speaker 3: She's been locked away inside the cells at the Morewell
Speaker 3: police station and transported into the court through an underground tunnel.
Speaker 1: Good she stays in jail and hopefully will for the
Speaker 1: rest of her lifele of find out what happens with
Speaker 1: the sentencing in a couple of months time. But I
Speaker 1: want to talk about some of the circus around what
Speaker 1: has fast become one of the world's biggest stories. Now
Speaker 1: little old Australia really actually makes the news overseas. But
Speaker 1: as soon as this verdict actually became clear, it was
Speaker 1: certainly the lead story in the UK, and IVE got
Speaker 1: a couple of other mentions around the world.
Speaker 7: Breaking news coming from more well, from a court there
Speaker 7: in Victoria, Australia, where the jury has come to a
Speaker 7: verdict in the case of Erin Patterson. And the court
Speaker 7: heard a lot about a piece of kitchen equipment, a dehydrator.
Speaker 1: And now after a ten week trial that captivated Australia
Speaker 1: and the world, a jury has decided she poisoned them
Speaker 1: on purpose. Now, as always, you know, I always like
Speaker 1: to tell you how the sausage is made, particularly on
Speaker 1: the media side of things here. And you know that
Speaker 1: way back when before I worked on Telly, I was
Speaker 1: working in radio and I was a reporter. So I
Speaker 1: had been to many a courtroom and I have had
Speaker 1: to do what I never envy reporters having to do
Speaker 1: on a day like this, because principally no one says anything.
Speaker 1: Everyone's there essentially to cover nothing. Whatever the winning side is,
Speaker 1: and it comes to a court, they might say something
Speaker 1: very briefly, but nobody wants to bager up what has
Speaker 1: just happened. Nobody wants to be in contempt to court.
Speaker 1: Nobody wants to ruin potential appeals, let alone of course,
Speaker 1: the gap between when a guilty verdict is found and
Speaker 1: when there is going to be sentencing, which means, despite
Speaker 1: how serious this story is, I could not but help
Speaker 1: but smile and have my memories of what it was
Speaker 1: like to be a reporter asking questions over and over
Speaker 1: again to people who were going to say nothing. It
Speaker 1: happened on live TV today.
Speaker 7: Do you have anything to say?
Speaker 6: What did Aaron Patterson have to say? How does she feel?
Speaker 3: Will you be appealing this verdict?
Speaker 1: Jess An, If you watch you, I know if you
Speaker 1: don't ask, you don't get it well. Quite often the
Speaker 1: asking of the question is what you end up on
Speaker 1: the six pm news because there is no response. But
Speaker 1: as always with a major news event like this and
Speaker 1: one that people can see coming, as of course, a
Speaker 1: court trial in multiple weeks in the many months before
Speaker 1: all of that, the moment of a guilty verdict was
Speaker 1: going to be one which unleashed a whole bunch of
Speaker 1: hot takes. There were a couple that appeared in the
Speaker 1: Channel nine newspapers, including this doozy which was from a
Speaker 1: psychologist too. No matter how many times I read this piece,
Speaker 1: I don't think it's meant the killer, but was more
Speaker 1: than happy to diagnose what the situation was from afar okay.
Speaker 1: But then there was the bloke I think used to
Speaker 1: be a cricket writer but now of course opines on
Speaker 1: many other things. Who hows this tried to make a
Speaker 1: connection between this murder trial and Donald Trump because we
Speaker 1: were talking about truth and of course that all meant somehow.
Speaker 1: This was some way of being able to link back
Speaker 1: to Trump and specifically Kelly and Conway. He wrote today,
Speaker 1: in a strange way, the fixation on the mushroom lunch
Speaker 1: trial was also a sign of hope. This is not
Speaker 1: to overstate what it was for many just voyeurism. Yes,
Speaker 1: the public will never know as much as the jury
Speaker 1: and should respect its verdict. But the Mushroom trial was
Speaker 1: also a Civix lesson and how the criminal justice system works. Yes,
Speaker 1: it is possible that the full truth will never emerge,
Speaker 1: but this is how we learned to live with the
Speaker 1: fundamental unknowns. The fixation shows that we still want to
Speaker 1: sort facts from falsehoods. The specific case has no effect
Speaker 1: on your life or mine. Our curiosity about the difference
Speaker 1: between truth and lives, however, can save us all. Now.
Speaker 1: Whether these things are written in the fuller motion of
Speaker 1: the day or whether they were sort of written in
Speaker 1: the past few days getting ready for whatever this big
Speaker 1: news day would be. But spare me the psychology from
Speaker 1: hundreds of kilometers away and the idea that somehow everything
Speaker 1: anything has to do with Trump. Look at work because
Speaker 1: I clicked on the article, but I saved it, so
Speaker 1: hopefully you don't. I want to give you an update
Speaker 1: on what well was our fascination yesterday, and that was
Speaker 1: this woman who got her arm torn off by a lion.
Speaker 1: The Darling Down Zoo is going to be reopening tomorrow
Speaker 1: at nine am. Now we know that the woman has
Speaker 1: been taken to hospital. She has lost her arm, but
Speaker 1: she has not lost her life. We also do learn
Speaker 1: a little more for hours later about exactly what happened here.
Speaker 1: Not an absolute clarity, but we got a statement from
Speaker 1: the zoo today that explained exactly whom the person was
Speaker 1: who had their arm torn off. The lady involved in
Speaker 1: the incident is still in a stable condition in hospital
Speaker 1: and is surrounded by members of our extended family. She
Speaker 1: has lost her arm. She is not an employee, a keeper,
Speaker 1: or a zoo visitor. She's a much loved member of
Speaker 1: the zoo owner's family. It's still has not been possible
Speaker 1: to interview her to establish what led to this tragic incident.
Speaker 1: We can confirm that she was attacked by a lioness.
Speaker 1: She was not in its enclosure. It was not hungry, skinny, taunted,
Speaker 1: or torture. It's a lion. It comes from a long
Speaker 1: line of captive born lions in Australia, but it's still
Speaker 1: a lion, not a pet. We go on to learn
Speaker 1: that the lion will not be put down now. Obviously,
Speaker 1: if there was even a serious bite involving a dog,
Speaker 1: we know what often the calls are, but for some reason,
Speaker 1: there will be no such decision. When it comes to
Speaker 1: this line. Now again, I don't want the zoo to
Speaker 1: shut down. I want people to still go and support her.
Speaker 1: There's no appearance of negligence here, but it is interesting
Speaker 1: to find the information. The statement also added a few
Speaker 1: sort of frustrations with the media and some of the reporting.
Speaker 1: Some who have been willing to speak in favor of
Speaker 1: the facility is the Nationals leader and deputy Opposition leader today,
Speaker 1: David little Proud.
Speaker 8: I actually live less than ten kilometers from the Darlingtown Zoo,
Speaker 8: and obviously our thoughts are with the family and also
Speaker 8: with the zoo itself. Understanding that it will open tomorrow.
