Speaker 1: Show Good Evening.
Speaker 2: Will tonight coming up my exclusive interview with Treasurer Jim
Speaker 2: Chalmers ahead of tomorrow's budget. But first some breaking news
Speaker 2: I can exclusively reveal. It was Anthony Albanesi's personal decision
Speaker 2: to support the vote at the United Nations to grant
Speaker 2: Palestine a seat. There was still ongoing discussion about whether
Speaker 2: to abstain when the Prime Minister made the final call.
Speaker 2: Anthony Alberzi confirmed this to Labor Caucus today, saying, and
Speaker 2: he said this twice, and I quote it was my decision.
Speaker 2: So this United Nations vote was Albanese's captain's call. That's
Speaker 2: what he told Labor Caucus today twice, saying he made
Speaker 2: the decision. Now, he made these remarks in Labor caucus
Speaker 2: when Labor MP deb O'Neill asked him what he was
Speaker 2: doing to tackle antisemitism. Well, the Prime Minister never directly
Speaker 2: answered her question, instead speaking about the United Nations vote. Well,
Speaker 2: this is the most disgraceful decision yet taken by Albinizi
Speaker 2: and Penny Wong. And it was a decision that Pennywog
Speaker 2: and Deputy Prime Minister Richard Miles agreed with rewarding a
Speaker 2: terrorist organization which has made no concessions at all towards
Speaker 2: peace by voting to grant it a seat at the UN,
Speaker 2: the Yuen which was created in the wake of the
Speaker 2: Holocaust to make sure the dark anti Semitism of the
Speaker 2: Nazis never happens again. What a failure of an organization
Speaker 2: and a failure of our government. Pennywang and Albo voting
Speaker 2: to give Palestine where let's not forget Hermas is the
Speaker 2: current governing body in Gaza membership status. Penny Wong says
Speaker 2: this reflects Australia's commitment to a two state solution. The
Speaker 2: only problem, of course, is that Hermas and the Palestinians
Speaker 2: don't want a two state solution. They only want one
Speaker 2: state their own. They want the destruction of Israel, the
Speaker 2: annihilation of Jews. Well, here was Israel's response at the UN.
Speaker 3: This institution, here, the United Nations, was founded with the
Speaker 3: mission of ensuring such tyranny never raises its ugly head again. Never. Today,
Speaker 3: you are about to do the exact opposite and advance
Speaker 3: the establishment of a Palestinian terror state, which will be
Speaker 3: led by the Hitler of our times, the Hitler of
Speaker 3: our times.
Speaker 2: The Hitler of our times, precisely, Australia moving to recogniz Palestine.
Speaker 1: A seat at the UN is fantasyland.
Speaker 2: Especially when HERMAS is the current governing body in Gaza.
Speaker 2: I mean, suppose the vote got through, would the UN
Speaker 2: just welcome with open arms, the Harmas leadership or Mamudabas
Speaker 2: who supported the October seven massacre. It's incomprehensible. Well, Pennylong
Speaker 2: spin on this is that Hermas would hate the resolution.
Speaker 1: Have a look.
Speaker 4: A two state solution both Israel and Palestine is the
Speaker 4: opposite of what Hamas wants. Hamas does not want peace
Speaker 4: and it does not want long term security for the
Speaker 4: state of Israel.
Speaker 2: Well, it's rubbish to say that Harmas wouldn't welcome this
Speaker 2: historic vote, because they did welcome it. They said, and
Speaker 2: I quote the Hamas said that the resolution is an
Speaker 2: affirmation of international cooperation and all they had to do
Speaker 2: to achieve this outcome was ruthless and in cold blood
Speaker 2: murder thousands of Jews on October seven and drag Israel
Speaker 2: into a war it never wanted, an impossible war tracking
Speaker 2: down the terrorists while trying not to kill hostages of
Speaker 2: Palestinian civilians. No concessions have been made by any of
Speaker 2: the Palestinian leadership about Israel's right to exist, and there
Speaker 2: have been no commitments to stop terror. Nothing. This resolution
Speaker 2: is so absurd that Australia is utterly out of step
Speaker 2: with our allies. As Simon Birmingham pointed out.
Speaker 5: Today, neither of our Auchest partners supported this resolution. The
Speaker 5: majority of our Five Eyes partners did not support this resolution.
Speaker 5: So when you've got the United States, the United Kingdom,
Speaker 5: Canada as well as of course others like Sweden and
Speaker 5: Switzerland are the key democratic partners, Germany or Italy, what
Speaker 5: is it that the Albanesi government has such great foresight
Speaker 5: over But all of these are the key democratic partners,
Speaker 5: key security partners of Australia have come to a different conclusion.
Speaker 2: On The Australian's Foreign editor, Greg Sheridan says the only
Speaker 2: explanation for such a move from Labour is tawdry domestic politics.
Speaker 2: He writes that the macro political calculation for Labour is obvious.
Speaker 2: There are one hundred thousand Jews in Australia and nearly
Speaker 2: a million Muslims. He writes that almost all Muslims are
Speaker 2: opposed to Israel. So Australian politics and foreign policy will
Speaker 2: now contend with a permanent anti Israel dynamic. He says,
Speaker 2: a more responsible and experienced government with an outs more
Speaker 2: courage and heart would have avoided this needless sectarian divide.
Speaker 2: Now many commentators have pointed out that this move is
Speaker 2: Albanezi and Wong overturning decades of bipartisan support for Israel.
Speaker 2: But in truth, the moment Albanesi stepped into the lodge,
Speaker 2: he abandoned Australia's historic commitment to Israel. Everything Albanesi and
Speaker 2: Penny Wong said prior to the last election about their
Speaker 2: approach to the Middle East being bipartisan has turned out
Speaker 2: to be a lie. Their greatest failure is turning their
Speaker 2: back on the anti Semitism crisis that's unfolding right now
Speaker 2: in university campuses and on our streets.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: Greg Sheridan blames domestic politics, and sure, that's definitely one reason,
Speaker 2: but let's not forget where Albanese's own heart lies. That
Speaker 2: he himself was once a pro Palestinian protester.
Speaker 6: Israel trum children owing wells.
Speaker 2: And now Albanizi often says when he's asked about this topic,
Speaker 2: that he knows this is a difficult issue for people
Speaker 2: on both sides of the debate.
Speaker 7: Have a look.
Speaker 8: Some Australians will have strong views, and I understand that
Speaker 8: particularly people who have relatives either in Israel or in
Speaker 8: Gaza or the West Bank will have strong views and
Speaker 8: it will be it is a difficult time.
Speaker 1: He utterly misses the point.