Speaker 8: It is operated safely for many, many years, and I
Speaker 8: think we need to understand and appreciate the circumstances that
Speaker 8: led to this before we make any judgment and allow
Speaker 8: that to happen in the right environment.
Speaker 1: One hundred percent. And I am not wailing on the zoo. Okay,
Speaker 1: Hopefully further deeper examinations we'll find out. We'll find out
Speaker 1: exactly what was happening here. But a couple of eagle
Speaker 1: eyes have gone onto the zoo's website to have a
Speaker 1: look at some of the experiences which are available at
Speaker 1: the zoo again to this point in time, something that
Speaker 1: has been completely safe. Remember this was a family member
Speaker 1: of the zoo owner. It is not a member of
Speaker 1: the public. This is one of the experiences. Now, you know,
Speaker 1: we've been up close and personal with plenty of animals,
Speaker 1: and again I don't want this joint to shut down.
Speaker 1: The Big Cats encounter for about one hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: bucks is something that you can do. But the eagle
Speaker 1: eyed people who notice the photo on the website of
Speaker 1: somebody padding or tickling or comforting the lion may well
Speaker 1: notice that the human hand is through the fence. Now,
Speaker 1: regardless of your experience, your familiarity, or anything else, why
Speaker 1: would anyone be shoving their hand through a fence with
Speaker 1: any animal like a lion? Now, I hope that photo
Speaker 1: gets taken down change in the next little while. Again,
Speaker 1: I have no suggestion that the big Cannon chatter is
Speaker 1: not a completely say experience, but perhaps modeling the behavior
Speaker 1: that may may have been part of this is probably
Speaker 1: not the best way to be advertising. What I hope
Speaker 1: is a business that continues on. I repeat, anytime you
Speaker 1: talk about animals, people's passions go through the roof. When
Speaker 1: you talk about local tourism attractions. People's passions go through
Speaker 1: the roof again. I just say we will learn exactly
Speaker 1: what happened here. I'll tell you exactly what happened here,
Speaker 1: because rarely in the media does anyone ever follow up.
Speaker 1: We all go Jesus and that terrible move on and
Speaker 1: then in six months time you go, oh, that's right,
Speaker 1: that happened. Well, when we know more, I'll tell you more.
Speaker 1: But am I the only person in Australia certainly against
Speaker 1: some megalod people in other parts of the media have
Speaker 1: noticed it that photo? Can we see it just one
Speaker 1: more time again? I'm not pretending to be any expert
Speaker 1: with animals. I know zookeepers and if they want to
Speaker 1: send me an email and tell me why this is cool,
Speaker 1: please Pullets god onnews dot com do a you what
Speaker 1: do you think? Is that a photo that should stay
Speaker 1: or go? As I say, anything to do with animals,
Speaker 1: the feedback will be through the roof. Pullet's gone news
Speaker 1: dot com dot Au good news. Hopefully we are on
Speaker 1: the verge of tomorrow for those of us that are
Speaker 1: trying to pay off our house. Now, I know any
Speaker 1: conversation about a cut in interest rates is met with
Speaker 1: a certain groan by people who are always on the
Speaker 1: wrong side of the interest rate game, and that is
Speaker 1: people that are trying to save money in their bank accounts.
Speaker 1: But for that third of the country that is trying
Speaker 1: to pay off a house, and more likely more than
Speaker 1: a third because they are trying to pay off an
Speaker 1: investment property, the interest rates have been two over too long.
Speaker 1: It is time for the Reserve Bank, pardon me, the
Speaker 1: Reserve Bank to cut them. And the expectation is that
Speaker 1: will happen tomorrow. They will be having a meeting. We
Speaker 1: all know there's a new board much more favorable to
Speaker 1: the government. We also know that there's a press conference
Speaker 1: where the Reserve Bank governor, who previously is so personally
Speaker 1: blamed but never personally cheered on for the cutting of
Speaker 1: interest rates or we'll all find out. They have their
Speaker 1: meeting tomorrow and I believe it'll be announced on Wednesday.
Speaker 1: Warren Hogan was on the air a little bit earlier
Speaker 1: explaining why now might be the time for yet another cut,
Speaker 1: and maybe a even bigger cut than normal.
Speaker 9: They were giving us guidance that they are happy now
Speaker 9: to take the restrictive setting a way to get the
Speaker 9: cash right down to about three and a half percent.
Speaker 9: The market has projected that to continue all the way
Speaker 9: down to three One.
Speaker 1: Of the many reasons that I am always listening to
Speaker 1: Warren Hogan, especially when he's on business Now that's at
Speaker 1: four point thirty in the afternoon, straight before Chris Kenny,
Speaker 1: welcome back from your holidays, mate, and a whole lot
Speaker 1: of other things. Well, Sorr, I think it's got another
Speaker 1: week off anyway, you get my point four point thirty
Speaker 1: five o'clock trying to plug while telling your story as well.
Speaker 1: One of the things I like about Warren Hogan is
Speaker 1: that Warren Hogan is always open about just how realistic
Speaker 1: we should be about the Australian economy. So that's the
Speaker 1: reason why we probably get a rate cut tomorrow. But
Speaker 1: this is the reason why we shouldn't get too fired
Speaker 1: up about one.
Speaker 9: And although measured inflations come down to the top of
Speaker 9: their target band when you get rid of the effective
Speaker 9: subsidies and this sort of thing, the fact is business
Speaker 9: costs are still running around five percent. The fallen inflation
Speaker 9: has all been because of a squeeze on margin, so
Speaker 9: there is inflation risks. The economy is holding up all right,
Speaker 9: So there is a argument, a very valid argument. Well,
Speaker 9: I don't think the RBA board will take but that
Speaker 9: you need to be cautious. The inflation's not gone, the
Speaker 9: economy is holding up.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 9: This is really what the Fed's doing, of course, with
Speaker 9: this risk of tariffs.
Speaker 1: But if you're sitting down, I've got some news for you.
Speaker 1: A collection of economists, when surveyed today, almost half have
Speaker 1: now said cost of living crisis, the one that we've
Speaker 1: talked about for how many years, the one that we
Speaker 1: have all been living for how many years? The one
Speaker 1: that I thought would be more determinative at the federal
Speaker 1: election but sadly was not. Well, apparently it's over. Apparently
Speaker 1: everything's tickety boot. The extreme costs of everything that you
Speaker 1: have been spending for the past few years, apparently all okay,
Speaker 1: let me read here. Has the cost of living crisis
Speaker 1: finally ended? Some of Australia's top finance and property experts
Speaker 1: certainly think so. Finder's latest RBA Cash Rate Report, which
Speaker 1: surveyed thirty four experts and economists on future cash rate
Speaker 1: moves and other issues relating to the state of the economy. Firstly,
Speaker 1: showed thirty out of thirty four or eighty eight percent,
Speaker 1: saying that we'll be the Reserve Bank rate cut tomorrow.
Speaker 1: It'll bring it down to three point six percent. But
Speaker 1: what about this bit on the topic of cost of living.