Speaker 2: This isn't a difficult issue because Jews have family in Israel,
Speaker 2: although of course many Jews do have family in Israel,
Speaker 2: and many actually have sons, young sons fighting hermas.
Speaker 1: In Gaza right now.
Speaker 2: But he misses the point because what Albanezi clearly doesn't
Speaker 2: understand and has never understood, is that this is an
Speaker 2: existential crisis for Jews the world over.
Speaker 1: That's why it matters so much.
Speaker 2: Penny Wang and Albanesi and other labor figures, they try
Speaker 2: to make this about net in Yahoo, but I'm sorry,
Speaker 2: it doesn't matter who is in power, whether it's net
Speaker 2: in Yahoo or another leader, because the terrorists aren't targeting
Speaker 2: net in Yahoo. They're targeting Jews, Jewish babies, Jewish children,
Speaker 2: teenage girls, mothers, and the elderly. Her Mus wants to
Speaker 2: kill Jews, plain and simple, This is history repeating itself
Speaker 2: over and over again, an enemy determined to wipe out
Speaker 2: the Jews, and yet Albinizi stands and says, this is
Speaker 2: a difficult time. People feel strongly about it because people
Speaker 2: have family in the Middle.
Speaker 1: East on both sides.
Speaker 2: No, it's a difficult time because the Jews are fighting
Speaker 2: for survival. We're fighting against those who are trying to
Speaker 2: exterminate us yet again. And instead of leadership when we
Speaker 2: need it the most, we see American politicians absurdly call
Speaker 2: for elections in the democracy of Israel.
Speaker 1: Will wake up, Joe Biden call for elections in Gaza.
Speaker 2: And we see politicians in Australia squibbet and back in
Speaker 2: a rational resolution to give the terrorists a seat at
Speaker 2: the table at the UN, the very body created to
Speaker 2: try and protect Jews from the existential threat we're facing
Speaker 2: right now, the very body that officially gave Jews a
Speaker 2: homeland in the first place. This is why it's a
Speaker 2: difficult time. And your support of the resolution backing the
Speaker 2: seat at the UN without any peace agreement or any
Speaker 2: concessions only emboldens the terrorists and puts Israel in a
Speaker 2: more isolated and vulnerable position. Now I'm going to come
Speaker 2: back to this topic later in the show. I'm going
Speaker 2: to be joined by barrister and director of UK Lawyers
Speaker 2: for Israel, Natasha Hausdorff.
Speaker 1: You might remember her.
Speaker 2: She went viral on a clip arguing with left leaning
Speaker 2: media broadcasters on the BBC and elsewhere. She's going to
Speaker 2: join me later in the program. As I mentioned, I've
Speaker 2: also got an exclusive interview tonight with Treasurer at Jim
Speaker 2: Chalmers as he looks to set the scene for the
Speaker 2: government's high stakes budget tomorrow. Inflation the main focus as
Speaker 2: he rolls the dice in one of his biggest political
Speaker 2: gambles yet, and Albanezi hemorrhaging voters as it's revealed more
Speaker 2: than a quarter of people who back to the PM
Speaker 2: at the last selection won't vote for him again. Now
Speaker 2: let's bring in first tonight my panel, Sky News host
Speaker 2: Liz Stora and contributor Joe Hildebrand.
Speaker 1: Welcome to you both.
Speaker 9: Hello, well said, Thank.
Speaker 1: You very much. Joe.
Speaker 2: Now we've been speaking on this show about Elon Musk's
Speaker 2: X and his fight with the federal government in court
Speaker 2: to overturn a ban on the footage of the Wakely
Speaker 2: Church stabbing. The e Safety Commissioner Julie in Man Grant
Speaker 2: tried to extend an injunction on this, yet the court
Speaker 2: ruled in Elon Musk's favor.
Speaker 1: Joe, this is an important win for free speech because.
Speaker 2: The government wanted this footage of a news event banned,
Speaker 2: not just in Australia but right around the world.
Speaker 9: Yeah, it's a really interesting one. I thought, in what
Speaker 9: i've kind of conflicted as usual obs city on the fence.
Speaker 9: No I'm not, but I thought I thought the government
Speaker 9: or the regulator, Julian mcgrant and the Safe Commissioner had
Speaker 9: perfect grounds, especially in the heat of the moment, the
Speaker 9: immediate aftermath of the stabbing, where we saw what looked
Speaker 9: like a couple of copycat incidents, and certainly we know
Speaker 9: that it was going viral, and that there were plots
Speaker 9: or alleged plots among this person's immediate peer group where
Speaker 9: they were allegedly watching videos terror videos like this one,
Speaker 9: and they were using these to sort of rev themselves
Speaker 9: up to commit another unspecified attack allegedly allegedly. This is
Speaker 9: all being investigated and some of the before the courts.
Speaker 9: So I think there was a justification in you know,
Speaker 9: I'm a pragmatist up fundamentally. You know, I'm not going
Speaker 9: to say, you know, we're going to let this terrorist threat,
Speaker 9: you know, sweep through the community, because on principle, I
Speaker 9: will not bend. However, I'm also very prop fary speech,
Speaker 9: so I find it quite heartening that the Federal court
Speaker 9: has said, look at this initial stage of the hearing,
Speaker 9: we're going to err on the side of free speech.
Speaker 9: But it's still not a complete Basically, all they've said is,
Speaker 9: she said, well, can you keep the video down until
Speaker 9: the case is hurt and until there's a final decision,
Speaker 9: And they said, no, we're not going to do that.
Speaker 9: The videos up until the actual final decision comes down.
Speaker 9: So it's sort of in a bit of limbo at
Speaker 9: the moment. But I do think it's good that courts,
Speaker 9: which sometimes have the tendency to err on the side
Speaker 9: of suppression and keeping the public as mushrooms, so actually
Speaker 9: said no, in this case, we're going to err on
Speaker 9: the side of letting the public, you know, letting this
Speaker 9: be out there until we're determined. Otherwise, even if I do,
Speaker 9: you'll think there were grounds, especially immediately after the attack,
Speaker 9: for the video to be removed.
Speaker 1: Especially in the str I mean, Liz, this is a
Speaker 1: news event.
Speaker 2: You wouldn't, as I've said before, you wouldn't remove footage
Speaker 2: of nine to eleven or anything else. So it doesn't
Speaker 2: make sense that this one particular attack you'd remove when
Speaker 2: there are violent video games, violent movies, violent terror, oh yeah,
Speaker 2: you know, violent television shows about terrorism. All of that
Speaker 2: could incite young people not to mention the hate preachers
Speaker 2: and nothing's been done about them.
Speaker 1: Absolutely enough alb and.