Speaker 1: Almost half of the experts forty four percent, believe that
Speaker 1: the cost of living crisis is over. Now, this may
Speaker 1: be very technically true for a bunch of people who
Speaker 1: are only looking at the numbers, and that's fine. That's
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of people whose worldview is only about
Speaker 1: the numbers. People in government, who of course get four
Speaker 1: pay rises since the twenty twenty two election, a Prime
Speaker 1: minister earning six hundred thousand dollars, the private jet, you know,
Speaker 1: all of that business, right, many and most of the
Speaker 1: people in the media that no interest. It was fun
Speaker 1: to talk about for a little while until, of course
Speaker 1: it may well have been a problem and dislodge the government. Therefore,
Speaker 1: let's just completely look the other way. But I often
Speaker 1: show you a piece of tape that we have from
Speaker 1: skyde News in the UK, because yes, okay, maybe month
Speaker 1: to month we're back into that two to three percent range.
Speaker 1: Maybe quarter to quarter we're back in that two to
Speaker 1: three percent range. But the reason why I smirk a
Speaker 1: little at the concept of the cost of living crisis
Speaker 1: being over is does anyone think anything is cheaper. It's
Speaker 1: just the rate at which the increases have been going
Speaker 1: up is starting to slow, but they're still going up.
Speaker 1: And when you compare your life in twenty twenty five
Speaker 1: to maybe twenty twenty two or thirty nineteen, and even
Speaker 1: the COVID pandemic, you know, there is a world of
Speaker 1: difference in everything. It doesn't matter if you're buying a
Speaker 1: universal remote control, a head of lettuce, or you're trying
Speaker 1: to build your own home. You know, everything way more
Speaker 1: expensive than it was in living memory. Again this tape
Speaker 1: from Sky News about why while everyone else may say
Speaker 1: the cost living crisis is over, you are not a fool.
Speaker 1: You are not a fool to have noticed everything costs
Speaker 1: more than it used to and even when the growth
Speaker 1: of it is just a little more compared to last month,
Speaker 1: it's a whole lot more from before this mob became
Speaker 1: the government.
Speaker 6: Inflation is really just measuring the difference between that and that.
Speaker 6: And if you look at those two lines, you're talking
Speaker 6: about a two point three percent change. That's the number
Speaker 6: we're talking about today. But for a lot of people,
Speaker 6: it's not about that. It's about the difference between this
Speaker 6: and that. And when you look at the difference between
Speaker 6: this and that, that's twenty percent.
Speaker 1: Yeah, one hundred percent, one hundred percent, even more on
Speaker 1: certain items, and don't even start on things like insurance.
Speaker 1: Oh but that doesn't matter anymore. We're sucking up to
Speaker 1: the Chinese and making the political advantage out of throwing
Speaker 1: Trump under the bus. I'll get to that in the moment,
Speaker 1: but first, the opposition leader Susan Lee now I said
Speaker 1: many times after the election that you don't just learn
Speaker 1: a lesson, you need to be seen to be learning
Speaker 1: a lesson. And certainly when it comes to Chinese voters,
Speaker 1: the one and a bit million Australian Chinese voters who've
Speaker 1: a hated Liberal in twenty thirteen, in twenty sixteen, in
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen, well they decided to dramatically change in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two and got even harder and Labour's way in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five because clearly, of course that then Liberal Party,
Speaker 1: under its previous leaders Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton, they
Speaker 1: thought we should stand up to the CCP, and everyone
Speaker 1: knows we're not talking about the citizens of Australia. We're
Speaker 1: not talking about the people that have moved here. We're
Speaker 1: not talking about normal Chinese Australians. No, we are talking
Speaker 1: about the CCP. But of course it has been weaponized
Speaker 1: by many, including some people acting on the behalf of Beijing,
Speaker 1: to send a message to this community the Liberal Party bad.
Speaker 1: Why because Liberal Party is mean to China that they
Speaker 1: deliberately have grade every single nuance that has been there
Speaker 1: about discussing the Chinese Communist Party and the people who
Speaker 1: live in China and the people who live here. Well,
Speaker 1: Susan Lee decided to try to be seen to be
Speaker 1: learning a lesson here and again this is part of
Speaker 1: a rebuilding process. And the reality is in Melbourne multiple
Speaker 1: seats have dominant Chinese numbers of voters, seats like the
Speaker 1: former Prime Minister's one in bene Long and Sydney dominant
Speaker 1: with Chinese voters. So she says there was a need
Speaker 1: for a course correction. So she went and met a
Speaker 1: bunch of Australian Chinese leaders today and this is what
Speaker 1: she said post meeting.
Speaker 10: Today was a very frank discussion. It needed to be
Speaker 10: We didn't get everything right at the last election. We
Speaker 10: needed to change course, course correct for the future.
Speaker 1: Now again, I am very consistent about a hardline and
Speaker 1: I will never give up on that hard line of
Speaker 1: the CCP, the Chinese Communist Party, the government in Beijing.
Speaker 1: But I want to make it absolutely clear, absolutely clear
Speaker 1: that any criticism of China is of the Chinese government,
Speaker 1: not of its citizenry. And if that's a point that
Speaker 1: we need to put up in lights or say as
Speaker 1: clearly as Susan Lee did today, then we're going to
Speaker 1: say it over and over and over again.
Speaker 10: We didn't get it right, we didn't get the tone right,
Speaker 10: we didn't always get the messaging right, and I want
Speaker 10: to free acknowledge that we've turned the page. I am
Speaker 10: a new leader with a different tone, different priorities and
Speaker 10: a different team.
Speaker 1: And speaking of Melissa Macintosh, who is the Shadow Minister
Speaker 1: for Women, she's a strong Western Sydney MP. Remember she's
Speaker 1: on the seat of Lindsay. This is one that supposedly
Speaker 1: always flipped when the government did, but she be at
Speaker 1: high water or low water marks for the Liberal Party
Speaker 1: keeps holding onto that seat around Penrith in Western Sydney.
Speaker 1: I want to get on the show as soon as
Speaker 1: possible to have a chat just about not how she
Speaker 1: held the line at the last election, but what her
Speaker 1: advice is to the party for moving forward Now. She's
Speaker 1: openly spoken about the issues when it comes to female voters. Again,
Speaker 1: whether you like the analysis or not, my view is
Speaker 1: that if you have a look at the elector role,
Speaker 1: twenty eight of thirty seats that the Liberal Party's lost
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty two have by thousands more female voters
Speaker 1: than male. So even if it's fifty to fifty, guess
Speaker 1: what you end up in a scenario where the Labor
Speaker 1: Party ends up with more votes. Now, she's had plenty
Speaker 1: of discussions and we've spoken about maybe a need to
Speaker 1: put people into the party administration. Again, I'm not pretending
Speaker 1: to know how the party administration works, but use some
Speaker 1: people from the business community to be involved in the
Speaker 1: change of an organization, and organizations sometimes need to change.