Speaker 2: Easy wanting to turn Elon Musk into a convenient villain exactly.
Speaker 10: And as Brett Walker, the lawyer for X, has argued,
Speaker 10: and I think anyone who's seen the video would agree,
Speaker 10: the video in question does not meet the legal requirements.
Speaker 10: It's not sufficiently violent enough in order to meet the
Speaker 10: legal requirements to be taken down. And Elon has said,
Speaker 10: ad nauseum, we do not break the laws in countries, okay,
Speaker 10: So if something is breaking the law, we take it
Speaker 10: off my platform. This does not break the Laura in Australia,
Speaker 10: and I think this is a great early win for
Speaker 10: X because we're also watching in real time the E
Speaker 10: Safety Commissioner being taught the limits of her powers. Obviously
Speaker 10: the trial will go on to investigate the merits or
Speaker 10: I would argue the lack thereof of the extent of
Speaker 10: her demands. But let's not forget this woman is racking
Speaker 10: up a big bill for the taxpayer in court.
Speaker 1: So we've got this going on with Elong Musk.
Speaker 10: We've got Billboard Chris, the Canadian whose posts that she
Speaker 10: took down after he simply posted regarding someone who advises
Speaker 10: the UN on health matters and he posted about this
Speaker 10: guy's ponchon for best reality and orgies and all never
Speaker 10: of I don't know why this is funny, Joe, and
Speaker 10: he commented, you know, why is this person someone that
Speaker 10: should be advising the UN or anyone else for that
Speaker 10: matter on health issues. This is what the E Commissioner
Speaker 10: chose to flex on and is now being taken to
Speaker 10: court because once again she reached outside her jurisdiction and
Speaker 10: wanted someone in Canada silenced on the platform X. So
Speaker 10: she's embarrassing us on the world stage. Everyone's watching this
Speaker 10: play out with X knowing that it's Australia's E Safety Commissioner.
Speaker 10: We're the first country to have one, and I hope
Speaker 10: that it's a very large billboard writ large for the
Speaker 10: rest of the Western world, being like you don't want
Speaker 10: one of these, Okay, they're expensive and they just keep
Speaker 10: doing stupid.
Speaker 1: Malcolm Turnbill hired her.
Speaker 2: She is a woke you know, former company employee from
Speaker 2: the US, and you know what, we should be concerned
Speaker 2: And I think this body needs to go back to
Speaker 2: what it was, what it began with.
Speaker 1: As a children's e safety.
Speaker 9: I think some of those from such obviously some of
Speaker 9: those important, some of those decisions, do you know, do
Speaker 9: vergon censorship. But just to be clear, like the reason
Speaker 9: for taking down the attack in Wakely wasn't that it
Speaker 9: was particularly obscene or particularly graphic. It was that it
Speaker 9: was being actively used by the associates of this person
Speaker 9: to kind of rev up people.
Speaker 1: They don't know that at all. They spread like wildfire.
Speaker 1: Everyone had seen it.
Speaker 2: That's why the rise actly solians worldwide.
Speaker 10: She would be far better used spending her valuable time
Speaker 10: trying to get rid of children's pawn in Australia.
Speaker 1: That's something we can all back.
Speaker 2: Let's have a look at this move by the South
Speaker 2: Australian premier to have a blanket ban on social media
Speaker 2: for children under the age of fourteen. The Malanascas government
Speaker 2: has appointed a former High Court Chief Justice to examine
Speaker 2: the legal pathways required to impose a ban Joe.
Speaker 1: This does seem sensible.
Speaker 2: I think that a lot of parents don't want their
Speaker 2: you know, their young children to be on social media,
Speaker 2: but they also don't want them to be left out
Speaker 2: or to be bullied. So if you have a government saying, right,
Speaker 2: you can't be on social media until you're fourteen, that's.
Speaker 9: Kind of absolutely. I mean, that's right. The premise of
Speaker 9: all freedoms, and especially freedom of speech is you know,
Speaker 9: consenting adults. So immediately when you children, that's right. We
Speaker 9: do only children drive cars, buy alcohol, you know, watch
Speaker 9: pornography and we and I think we're getting to the
Speaker 9: point where social media is just as harmful, if not
Speaker 9: more so in some cases than a lot of those scourges.
Speaker 9: It's in terms of just the way it gears your brain.
Speaker 9: We've seen in terms of the way it hurts kids
Speaker 9: academic performance at school. They focus their concentration, their sociability,
Speaker 9: exposure to bullying online mental health because you think that
Speaker 9: your life is crap, because all you're seeing is sort
Speaker 9: of influencers on Instagram, you know, living their best life
Speaker 9: and looking like everything's fantastic all the time. So again
Speaker 9: I think there's every the last thing you want to do. However,
Speaker 9: I suppose make it more desirable. But as Melanascus points out,
Speaker 9: you know, you know, smoking became more desirable when it
Speaker 9: was banned, but that doesn't mean that more kids did
Speaker 9: it than when or if it was available to if
Speaker 9: you want, all the time they.
Speaker 1: Were I restreets.
Speaker 10: What do you think there's I think obviously it sounds
Speaker 10: great on the face of it. The big question, and
Speaker 10: this is what the Essay Inquiry will look into, is
Speaker 10: how to enforce something like this. So at the moment,
Speaker 10: if you want to open up an account on either
Speaker 10: Instagram or Facebook, it's by their own stipulation you have
Speaker 10: to be over the age of thirteen. Thirteen is the
Speaker 10: very youngest you can open one. But of course kids lie,
Speaker 10: so that hasn't served its purpose. What would it take though,
Speaker 10: for the government to be able to police that?
Speaker 1: And that's where we see things.
Speaker 10: Like when the Morrison government first looked into this in
Speaker 10: twenty twenty two, again with regard to online abuse and
Speaker 10: how can we crack down on this? They had an inquiry,
Speaker 10: and one of the recommendations that came back was a
Speaker 10: credit system in which if you wanted to have a
Speaker 10: social media account, you would have to supply the platform
Speaker 10: with one hundred points of identification your driver's license, your passport, etc.
Speaker 1: And so on in order to use your account. So
Speaker 1: that was very curious to see.
Speaker 10: Troubles as well, how yes, but very curious to see
Speaker 10: because people also do have a right to privacy online,
Speaker 10: and it bears mentioning that a lot of people who
Speaker 10: choose to be anonymous online aren't just the trolls, they
Speaker 10: are conservatives, like libs of TikTok. Very famous case there
Speaker 10: who ended up being dotted and her identity was made known,
Speaker 10: but known across the world. She's brilliant content, but she
Speaker 10: had chosen to keep herself anonymous because she knew by
Speaker 10: sharing this conservative content, I will be made to pay
Speaker 10: dearly in my personal life. So I think there's no
Speaker 10: way to enforce something like this without railroading people's Josie
Speaker 10: very quickly.