Speaker 1: Perfect example, the wonderful version Australia Airlines. Remember they were
Speaker 1: on the bones of their backside, bankrupt basically, and then
Speaker 1: of course they were able to completely turn themselves around,
Speaker 1: get themselves listed on the stock market and the numbers
Speaker 1: are doing well, perfect example about people who are how
Speaker 1: to turn things around, change agents inside many of those businesses. Well,
Speaker 1: why not the same when it comes to some people
Speaker 1: in the Liberal Party. Well, today we finally got some
Speaker 1: public polling about what the electorate thinks about the questions
Speaker 1: of quotas. Now there is a big asterisk on this
Speaker 1: that I'm going to get to in a second. Forty
Speaker 1: eight percent of people were asked whether the Liberal Party
Speaker 1: should introduce a gender quota. Forty eight percent s eight yes,
Speaker 1: twenty seven percent I don't know, and a quarter of
Speaker 1: people oppose. But of course, remember this is what adds
Speaker 1: up to one hundred percent, which is the entire elector.
Speaker 1: Now remember only a third of them, about thirty something percent,
Speaker 1: voted Liberal at the last election. So the question has
Speaker 1: to be if they did this, would you change your vote?
Speaker 1: Guess what the likelihood of voting for the Liberal Party
Speaker 1: if a female candidate ran in your electorate? Sixty one
Speaker 1: percent say it would make no difference. So this is
Speaker 1: a really interesting thing, right, as somebody who has said
Speaker 1: clearly obviously part of a problem. When Parliament goes back,
Speaker 1: there's going to be half a dozen female members of
Speaker 1: the opposition sitting on the front bench, including the leader.
Speaker 1: It's going to be a visual and optical problem. An
Speaker 1: optic problem. There's a message issue again relating back to
Speaker 1: those twenty eight of thirty seats. But isn't it fascinating
Speaker 1: to see that all the talk that unless you do
Speaker 1: this then somehow you are doomed. Will the extreme majority
Speaker 1: of people six out of ten is say, even if
Speaker 1: you did do it, it wouldn't mean that I would
Speaker 1: automatically vote for you. Now there is no further question,
Speaker 1: which is if they didn't introduce it, what would you do?
Speaker 1: But still interesting to note last question in terms of
Speaker 1: the Liberal Party's political line, where do you want it
Speaker 1: to be? Do you want it to be more moderate? Well,
Speaker 1: remember essentially two thirds of people didn't vote liberal, one
Speaker 1: third voted labor, one third with their preferences, so forty
Speaker 1: two percent saying they want them to be more moderate. Well, okay,
Speaker 1: these labor voters that would never move, are these some
Speaker 1: of that what twelve percent of Green's voters who vote
Speaker 1: Green and then preference the Liberal Party? I don't know
Speaker 1: twenty percent, so they should be more conservative? No change
Speaker 1: at thirteen twenty four percent saying whatever elections three years away, right,
Speaker 1: isn't it? Speaking of confusing poles, can we talk about
Speaker 1: Victoria for a second here, now do you send to
Speaker 1: Allen is a dead set terrible premiers leading a terrible government.
Speaker 1: But let's be honest, so was Daniel Andrews. But for
Speaker 1: some reason, these people just have been able to create
Speaker 1: that triangle of dependence where nobody wants to rock the boat. Now,
Speaker 1: it's not me making it up that this was a
Speaker 1: person who at one point in time is politically toxic.
Speaker 1: The Prime Minister's made plenty of trips to Victoria and
Speaker 1: does not want to be seen publicly with the Victorian premier.
Speaker 1: And that may all be different now that an electionist passed.
Speaker 1: Victoria ended up being a much better state for labor
Speaker 1: than they had feared, and obviously they were able to
Speaker 1: impart prop up the Victorian budget with a billions of
Speaker 1: dollars worth a GST. But what about this for a
Speaker 1: heartbreak of a day, do you Sinder Allen and the
Speaker 1: Liberal leader headline voter's deeply unhappy with you, sinto Allan
Speaker 1: as Labour clings to lead when you actually have a
Speaker 1: look at the polls that have come out it is
Speaker 1: now thirty five thirty five, or dare I say a
Speaker 1: third and a third with a third leftover either voting
Speaker 1: for Greens. They of course send their preferences straight over
Speaker 1: to the Labor Party, so that quickly becomes forty seven percent.
Speaker 1: The preferred premier may well still be the Libs at
Speaker 1: this point in time, but so what who cares about
Speaker 1: the preferred premier number. We know where the preferred prime
Speaker 1: minister and numbers were at a certain point in time,
Speaker 1: So once preferences get involved, even after all of the
Speaker 1: shambles that is Victoria, they would get a fourth term
Speaker 1: in government. Fifty three forty seven, fifty three forty seven.
Speaker 1: What does it take for a government to lose? Who knows?
Speaker 1: But perhaps rather than listening to themselves and their own
Speaker 1: little fights that they're having in the Victorian Libs, perhaps
Speaker 1: they should pick up the fone of David Cruso Foley.
Speaker 1: He was able to break the reign of the Labor Party.
Speaker 1: Perhaps he could have some ideas about how to break
Speaker 1: the reign of the Labour Party in Victoria. But it
Speaker 1: looks like they're going to go around again. Thankfully, election
Speaker 1: not due until November next year, not November this year.
Speaker 1: Again speaking of to Cintra Allen, she was in out
Speaker 1: and about in Melbourne to day willing to do what
Speaker 1: she wasn't willing to do on the weekend, and that
Speaker 1: it was, of course, go to the synagogue that was
Speaker 1: attacked over the weekend, where she announced, among other things,
Speaker 1: they knew police task force.
Speaker 11: Establishing the Anti Hate Task Force in partnership with Victoria
Speaker 11: Police is the next step in this plan to crack
Speaker 11: down on hate, but also to work with communities right
Speaker 11: across the state and continue to strengthen the social fabric
Speaker 11: of our community.
Speaker 1: Pay attention, pay very close attention the term anti hate
Speaker 1: generically used, and I would imagine that they are going to, yes,
Speaker 1: go after plenty of people who propagate hate, including those
Speaker 1: lunatic Nazis that turn up all the time in Victoria.
Speaker 1: But the fact that they didn't decide to specify what
Speaker 1: this particular issue and this particular issue going to a
Speaker 1: new level of anti semitism. Of course, now we're going
Speaker 1: to keep it all nice in generally generic everything's the same. Well,
Speaker 1: watch this space for how this is used in the
Speaker 1: next little while. Meantime, remember the protest that took place
Speaker 1: on Saturday after the fire bombing that took place on
Speaker 1: the Friday, and there are even more details about this
Speaker 1: that are frightening, but again it's before a court, so
Speaker 1: I'm going to let that go where it is. Well,
Speaker 1: remember the attack on the restaurant that was caught up
Speaker 1: in all of this. Well, test leader when asked about this. Now, firstly,
Speaker 1: they should have canceled the protest, particularly after the events
Speaker 1: of Friday night, and when they knew what the extent
Speaker 1: of those issues were on Friday night, they definitely shouldn't
Speaker 1: have said stuff like this.
Speaker 4: We condemn any attack in any washer places, but also
Speaker 4: we condemned the double standards.
Speaker 5: Mohammed Shurrab has led peaceful anti genocide demonstrations in Melbourne
Speaker 5: for months. He regrets that things got physical. US was
Speaker 5: making no apologies on behalf of the activists who targeted
Speaker 5: the Jewish restaurant.
Speaker 4: Is not Businesses or organized ass that aid and support
Speaker 4: genocide are not welcome here. This business should be boycotted
Speaker 4: and it should be as a financial target for US
Speaker 4: as a movement the year.
Speaker 1: But of everything, it's right up there with the Yeah,
Speaker 1: but what about you wouldn't believe it in terms of
Speaker 1: an argument, it shouldn't be acceptable in terms of public
Speaker 1: comments that just go uncriticized, because remember, we're launching an
Speaker 1: investigation into all types of hate, despite the fact that
Speaker 1: the one that is obviously causing trouble for Victoria right now. Well,
Speaker 1: in response, lefties is starting to say that one thing
Speaker 1: that definitely should not happen is that Melbourne should not
Speaker 1: put in place what Sydney and other states have had
Speaker 1: for some time, which is that you need to tell
Speaker 1: the police before you have a protest so they know
Speaker 1: which protests should and shouldn't go ahead because some may
Speaker 1: or may not get violent. And if the Premier Victoria
Speaker 1: were just like a little bit of a crash course
Speaker 1: into how best to deal and match the emotion of
Speaker 1: the times, she can pick up a phone to her
Speaker 1: labor colleague Chrismans in New South Wales now, even though
Speaker 1: all of those problems since October the seventh, twenty twenty
Speaker 1: three were all happening on his watch. In the state
Speaker 1: of New South Wales, there was a leader who matched
Speaker 1: the outrage of the community. Watch how he got stronger
Speaker 1: the more of these attacks there were. This is what
Speaker 1: people want out of our leaders.
Speaker 12: We cannot have a situation where we are importing this
Speaker 12: kind of violent rhetoric, this hateful dialogue into Australia in
Speaker 12: twenty twenty four. This is obviously a fraud time in
Speaker 12: the city's history, but we need to stick together. We
Speaker 12: will leave no stone unturned in combating rampant antisemitism and
Speaker 12: violence in our community.
Speaker 13: It will never be tolerated. We have to stand together
Speaker 13: to condemn it unambiguously and send a clear message to
Speaker 13: these animals that these actions will not be tolerated. It
Speaker 13: is utterly appalling and shameful that an individual would spray racist,
Speaker 13: hate filled messages on a school. That tells you everything
Speaker 13: you need to know about how appalling these bastards are.
Speaker 1: Middle Stump. Occasionally a little bit of swear does help,
Speaker 1: but it's certainly the clarity of matching people with their
Speaker 1: emotions right. Doesn't make everything go away, but it may
Speaker 1: gives people a certainty of leadership. Should be now, you
Speaker 1: know that I love the motorsport. You know I as
Speaker 1: always number one sport for me is supercars. Well, of
Speaker 1: course the global motorsport phenomena is of course Formula One,
Speaker 1: still the number one movie in the world. If you
Speaker 1: get a chance to go and see that extraordinary with
Speaker 1: Brad Pitt behind the wheel. Chez is a good looking bloke,
Speaker 1: isn't he? Anyway back to the real stuff. The seventy
Speaker 1: fifth running of the British Grand Prix was last night
Speaker 1: and Lando Norris, the local driver, won. Now it wasn't
Speaker 1: like that long ago when he wasn't winning at all,
Speaker 1: but now he is very close to In fact, it
Speaker 1: is Oscar Pastri, the Australian driver first, Lando Norris second.
Speaker 1: In the Driver's Championships, one of two will be the
Speaker 1: next world champion. For Stappan looking like he is starting
Speaker 1: to lose touch. But for a very significant part of
Speaker 1: the race, Oscar Piastre was winning. In fact Oscar Piastre
Speaker 1: in second place was only second place by about six seconds.
Speaker 1: But he ended up with a ten second penalty because
Speaker 1: of this incident, which was tapping the brakes behind the
Speaker 1: safety car. Now early in the race, somebody else had
Speaker 1: done it, but they did not receive a penalty. But
Speaker 1: for whatever reason, he did receive a penalty and he
Speaker 1: was mighty paid off because the ten second penalty meant
Speaker 1: that he did not win the race. If he didn't
Speaker 1: get the penalty, he would have won the race.
Speaker 14: Oscar, I can imagine the emotions very high, and we
Speaker 14: always say that you're very level headed, but I've never
Speaker 14: seen you quite so upset about the situation you find
Speaker 14: yourself in. Yeah, I'm not going to say much.
Speaker 15: I'll get myself in trouble. So what Underonniko.
Speaker 14: I think that's the highlight of the day, So yeah,
Speaker 14: I'll live with that.
Speaker 1: Now again, early in the race, somebody else had done it,
Speaker 1: they should have blown the whistle on that person, as
Speaker 1: they blew on Oscar Pistre. But one of the many
Speaker 1: reasons that I love motorsport, and I mean I love
Speaker 1: motorsport is because there's so much information that can absolutely
Speaker 1: answer questions right and rather than sort of referees call
Speaker 1: or third umpire, have a look at just how specific
Speaker 1: the information that is available at the end of a
Speaker 1: Formula one race to work out whether somebody did or
Speaker 1: didn't tap the brakes, which under the rules is not okay.
Speaker 16: In the Stewards Verdex, they said he breaked at fifty
Speaker 16: nine point two psi. He decelerated from two hundred and
Speaker 16: eighteen kilometers are down to fifty two kilometers are in
Speaker 16: their viewpoint.
Speaker 1: It was clearly a breach of the rules. What a sport,
Speaker 1: What a sport. But this will either make or break
Speaker 1: Oscar Piastre. May it make him, May him at the next,
Speaker 1: the next, the next, the next, Vegas and then in
Speaker 1: Abu Dhabi. Strengthen him, get him even further to the
Speaker 1: front and be the next Australing to win a Formula
Speaker 1: One championship. Quick break back with more enough sport, Back
Speaker 1: to politics, back to the fight more in a secure
Speaker 1: on Paul Murray Live. And before we're done tonight, by
Speaker 1: the way, I will explain to you why Elon Musk
Speaker 1: is a little more dangerous than you think when it
Speaker 1: comes to launching his own political party. Want we are
Speaker 1: off for another ourtown in a couple of weeks time now,
Speaker 1: As you may all have noticed, many of our family
Speaker 1: here at Sky News, they've had a little holiday here
Speaker 1: and there. I'm matching mine up for the kids with
Speaker 1: school holidays, which means I'll be away for a couple
Speaker 1: of weeks. So I want to get the shout out
Speaker 1: in now for Mount Gambia, not this, not the one after,
Speaker 1: but at the end of July, Mount Gambia will be
Speaker 1: the next location for our Ourtown, can't wait. I love
Speaker 1: when we go to South Australia. I love when we've
Speaker 1: gone to the Bend for the racetrack. I love when
Speaker 1: we've gone to ki I love when we've gone to
Speaker 1: Port Pierri, We've been to Renmark, We've been everywhere. We
Speaker 1: now hit the good people of Mount Gambia. So as
Speaker 1: many people who can get to Mount Gambia on Sunday,
Speaker 1: the twenty ninth of July, please do so. Tickets are free,
Speaker 1: but I want them to be for the hardcore fans
Speaker 1: of this show first, which is if you can make
Speaker 1: it ourtown ats sky news dot com. That are you
Speaker 1: ourtown at Skyews dot com dot au. Now let's get
Speaker 1: into the conversation as we like to do with a
Speaker 1: fellow fan of Peter Russell Clark, because he's got the
Speaker 1: beer just like I do. Does he have the chest here?