Speaker 1: Budget tomorrow.
Speaker 9: Yes it will be incredibly boring, but don't go anywhere.
Speaker 11: Yeah, I'm knowing you to the lock up.
Speaker 1: I think the truth is walking a fine line.
Speaker 9: That's exactly right, and I think he knows that we'll
Speaker 9: be boring. He knows that he's really got to This
Speaker 9: is going to be a really tricky one to land.
Speaker 9: He's got to thread the needle, as they say he can't.
Speaker 9: He knows that people are crying out for relief because
Speaker 9: of the cost of living pressures that we all know
Speaker 9: too well. But of course any relief that he does
Speaker 9: give runs the risk of being inflationary. So again it's
Speaker 9: just that catch twenty two cycle where people are hurting
Speaker 9: because of high inflation, so you help them, but that
Speaker 9: could cause high inflation, so you can't help them, but
Speaker 9: then they're hurting and again. So I think he's provided
Speaker 9: a very bullish forecast that by early next year inflation
Speaker 9: will be back down between two and three percent. I
Speaker 9: think that's pretty heroic.
Speaker 8: God.
Speaker 9: I hope he's right, and that's Treasury's forecast. The RBA
Speaker 9: is a bit less optimistic, but I think he'll really
Speaker 9: be trying to thread the deil. And to be honest,
Speaker 9: I think he's a perfect man for the job because
Speaker 9: he is a genuine moderate, a genuine centrist, and hopefully
Speaker 9: he will just sort of hold that middle line.
Speaker 1: All right, Joe held a round the store. I thank
Speaker 1: you both so much.
Speaker 12: Thanks chair.
Speaker 2: Now after the break, Treasurer Jim Chalmers joins me ahead
Speaker 2: of tomorrow's high stakes federal budget. I'll ask him about
Speaker 2: the difference in that inflation forecast that Joe just mentioned
Speaker 2: and what it means if he gets it wrong. Stay tuned,
Speaker 2: welcome back. Well, it's the night before the federal budget
Speaker 2: and Treasurer Jim Chalmers joined me to speak about the
Speaker 2: cost of living inflation and whether they'll be a surplus.
Speaker 2: It's the only television interview he's doing today ahead of
Speaker 2: tomorrow's budget. We spoke in the last half hour and
Speaker 2: here's what he had to say. Treasure thank you so
Speaker 2: much for your time this evening.
Speaker 11: Thanks very much, Sherry for having me back on your show. Now.
Speaker 1: We're in a cost of living crisis.
Speaker 2: The RBA governor says that people are skipping medical appointments,
Speaker 2: Others are sending their kids to school without lunch. Families
Speaker 2: are even living in cars. What will you do as
Speaker 2: Treasurer to help vulnerable Australians in tomorrow's budget.
Speaker 11: Well, really, the main motivation behind this budget is people
Speaker 11: doing it tough. And we want to do more than
Speaker 11: just acknowledge that things are difficult for people right now,
Speaker 11: we're actually doing something about it. So there'll be cost
Speaker 11: of living relief in the budget. There'll be a tax
Speaker 11: cut for every taxpayer, but there'll be additional cost of
Speaker 11: living help on top of that as well, at the
Speaker 11: same time as we try and build much more housing,
Speaker 11: because that's one of the reasons why people are under
Speaker 11: so much pressure, that absence of housing.
Speaker 2: Look you right at the top of your notes, the
Speaker 2: words forty one, the first two digits of the logan
Speaker 2: postcode where you live. You've just spoken about tax cuts.
Speaker 2: You've said that they amount to about thirty six dollars
Speaker 2: a week, the Stage three tax cuts that will take
Speaker 2: effect from the first of July. Do you worry that
Speaker 2: this won't be enough to lift people out of the
Speaker 2: sort of extreme financial stress that they're suffering.
Speaker 11: Well, that's why there'll be more than the average of
Speaker 11: thirty six dollars a week. I think that's really important,
Speaker 11: that cost of living help that will come from that
Speaker 11: tax cut for every taxpayer, right up and down the
Speaker 11: income scale. All thirteen point six million Australian taxpayers will
Speaker 11: get a tax cut, and eighty four percent of those
Speaker 11: taxpayers will get a bigger tax cut than they were
Speaker 11: going to get before under the old Stage three plan
Speaker 11: from our predecessors. But tax cuts are not the only
Speaker 11: cost of living help in the budget. There's more help
Speaker 11: on top of that, and that's because we recognize that
Speaker 11: people are doing it tough and really the centerpiece of
Speaker 11: this budget. It will be a responsible budget, but the
Speaker 11: centerpiece will be cost of living help at the same
Speaker 11: time as we invest in the future of our economy.
Speaker 2: Can you be a bit more specific tonight you're handing
Speaker 2: down the budget tomorrow. What is the centerpiece cost of
Speaker 2: living help that Australians who are struggling will receive tomorrow.
Speaker 11: People will see in the budget when we announce it
Speaker 11: tomorrow evening. But we know what the pressures are in
Speaker 11: our economy. This inflation, which has been a feature of
Speaker 11: our economy since before we were elected and continued after,
Speaker 11: is really the main thing that is putting people under
Speaker 11: such pressure. We know that and that's why the main
Speaker 11: purpose of the budget tomorrow is to provide those tax
Speaker 11: cuts for every tax payer, to give additional cost of
Speaker 11: living relief. Because we recognize that people are under really
Speaker 11: quite extreme pressure, as you are right to outline, and
Speaker 11: we're going to do something about it.
Speaker 2: Well, on inflation, the Treasury has a more optimistic outlook
Speaker 2: than the RBA. The Treasury forecasting that inflation by the
Speaker 2: end of the year will be under three percent, around
Speaker 2: two point seventy five percent, while the RBA has it
Speaker 2: at three point eight percent. Of course, Treasury Secretary Stephen
Speaker 2: Kennedy sits on the RBA board, So how do you
Speaker 2: explain this discrepancy between the Treasury and the RBA forecasts
Speaker 2: on inflation.
Speaker 11: Yeah, it's very easy to explain, Sharon. I'm glad you've
Speaker 11: given me the opportunity because our political opponents either don't
Speaker 11: understand this, which is troubling, or they're lying about it,
Speaker 11: which is even more troubling. That the main difference between
Speaker 11: the forecast from the Reserve Bank and the treasure is
Speaker 11: that the Treasury's forecasts take into consideration the policies in
Speaker 11: the budget. Now, we speak with the Reserve Bank Governor
Speaker 11: from time to time about our settings in the budget.