Speaker 1: We'll all have to wait and imagine one other day, Darren.
Speaker 1: But it is always lovely to see you, sir gad
Speaker 1: as I should say, none of than Matt Canavan as
Speaker 1: well is joining us to discuss all matters to do
Speaker 1: with the news of the day.
Speaker 17: Very quickly little known. In fact, my mum and dad
Speaker 17: had their anniversary, not their honeymoon in Gambia.
Speaker 1: What did they do? Not much? Fair enough for this
Speaker 1: is blue lake, Yeah, there is the blue Lake. There's
Speaker 1: plenty of good things to say if we're going this.
Speaker 17: It's not long alf to say.
Speaker 1: We've got some ideas, all right, if you'd like to
Speaker 1: see the exact spot where Tarren's Munton and dad know.
Speaker 1: I hear the cursing in the background out that's gudews
Speaker 1: dot com. That are you all right? That's that mentioned done.
Speaker 1: Now let's talk about Albow where China four in terms
Speaker 1: of meetings the President of the United States and the
Speaker 1: Australian Prime ministers zero put. Simply, I have had more
Speaker 1: FaceTime with the President of the United States has than Albo. Now,
Speaker 1: as we know, Ebus Elbow off again this weekend, off
Speaker 1: for another meeting. This one he'll be having his meeting
Speaker 1: of course with the China will no doubt it'll be
Speaker 1: a handsome little boy, because you know, he never pushes back,
Speaker 1: does the right thing, manages the relationship. Your all code
Speaker 1: for not ever calling them out. Whereas the total number
Speaker 1: of meetings has had with Trump four fifths bugger all tumbleweeds, goodbye.
Speaker 18: Well.
Speaker 1: One of the people who's sort of noticed the problems
Speaker 1: that exist in between the relationship between Australia and the
Speaker 1: United States is somebody who was kind of trying to
Speaker 1: have a go at Donald Trump while talking a little
Speaker 1: bit about the Fourth of July celebrations. But there was
Speaker 1: an interesting little detail that for all of the attention
Speaker 1: about the Australian Ambassador to the United States, the devil
Speaker 1: is in this detail. Now, normally on July the fourth,
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of camper people get the chance to
Speaker 1: go to the American Embassy and they get to do
Speaker 1: things at the vast red brick pile that is the
Speaker 1: US Embassy perched atop of hill on Canber's Dress Circle,
Speaker 1: suburb of yar Alumna. They used to have an American
Speaker 1: style celebration for in or around Independence Day. Hot Dogs
Speaker 1: bright yellow American mustard were served with are we hungry everyone? Burgers,
Speaker 1: fried chicken, popcorn, jugs of coke pluts get it in
Speaker 1: a bella, Red, white, and blue balloons were floated everywhere
Speaker 1: the ambassador to give a speech and make everyone feel special.
Speaker 1: But not this year. Because six months into the second
Speaker 1: Trump administration there's still no ambassador from America to Australia.
Speaker 1: So for all of the talk about how bad our
Speaker 1: relations are, things are so bad that they haven't even
Speaker 1: bothered to send somebody on the free trip to live
Speaker 1: in the Free House Ian Canberra. It does just while
Speaker 1: we're here. Boys. I'm sorry, I'm going on a tangent here,
Speaker 1: but I love Fourth of Joy because I love how
Speaker 1: they celebrate their country right and Australian needs to up
Speaker 1: their game. Now. I don't know whether it's going to
Speaker 1: be Rockhampton that's going to do it, but here's some
Speaker 1: suggestions for you man. They have, of course, the hot
Speaker 1: dog eating Contest. This happens at Coney Island, where literally
Speaker 1: a human being shoves as many in his mouth as
Speaker 1: he can in ten minutes. How many?
Speaker 19: This year, Joey Chestnut is top dog once again, the
Speaker 19: world's greatest eater, down seventy and a half hot dogs
Speaker 19: and buns in ten minutes, capturing the Mustard Yellow Belt
Speaker 19: for the seventeenth time.
Speaker 1: This is what I love. It was electric dogs were great.
Speaker 19: My last few times to be in the here, I
Speaker 19: in sixty two or sixty three, So it was nice
Speaker 19: to get back in the seventies.
Speaker 1: And the Land of the Free, the Land of the
Speaker 1: Free send him as the ambassador. Sen Joey Chestnut is
Speaker 1: the ambassador to Australia. But this is the bit that
Speaker 1: I hold off on, Matt. You know how it's great
Speaker 1: astraded dy Bobby's you know Australian flag, grain and gold.
Speaker 1: I think there's a fairy rice in Sydney harbor Ah
Speaker 1: in Alaska. This is how they celebrate the fourth of July.
Speaker 1: They find old cars and drive them off a cliff. Hello, Senator.
Speaker 1: Which one is the metaphor for the relationship between Australia
Speaker 1: and the United States at the moment, the one that's
Speaker 1: full of hot dogs or the one that's off a
Speaker 1: cliff for people's amusement?
Speaker 15: Well, actually, I think it's going back to the lack
Speaker 15: of an ambassador that probably sums up the relationship right now.
Speaker 15: I think the Albanezi is very happy that Donald Trump
Speaker 15: doesn't seem to know who he is or keep much
Speaker 15: thought to Australia. We're quite lucky perhaps in that regard,
Speaker 15: because I worry as soon as the President maybe does
Speaker 15: turn his attention to what's going on down here, things
Speaker 15: might change really rapidly and badly for us. I think
Speaker 15: for all the humor we've got here, I think it
Speaker 15: is a very concerning time for our country. To me,
Speaker 15: the Prime Minister seems to be pulling a swifty over Australians.
Speaker 15: He's not really being upfront about what his goals and
Speaker 15: ambitions are for the relationship between our two countries, between
Speaker 15: Australia and the United States, and seemingly his desire to
Speaker 15: get closer to a dictatorship, a totalitarian regime in China.