Speaker 11: We've been able to give her a briefing about what's
Speaker 11: in the budget. But because of the timing of the
Speaker 11: Reserve Bank's forecasts. They weren't able to include our policies
Speaker 11: in those forecasts that they released last week, and so
Speaker 11: the main difference is not necessarily a difference of opinion,
Speaker 11: but a difference of timing. And so because Governor Bulleck
Speaker 11: released hers before the budget and because ours will be
Speaker 11: released with the budget, it means it can take into
Speaker 11: consideration the spending restraint that we're showing, the way that
Speaker 11: we're designing our cost of living health Our budget will
Speaker 11: be part of the solution to this inflation challenge, not
Speaker 11: part of the problem. The budget will put downward pressure
Speaker 11: on inflation, not upward pressure on inflation. And that's why
Speaker 11: the Treasury forecasts are different, because they can take all
Speaker 11: of that into consideration.
Speaker 2: So, just to clarify that, are you saying that the
Speaker 2: budget measures will bring down inflation by up to one percent?
Speaker 11: We're saying that the design of our cost of living policies,
Speaker 11: combined with our spending restraint, the fact that we have
Speaker 11: been banking such a big proportion of the upward revenue
Speaker 11: revisions in the near term in the budget, all of
Speaker 11: this combined the really responsible and restrained way we've gone
Speaker 11: about things, means that we are putting downward pressure on inflation.
Speaker 11: In the budget. The Treasury has been able to factor
Speaker 11: that in because it's got all of the effects of
Speaker 11: all of our policies, including our cost of living policies.
Speaker 11: The Reserve Bank timing of their forecast didn't allow for that,
Speaker 11: and that's the main reason for the difference.
Speaker 2: So if you're saying that the budget helps the fight
Speaker 2: against inflation, does the budget therefore make a rate rise
Speaker 2: this year less likely?
Speaker 11: Look, I focus on my job rather than the Reserve
Speaker 11: Bank's job. Obviously, they come to their own decisions about
Speaker 11: interest rate movements. They come to those decisions independently. I
Speaker 11: don't tell them how to do their job, and they
Speaker 11: don't tell me how to do mine, and that works
Speaker 11: just fine. I think my focus is on getting inflation
Speaker 11: down as soon as we can. We all want to
Speaker 11: see inflation moderate a further and faster. We've made really
Speaker 11: good progress together. Inflation is almost half what we inherited
Speaker 11: when we came to office. We're actually ahead of the
Speaker 11: inflation forecast that we had in the last budget update.
Speaker 11: So we've made some welcome and encouraging progress on inflation.
Speaker 11: But it's not mission accomplished because people are still hurting.
Speaker 11: That's why the budget will be so focused on the
Speaker 11: cost of living, and it's also why it won't be
Speaker 11: a slash and burn budget. Because people are under pressure
Speaker 11: and the economy soft, we can get on top of
Speaker 11: inflation without slashing and burning the budget, and you'll see
Speaker 11: that in what we release tomorrow.
Speaker 2: Treasury, you've indicated that you're going to give substantial energy
Speaker 2: bill relief intomorrow's budget, that that will be one area
Speaker 2: of cost of living relief.
Speaker 1: Of course, that is welcome.
Speaker 2: If you reduce the price of energy, there's a reduction
Speaker 2: in that component of the CPI, which is what you've
Speaker 2: been speaking about. But it also means that people will
Speaker 2: have more money in their pocket which they could spend
Speaker 2: in the economy and then could raise inflation.
Speaker 1: How do you balance that risk.
Speaker 11: Well, first of all, people have to wait and see
Speaker 11: what extra cost of living help is in the budget.
Speaker 11: But if you look back to the energy you build
Speaker 11: the relief that we provided last time in last budget.
Speaker 11: Instead of energy prices going up in the year to
Speaker 11: March by around fifteen percent, they went up by two percent,
Speaker 11: and so we made a difference and that was consistent
Speaker 11: with inflation moderating quite substantially, which I think is the
Speaker 11: main reason why I wouldn't agree with those who say
Speaker 11: that that kind of relief, you know, getting energy bills down,
Speaker 11: adds to broader inflationary pressures in our economy. What we've
Speaker 11: seen in the past is it actually puts downward pressure
Speaker 11: on inflation, not upward pressure on inflation, and without preempting
Speaker 11: what is or isn't in the bar. Tomorrow, I think
Speaker 11: people will see that what we've been able to do,
Speaker 11: and consistent with the Treasury advice, is put downward pressure
Speaker 11: on inflation with our cost of living package without adding
Speaker 11: to broader inflationary pressures in the economy. There's more than
Speaker 11: one way to provide cost of living help. If your
Speaker 11: mail checks to people, it's more likely to be inflationary.
Speaker 11: There are other ways to go about it which is
Speaker 11: smarter and which make sure that we are part of
Speaker 11: the solution rather than part of the problem when it
Speaker 11: comes to inflation.
Speaker 2: Now, another initial that you write in your notes, this
Speaker 2: was reported on in the Cinn Morning Herald today is
Speaker 2: sh for steady hand. This is a reminder to keep
Speaker 2: inflation in check. It's well known that every minister, particularly
Speaker 2: in a labor government wants to spend in their policy area.
Speaker 2: Were you prepared to be unpopular with your colleagues to
Speaker 2: keep spending down to keep the budget contractionary.
Speaker 11: Obviously, we're prepared to take tough decisions. I don't take
Speaker 11: them on my own. I've got an ex beneture of
Speaker 11: view committee. I've got a Prime Minister who takes a
Speaker 11: very responsible and restrained approach to the budget, and I've
Speaker 11: got a wonderful colleague in Katie Gallagher, the Finance Minister,
Speaker 11: and we all work together. I think the whole government
Speaker 11: understands that we've got to get on top of this
Speaker 11: inflation challenge and that means being restrained, sequence targeted with
Speaker 11: our investments, and so we are able to do that
Speaker 11: in the budget that you will see tomorrow. I think
Speaker 11: there's always the case in budget so there are more
Speaker 11: good ideas than can be funded. Often you can only
Speaker 11: funder a small sliver of the good ideas that people
Speaker 11: put to you. I think that's well understood right across
Speaker 11: our team.
Speaker 2: Yeah, makes it a very difficult task as treasure being
Speaker 2: the no guy, I imagine. Look, one of the biggest
Speaker 2: pressures on your budget is the ndis According to the
Speaker 2: fin Review, initial estimates said it would only cost around
Speaker 2: thirteen billion dollars. It's now on track to hit one
Speaker 2: hundred and twenty five billion in just a decade's time
Speaker 2: in twenty thirty four. If it does hit that, it
Speaker 2: would be three percent of GDP. Why not means test
Speaker 2: it like the IMF has suggested.
Speaker 11: Look, we intend for the NDIS to continue as a
Speaker 11: demand driven scheme, and our overriding objective here is to
Speaker 11: make sure the NDIS can deliver for the people it
Speaker 11: was designed to help. That's our primary motivation. In order
Speaker 11: to do that, we've got to make sure we're getting
Speaker 11: value for money. We've got to make sure that we
Speaker 11: can afford the growth in the system. Nobody's contemplating hacking
Speaker 11: the system back. We're just talking about managing the growth
Speaker 11: in the system. I really commend and pay tribute to
Speaker 11: Bill short And has done a mountain of work in
Speaker 11: this regard and across our cabinet. We're very conscious that
Speaker 11: the cost of the NDIS has been growing quickly, it
Speaker 11: will continue to grow quickly, but we need to make
Speaker 11: sure that we're getting value for money for all of
Speaker 11: those billions of dollars that we're investing to help people
Speaker 11: who need and deserve our assistance.
Speaker 12: Look.
Speaker 2: A centerpiece of the budget, also a centerpiece of the
Speaker 2: Albanese government's pre election pitch is the Future Made in
Speaker 2: Australia program. This involves investing in select companies, such as
Speaker 2: the billion dollars in the Quantum computing company. As you know,
Speaker 2: venture capital companies regularly invest in startups that fail or
Speaker 2: don't make money. How can the government outperform these professional
Speaker 2: investors and why risk a billion dollars of taxpayer funds
Speaker 2: in this way?
Speaker 11: Well, what you're seeing the budget Tomorrow's Sharry, is that
Speaker 11: they are a range of different leavers that we are
Speaker 11: proposing and funding to make the most of this vast
Speaker 11: industrial and economic opportunity which has been presented to us
Speaker 11: by the global shift to net zero. And so in
Speaker 11: order to grab those opportunities, there will be a whole
Speaker 11: range of policies that I'll announce tomorrow, are very coherent,
Speaker 11: considered a targeted set of policies, whether it's the tax system,
Speaker 11: whether it's the kind of investments that you describe, whether
Speaker 11: it's making sure that we're attracting and deploying private investment
Speaker 11: and private capital much more effectively in our economy. You'll
Speaker 11: see that it is a much more sophisticated and coherent package.
Speaker 11: There are some elements of it which is about grants,
Speaker 11: but that's not the whole story. And what we're trying
Speaker 11: to do here is not replace private capital with public capital.
Speaker 11: We're trying to use the leavers available to us as
Speaker 11: a government to attract much more private capital to invest
Speaker 11: in opportunities, whether they are industrial or energy or resources,
Speaker 11: or relying on our skills base, to make sure that
Speaker 11: we can create a new generation of growth and prosperity
Speaker 11: in this country, which recognizes that the world is changing,
Speaker 11: the pace of that change is accelerating, and we've got
Speaker 11: some pretty handy cards to play to make sure that
Speaker 11: our people are beneficiaries of that change rather than victims
Speaker 11: of it.
Speaker 2: Look hearkening back to a treasurer before you, when you
Speaker 2: encourage parents to have more children, why are you sending
Speaker 2: this message to Australians.
Speaker 11: I'm really pleased you asked me about that cherry. I mean,
Speaker 11: I think it's one of those occasions you'd be familiar
Speaker 11: to it with your long experience in journalism. Sometimes the
Speaker 11: headline doesn't really capture the conversation.
Speaker 8: You know.
Speaker 11: I was asked whether, in the context of an aging population,
Speaker 11: would be better if birth rates were a bit higher.
Speaker 11: I gave the same answer that treasurers since Peter Costello
Speaker 11: have been giving. It's been uncontroversial for a couple of
Speaker 11: decades now to make that point. But more importantly than that,
Speaker 11: I said, it costs a lot to have kids, and
Speaker 11: people are making their own choices, and I understand those choices.
Speaker 11: Not for one second do I want to tell people
Speaker 11: what to do with their own lives, and especially their
Speaker 11: own family lives. That's not how I roll, That's not
Speaker 11: how I go about this job. My job is to
Speaker 11: make sure that people can make choices if they want to,
Speaker 11: and that's why I'm investing billions of dollars in early
Speaker 11: childhood education, expanding paid parenta leave, paying the superannuation guarantee
Speaker 11: on paid parental leave, so that people have more choices
Speaker 11: available to them in the context of raising kids being
Speaker 11: so expensive. I understand that, and so I'm not telling
Speaker 11: anyone what to do. I'm not giving anybody any free
Speaker 11: advice about how they manage their own families and make
Speaker 11: their own decisions. I'm simply making the point that raising
Speaker 11: kids is expensive and we want to make it easier.
Speaker 11: If that's what people want.
Speaker 2: To do, treasure can we expect another surplus tomorrow night?
Speaker 11: I have to wait and see, Shari. We've certainly been
Speaker 11: shooting for that, as you know, not as an end
Speaker 11: in itself, but because getting the budget in much better
Speaker 11: NICK helps us fund our other priorities. And as I've
Speaker 11: said a couple of times tonight, our big priorities in
Speaker 11: the budget are responsible budget, help with cost of living,
Speaker 11: and invest in the future, and getting the budget in
Speaker 11: much better Nick is part of that. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Look, you reportedly went for a run at the ripe
Speaker 2: hour of three forty six am yesterday, three forty six.
Speaker 2: As Kevin Ryder's Prime minister famously only slept for three
Speaker 2: hours a night, how many hours are you managing at
Speaker 2: the moment.
Speaker 11: Was not a lot of sleep at the moment, Sharry.
Speaker 11: But I don't expect people to get the violins out
Speaker 11: about that. Around budget time, It's not unusual for treasurers
Speaker 11: to only sleep a little bit, and I figure if
Speaker 11: I wake up earlier, I may as well make the
Speaker 11: most of it, So I go for a very slow
Speaker 11: trundle to It's a good way I think to clear
Speaker 11: the head before a big day.
Speaker 2: All right, Treasure, I appreciate your time this evening, as
Speaker 2: you say, before your big day tomorrow.
Speaker 11: Thank you so much, Thanks so much, Cherry, all the best,
Speaker 11: all right.
Speaker 2: Coming up, the fallout from Australia's latest betrayal of Israel
Speaker 2: after voting in favor of Palestine becoming a member of
Speaker 2: the un Natasha Horstaff will join me after the break.