Speaker 15: He's given this very weird speech over the weekend at
Speaker 15: the Curtain Institute, almost I suppose, suggesting that China is
Speaker 15: in some way the America as they were in World
Speaker 15: War Two, because he's getting closer to them, just like
Speaker 15: just like Curtain Sorry, got closer to America. It's all
Speaker 15: very strange. He just needs to be upfront with us.
Speaker 15: I think Australia people deserve to know. Does the Albanesi
Speaker 15: government view America as the most important friend of ally
Speaker 15: to our country, which has been the case since John
Speaker 15: Curtin made that shift since World War Two. Although I
Speaker 15: think we should replace the United States with the likes
Speaker 15: of dictatorial communist regime in Beijing. He's just not being
Speaker 15: upfront with us, and given what's going on around the
Speaker 15: world right now, that should be of concern to all Australians.
Speaker 1: Well again, you know, Darren, I know, to the domestic
Speaker 1: political audience, the more trouble he's in with Trump, the
Speaker 1: better he goes, because the majority of Australians don't like Trump. However,
Speaker 1: relations between Australia and the United States should always be
Speaker 1: closer than the relations between Australia and China. And what
Speaker 1: I did find offensive about the suggestion from the speech
Speaker 1: on Saturday was, oh, just like John Curtin, we know
Speaker 1: how to balance things. That was a choice between the
Speaker 1: UK and the European War or the Americans and the
Speaker 1: Pacific War that of course at some point involved subs
Speaker 1: in Sydney Harbor, the bombing of Darwin Broom. I think
Speaker 1: he's taking the piss by turning around and pretending there's
Speaker 1: balance with China's the same thing. The only reason we
Speaker 1: need to build up our military is because of China,
Speaker 1: not because of America.
Speaker 17: I think if push comes to shoff, we will know
Speaker 17: whose side we're on, and it'll be America. So that
Speaker 17: has not been tested in any real way. I think
Speaker 17: the government in the first term that they had, they
Speaker 17: were pretty strong on orcas to the point where there
Speaker 17: wasn't a lot of right wing commentariat that criticized those
Speaker 17: decisions and those moves. So I think they are trying
Speaker 17: to rebalance a little bit, whether that's good or bad.
Speaker 17: And I think what is important is the trade relationship
Speaker 17: with China was rebalanced during the previous three years.
Speaker 1: But take us inside their head. They they think they
Speaker 1: been the Prime Minister's office. But the more fights there
Speaker 1: are with Trump, the better it is for them because
Speaker 1: the collective Australian public don't like Trump.
Speaker 17: That won't last three years. I think that worked in
Speaker 17: the election campaign, and it certainly worked with respect to
Speaker 17: Peter Dutton because he was seen as a Trump like figure.
Speaker 1: That will him out to pay it's to be yes.
Speaker 17: But that will not last. You won't see that level
Speaker 17: of You won't see them trying to run that type
Speaker 17: of argument for a full three years because it's not
Speaker 17: in the national interest and people won't remember it in
Speaker 17: that way that long.
Speaker 1: Correct. All right, quick, one map before we go.
Speaker 15: Through this, Can I say something about the trade situation
Speaker 15: that Darren just mentioned. Look what we had on the
Speaker 15: weekend or just late last week. The Resources Minister Madaline
Speaker 15: King make the point that it is actually the actions
Speaker 15: of China that is putting it risk thousands of jobs
Speaker 15: in Australian steel, in Australian copper, in Australian nickel and zinc.
Speaker 15: It is the actions of the Chinese government in subsidizing
Speaker 15: their own industries that is putting it risk the jobs
Speaker 15: in those manufacturing industries here in Australia. It's causing all
Speaker 15: of those facilities to put their handout and want billions
Speaker 15: of dollars of taxpayer support to stay alive. And I'd
Speaker 15: also like to know, and I think the anything Albaneze
Speaker 15: should be up front with the Australian people. Is he
Speaker 15: going to raise the issues that his Resources minister has
Speaker 15: raised publicly here in this country with the Chinese government.
Speaker 15: Is he going to raise the fact that the Chinese
Speaker 15: government's trade and investment policies are putting at risk at
Speaker 15: thousands of Australian jobs And what is his response to that.
Speaker 15: He's just silent on that. And the cost of that
Speaker 15: is we can all talk about great we're exporting iron
Speaker 15: or a beef to China. How about the thousands of
Speaker 15: union workers union workers Australian double Australian working work as
Speaker 15: union workers who are facing their jobs being lost in
Speaker 15: the factories all around Australia because of Chinese aggressive trade
Speaker 15: and investment policies.
Speaker 1: All right, plenty more to get to in a moment's time.
Speaker 1: Remember if we want to join us there in Mount Gambia,
Speaker 1: it's outside at sky News dot com dot Are you
Speaker 1: quick break back with more here on Paul Murray Live.
Speaker 1: And before we are done again, tell I will show
Speaker 1: you why you should not laugh at the idea of
Speaker 1: Elon Musk starting a political party. Want to thank you
Speaker 1: so much for watching here with Matt Canavan, here with
Speaker 1: Darren Bunnette. And if you would like to send me
Speaker 1: an email at any time, and I plenty have already
Speaker 1: about lions, tigers and all the rest of it. It
Speaker 1: is Paul Skynews dot com dot AU Matt Surprise, surprise,
Speaker 1: the take up of EV vehicles has hit a little
Speaker 1: bump in the road where previous growth it's not quite
Speaker 1: following through surprise surprise, the woke people that would rush
Speaker 1: towards such a purpose, such a purchase. Are not going
Speaker 1: for Tesla's for the international politics. And I've said this
Speaker 1: before as a person who bleeds red, loves hold, and
Speaker 1: loves broom brooms. At some point I'll own an EV,
Speaker 1: but I'll wait for everyone else to test out the technology,
Speaker 1: see what the resale value is. But we know in
Speaker 1: places like the Act, remember the combustion engine will not
Speaker 1: be allowed to be sold in the Act by twenty thirty.
Speaker 15: Well that's I think you should invest in Queen Bee
Speaker 15: and car sale yards as a message from that one.
Speaker 15: But look, I've got a confession to make too. I
Speaker 15: actually test drove a Tesla New Tesla a little.
Speaker 1: Whilas week kind of what one. I'm quite, But I
Speaker 1: guess what. Politicians don't get the benefits.
Speaker 15: We don't get the the cool cars.
Speaker 1: They cool cars.
Speaker 15: But I think what we should do is just that
Speaker 15: people make their own choice. As I said Polly's we
Speaker 15: can't get the tax betefit, so I'm not sure if
Speaker 15: I'm going to buy it. I don't like spending money
Speaker 15: on cars or a dead asset, but your resale values
Speaker 15: falls bad on all cars. But but the issue here
Speaker 15: is why do we waste all this taxpayer money subsidizing the.
Speaker 1: Choices of rich people.
Speaker 15: You've got to be pretty rich to afford most of
Speaker 15: these evs.
Speaker 1: Why do we do that.