Speaker 2: Welcome back to the program. We'll pro Palestinian protest rupted
Speaker 2: during Duke University's commencement ceremony, with dozens of students walking
Speaker 2: out during guest speaker Jerry Seinfeld's speech.
Speaker 1: Have a look.
Speaker 2: Now, Jerry Seinfeld is Jewish and he is a supporter
Speaker 2: of Israel, but none of this was mentioned.
Speaker 1: During his address.
Speaker 2: So what were they doing at a Jewish famous comedian.
Speaker 1: Outrageous.
Speaker 2: Well, Joining me now to discuss the rise of antisemitism
Speaker 2: is barrister and UK Lawyers for Israel director Natasha Haustoff. Natasha,
Speaker 2: great to see you in Australia.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the country. It's wonderful to be him in person.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Now, this latest clip with Jerry Seinfield at Duke.
Speaker 2: This is just a reflection of the anti Semitism that
Speaker 2: we've seen right across university campuses here in Australia, in London,
Speaker 2: in the US.
Speaker 1: Do you think this has always been there or what's
Speaker 1: driving this? Well, unfortunately, I think it's a long standing.
Speaker 12: It's an instances like this that we see the mask
Speaker 12: of anti Semitism, if it were ever applied properly slip.
Speaker 12: These protests that manifest themselves as anti Israel are in
Speaker 12: fact targeting Jewish students on campus and public individuals that
Speaker 12: are recognizably Jewish. So this modern form of anti Semitism,
Speaker 12: which is supposedly acceptable, this due hate in the form
Speaker 12: of anti Israel sentiment that needs to be called out for.
Speaker 8: What it is.
Speaker 2: Now, we've just been speaking about the United Nations vote
Speaker 2: on Friday, New York time Saturday Australia time, where you know,
Speaker 2: Australia supported the UN vote, many other countries abstained, you know,
Speaker 2: not voting.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 2: What do you think you know I've said this that
Speaker 2: this is giving support to terrorism. You know, this vote
Speaker 2: wouldn't have happened if it hadn't been for October seven.
Speaker 2: We haven't seen any willingness by any of the Palestinian leadership,
Speaker 2: whether it's Hamas in Gaza or the Palestinian authority in
Speaker 2: the West Bank, to actually put forward or come to
Speaker 2: the table with plans for peace or concessions on Israel's
Speaker 2: right to exist.
Speaker 1: Yet the UN has tried to move this resolution.
Speaker 12: I mean extraordinary that that should be a concession the
Speaker 12: acceptance of Israel continuing to exist. It's important, I think,
Speaker 12: to be clear that Harmas has been very vocal about
Speaker 12: using the prospect of a two state solution as a
Speaker 12: platform to continue it's a nihilistic agenda against Israel, and
Speaker 12: the so called moderates in the West Bank have been
Speaker 12: funding the terror salaries for terrorists, including Harmas terrorists and
Speaker 12: others that cross the border on the seventh of October.
Speaker 12: So the notion that there is any partner there for
Speaker 12: peaceful negotiations towards a two state solution has of course
Speaker 12: been utterly destroyed by what we saw seven months ago.
Speaker 12: What's particularly concerning about the position that Australia has taken
Speaker 12: now is that it is out of keeping with a
Speaker 12: consistent policy that a negotiated solution is the only proper
Speaker 12: way forward and we've seen consistent steps against unilateral moves,
Speaker 12: even reversing the recognition of Jerusalem Israel's capital, up until
Speaker 12: this point, where unilaterally voting for this resolution in the
Speaker 12: General Assembly. We should be clear that this is a
Speaker 12: political resolution. It doesn't have legal effect. Nonetheless, it sends
Speaker 12: a particularly powerful message and one that isn't in sync
Speaker 12: with so many of Australia's allies, the UK included, who
Speaker 12: abstained on this, the US who voted against it. So
Speaker 12: that is a remarkable change and very concerning, as you
Speaker 12: said wonderfully in the opening, that one that ultimately rewards
Speaker 12: the terrorism, brutality and the atrocities that we saw on
Speaker 12: the seventh of October.
Speaker 2: We are seeing some international countries accuse Israel of war
Speaker 2: crimes and genocide. Many figures of the left join in
Speaker 2: these accusations. As an international lawyer, can you tell us
Speaker 2: what legal standing they have to make these claims?
Speaker 12: Well, the claims are baseless in terms of legal claims.
Speaker 12: I would call them political claims, and they certainly fed
Speaker 12: into the UN Security General Assembly resolution that we saw,
Speaker 12: They fed into Security Council resolutions that have been passed.
Speaker 12: It's important to acknowledge that these also aren't legally binding.
Speaker 12: Only those passed on the Chapter seven of the Charter
Speaker 12: have legal teeth. But I think what we're seeing is
Speaker 12: a continuation of these blood libels. I mean, there's no
Speaker 12: other word for it, these extraordinary accusations that accuse the
Speaker 12: victims of genocide, the victims being Israelis on the seventh
Speaker 12: of October, of perpetrating the crimes that were committed against them,
Speaker 12: so far as war.
Speaker 10: Crimes are concerned.
Speaker 12: While we have seen reports both of the United Kingdom
Speaker 12: government also of the United States government that have looked
Speaker 12: into allegations of breaches of international humanitarian law by Israel
Speaker 12: and that have stated in clear terms that there is
Speaker 12: an evidence to support them. By all accounts, the conduct
Speaker 12: that Israel has displayed in this conflict, as in previous
Speaker 12: rounds of wars in Gaza, has been beyond what Western
Speaker 12: allies could have achieved in similar circumstances, and the.
Speaker 2: Death toll, the civilian death toll much lower even by
Speaker 2: proportion of the population.
Speaker 12: Well, the death toll is a tricky one to interrogate
Speaker 12: because the only figures that are being repeated consistently by
Speaker 12: the international media come from the harmask controlled Ministry of Health.
Speaker 12: I doubt that international journalists would be repeating figures from
Speaker 12: ISIS or Arqaida with the forcefulness that they are parroting
Speaker 12: these figures. They have not only been shown to have
Speaker 12: been inflated and falsified in various reports from academics that
Speaker 12: have interrogated the data. Even the United Nations has now
Speaker 12: walked back on some of the claims that has made
Speaker 12: with respect to the numbers of women and children. But critically,
Speaker 12: these numbers that her musta putting out do not tell
Speaker 12: us anything about the civilian to combatant casualty ratio. And
Speaker 12: you're absolutely right that the ratio that has been touted
Speaker 12: of one to one in this conflict is utterly unparalleled
Speaker 12: and testament to the measures that the IDF take to
Speaker 12: prevent civilian casualties.
Speaker 1: All Right, Natasha, I'm out of time. Wonderful to have
Speaker 1: you in Australia. Thank you so much.
Speaker 12: It's wonderful to be here. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Now, after the breaker grim outlook for the pm is
Speaker 2: new polling data shows he's on track to lose more
Speaker 2: than a quarter of voters.
Speaker 1: At the next selection. I'll break that down with my
Speaker 1: panel next.
Speaker 2: All right, let's bring in our political panel Farmer, media
Speaker 2: advisor to Scott Morrison, Andrew Caswell and former Queensland Labor
Speaker 2: Secretary Cameron Milner.
Speaker 1: Welcome to you both.
Speaker 7: Cameron.
Speaker 2: Let's start with the poll that your company, GXOS Strategies
Speaker 2: has done. It's shown that Anthony Albanize is on track
Speaker 2: to lose more than a quarter of his original voters
Speaker 2: at the next federal election. Took us through it.
Speaker 11: Well, Char.
Speaker 6: Most of the polls are showing not much movement in
Speaker 6: the primary votes since the last election, so we wanted
Speaker 6: to drill deeper. We want to understand what was really
Speaker 6: happening with the voters out there in Australia. And what
Speaker 6: we found was over one in four people who have
Speaker 6: actually changed their mind away from Albanize in just two
Speaker 6: short years. And then we went further to understand why,
Speaker 6: and we asked them what they thought of Albanese as
Speaker 6: the leader and they said, to you, his weak, useless
Speaker 6: and a liar. That's what two thousand Australian said of
Speaker 6: the Prime minister. Three and four also said he was
Speaker 6: doing nothing about the cost of living and so the
Speaker 6: critical number one issue for voters. He's not doing enough
Speaker 6: on and they trust him to be able to do
Speaker 6: the job either, and the warring sign for Jim Chalmers.
Speaker 6: Seventy nine percent of respondents said that they didn't think
Speaker 6: tomorrow Night's budget would do anything to ease their cost
Speaker 6: of living pressures. So we're in a crisis right now
Speaker 6: cost of living, with an untrusted, unliked prime Minister as
Speaker 6: Labour's main vehicle for sending their message out there, and
Speaker 6: voters who just don't think Labour's doing enough on the
Speaker 6: number one issue. That's what our poling found.
Speaker 2: Shari Andrew Carswell, I just had the Treasurer on my show.
Speaker 2: He said that he is planning strong cost of living
Speaker 2: relief in tomorrow's budget. Obviously, this is going to be
Speaker 2: a delicate tightrope to make sure that the relief is
Speaker 2: targeted enough that it won't push up inflation.
Speaker 1: Do you think that will be a risk?
Speaker 11: Well, it's a huge gamble, Sharie.
Speaker 7: And what we heard from the Treasurer tonight is that
Speaker 7: he is taking a big risk here by lowering the
Speaker 7: expectations on inflation well below what the RBA will say.
Speaker 7: And this is a risk for two reasons. The treasure
Speaker 7: assumes that the cost of living measures in his budget
Speaker 7: tomorrow will put downward pressure on inflation, and particularly headline inflation,
Speaker 7: which is his preferred measure, and that will lead to
Speaker 7: a lowering of interest rates. But the problem is when
Speaker 7: the RBA gathers to consider monetary policy and the setting
Speaker 7: of interest rates, it doesn't really look at headline inflation.
Speaker 11: It looks at trim demean inflation, which is.
Speaker 7: Inflation stripping out all those short term volatile measures that
Speaker 7: impact cost of living up or down. What do you
Speaker 7: think is in his budget tomorrow that impacts that are volatile,
Speaker 7: short term measures that impact on cost.
Speaker 11: Of living, his entire cost of living package.
Speaker 7: So he says it's going to be putting downward pressure
Speaker 7: on inflation, and the RBA says, well, we're not even
Speaker 7: going to consider that in now calculations. And the second
Speaker 7: thing is is this core belief that these measures will
Speaker 7: actually put downward pressure on inflation. And you have a
Speaker 7: look at whether it's it's a relief for renters or
Speaker 7: it's relief for those who have excessive energy bills. To
Speaker 7: make that assumption is to believe that the people getting
Speaker 7: this relief will suddenly not spend the money that's been
Speaker 7: freed up in their budget on other areas of the economy,
Speaker 7: they won't save that money.
Speaker 11: That is the assumption here.
Speaker 7: That is a huge assumption to make in the middle
Speaker 7: of a cost of living crisis when their bills to
Speaker 7: be paid. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well, I asked him about that when it came to
Speaker 2: the energy relief that you know it will bring down
Speaker 2: one component of the CPI. But is he worried that
Speaker 2: people are going to spend that money elsewhere and thus
Speaker 2: push up inflation. He was confident that wouldn't happen. What
Speaker 2: do you think, Cameron Milner?
Speaker 6: Well, I think it's a huge risk. I think it's
Speaker 6: a huge risk and only time will tell. But if
Speaker 6: the RBA raises rates, labor is gone.
Speaker 11: If the RBA goes up, labor's out.
Speaker 2: You think that people will directly blame the government if
Speaker 2: the rate's absolutely.
Speaker 11: On their watch.
Speaker 6: Absolutely, Charry, Yeah, what.
Speaker 1: Do you think, Andrew Carswell?
Speaker 2: I mean the first interest rate rise was when you
Speaker 2: were in government, was when Scott Morrison was Prime Minister.
Speaker 11: Well.
Speaker 7: I think the issue that the Australain people have with
Speaker 7: this current government is the issue of competency. They've proven
Speaker 7: to be in combonent on so many levels, but the
Speaker 7: economy has been the one thing that they've managed to
Speaker 7: do okay on and that's all credit to Jim Charmers
Speaker 7: on that. So if they failed that test of competency
Speaker 7: on the economy, gone, I mean.
Speaker 1: Cameron very quickly.
Speaker 2: You know, we are seeing in every other policy area
Speaker 2: just these radical proposals. Charmers is the only moderate figure
Speaker 2: You've got ten seconds.
Speaker 6: Oh look, and thank goodness we've got Jim Chalmers there
Speaker 6: because the left or in control of so much other
Speaker 6: agendas with his labor Albanese government.
Speaker 2: Yeah, which we've been absolutely smashing them on, night after night.
Speaker 2: Andrea Carswell, Cameron Milne, I'm so sorry it was so
Speaker 2: quick tonight.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to be back tomorrow. It's a budget.
Speaker 1: See you Wednesday night. Here's Paul Murray