Speaker 15: Let's just people make their own choice. And there's actually
Speaker 15: a sting in the tail here from this data. You
Speaker 15: may just laugh and think, oh, well, as you say,
Speaker 15: woke people aren't buying these cars. The problem is that
Speaker 15: on July one, just last week, the government's new carbon
Speaker 15: tax on cars came into effect. And what that means
Speaker 15: that sets a baseline of emissions per kilogram for the
Speaker 15: whole vehicle fleet or for each individual car sellers vehicle fleets.
Speaker 15: And if there are fewer people buying electric cars, the
Speaker 15: tax that the rest of us has to pay to
Speaker 15: just afford a normal car, family car is going to
Speaker 15: be higher. And the governments, all the government's modeling and
Speaker 15: figures were based on uptake of a lot of electric cars.
Speaker 15: That's not happening, and so all of their modeling is
Speaker 15: wrong and the impulset to this carbon tax on cars
Speaker 15: can be much greater on the average Australia.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because remember it was the hybrid cars which was
Speaker 1: many people's choice as the transition vehicle. Those get hit
Speaker 1: by a lot of these things, and basically there was
Speaker 1: a way of trying to go after the hybrid car
Speaker 1: with luxury car tax in order to push people towards EV. Again,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to be a person who's can pretend
Speaker 1: I will never drive on never own one. Look, they
Speaker 1: have vastly improved and they do each and every year.
Speaker 1: I probably won't be buying some of those crappy cars
Speaker 1: that just yell at you the whole time, because some
Speaker 1: of the evs do. But is this just the natural
Speaker 1: take up where all the cool kids have already bought
Speaker 1: it first, and now we've got to wait for a
Speaker 1: market to develop, Darren.
Speaker 17: I think the plug in hybrids are popular and that's
Speaker 17: where the big rise was. The more sort of standard
Speaker 17: traditional EV not so much so. I know they cut
Speaker 17: the FBT exemption in March. Maybe that'll change. They might
Speaker 17: want to look at that again, but the people will
Speaker 17: make their own choices. I agree there is some cross
Speaker 17: subsidy for those vehicles, but Australia is such a large country.
Speaker 17: Until you figure that out, that's why the plug in
Speaker 17: hybrids are successful. Until you figure that out, I think
Speaker 17: it's going to be the old style cars will continue
Speaker 17: to be popular the further you are from the CBD
Speaker 17: of a major.
Speaker 1: Capital direct all right, I've got a bumper sticker question,
Speaker 1: almost a yes no for both of you here right.
Speaker 1: The AFL is talking about having more football into future years.
Speaker 1: What they want to do is have the main competition
Speaker 1: and have some sort of secondary competition with a whole
Speaker 1: bunch of teams that aren't in the full AFL but
Speaker 1: would be in some sort of you know, essentially first Division.
Speaker 1: Whoever wins First Division would get one of the eight
Speaker 1: spots in the AFL Final. So theoretically you could have,
Speaker 1: you know, the Darwin Shah Southport Sharks might end up
Speaker 1: somehow winning the AFL Premiership. It is, of course a
Speaker 1: play for more football, more football, more TV. Blah blah blah.
Speaker 1: Simple question, yes or no. Do you want a secondary
Speaker 1: AFL league, Matt, not.
Speaker 15: Not that format.
Speaker 1: No, all right, I've got other ideas, but no, No.
Speaker 1: Appreciate it helping them.
Speaker 17: Out the old night Grand Final, the Night series with
Speaker 17: interstate teams, it was terrific. Don't mind that idea of
Speaker 17: almost an FA Cup style, but that idea of putting
Speaker 17: him into the eight.
Speaker 1: Now, if rugby lead wants to bring back the Panasonic Cup.
Speaker 1: I'll be happy because the Bouman Tigers do have success
Speaker 1: in that area. Be more than happy for that chap,
Speaker 1: but of course completely different sport. Thank you lads, do appreciate.
Speaker 1: We'll see you again next Monday. Remember if you would
Speaker 1: like to join us for ourtown, Mount Gambia. The email
Speaker 1: is ourtown at skyews dot com dot au. Quick break,
Speaker 1: a bit more from me about Elon Musk before we're done,
Speaker 1: and then the late debate. Now we all know how
Speaker 1: close Elon Musk, the world's richest man is, or was
Speaker 1: was too the most powerful man in the world, Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Now we know that, of course, doge all the rest
Speaker 1: of it. When Tesla's were being blown up because you know, tolerance,
Speaker 1: the President was out there on the White House lawn saying,
Speaker 1: you know you got to buy the ev You know
Speaker 1: by now that all didn't last because surprise, it was
Speaker 1: never going to last. Well, Elon Musk has been blowing
Speaker 1: a gasket about the big beautiful bill that did pass
Speaker 1: and has now been signed into law. He has now
Speaker 1: also said that he's going to launch his own political party,
Speaker 1: essentially to be more mega than MAGA, more pure than maga.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, when asked about all of this, well, tried
Speaker 1: to hit it out of the park.
Speaker 18: I think it's ridiculous to start of third party. We
Speaker 18: have a tremendous success with the Republican foting. The Democrats
Speaker 18: have lost their way, but it's always been at your
Speaker 18: party system, and I don't think exciting a third party
Speaker 18: just hands to confusion.
Speaker 1: The problem is, of course, the American system is not
Speaker 1: like the Australian system, where currently there's four hundred and
Speaker 1: twenty eight people that will be running for the Senate
Speaker 1: at any one time. The reality is it is a
Speaker 1: first past the post system, and generally speaking, in what
Speaker 1: is close to fifty fifty, if one percent of one
Speaker 1: of those fifties doesn't turn up, well, then guess what
Speaker 1: the other guys end up winning. That's the way it works.
Speaker 1: Whether it should or shouldn't, that's their system. But just
Speaker 1: to prove this point to you about why you should
Speaker 1: not be dismissive of anyone who is saying that they
Speaker 1: want to try to take one percent off the fifty percent,
Speaker 1: that is half of the electorate. Have a look at
Speaker 1: the state of Pennsylvania. This was in the twenty and
Speaker 1: sixteen presidential election in that there was a third party
Speaker 1: and the difference was only the best part of fifty
Speaker 1: thousand votes. The third party person one hundred and forty
Speaker 1: six thousand votes. Yes, it was a libertarian, and they
Speaker 1: may well have ended up with Trump, but you get
Speaker 1: my point. When it was a two horse race, Biden
Speaker 1: ended up winning that one, of course, because he was
Speaker 1: so popular, wasn't he I don't want to get canceled
Speaker 1: three point four median votes to Trump's three point three.
Speaker 1: And then in the twenty twenty four election, where there
Speaker 1: was a much bigger margin between Trump and Harris, there
Speaker 1: was a third party at a fourth party as well.
Speaker 1: So if Trump, even if Moscow only gets fifty thousand votes,
Speaker 1: there's fifty thousand votes could be the difference between winning
Speaker 1: and losing. Hence why you don't laugh about it or
Speaker 1: in a second