Speaker 1: From the Sky News Center. This is Paul Murray Live.
Speaker 1: Thank you girl, walking to our brand new weekend for
Speaker 1: the most fight up show on Tilly. Glad that you
Speaker 1: hear it. So you may have heard big news this
Speaker 1: afternoon in Adelaide.
Speaker 2: To breaking news and in scenes echoing the Bondi Junction attacks,
Speaker 2: reports of an armed man has sent an Adelaide shopping
Speaker 2: center into lockdown.
Speaker 3: Where a Westfield shopping center in the city South has
Speaker 3: just been released from lockdown. Shoppers were alerted to an
Speaker 3: armed defender, resulting in crowds running for the exits, others
Speaker 3: forced to take shelter inside.
Speaker 4: A major shopping center in Adelaide South was put into
Speaker 4: lockdown this afternoon after two groups of boys started fighting
Speaker 4: in the food court.
Speaker 1: Scary stuff, right. Some of the people who spoke to
Speaker 1: the media in the immediate panic.
Speaker 5: I think they said something about David Jones and weapons
Speaker 5: being used if you could find an exit and get
Speaker 5: out safely to do so.
Speaker 6: We just had everybody like screaming and stuff, and we
Speaker 6: just saw like a couple of people running and they're
Speaker 6: so me and me and my friend we just run through.
Speaker 7: And then everyone just started running at us.
Speaker 8: To the exit door, and.
Speaker 9: Yeah, just so people were screaming at us to like, yeah,
Speaker 9: run out.
Speaker 10: They're extremely, extremely worried and concerned. They don't know what's
Speaker 10: going on. We've had to update them through the.
Speaker 11: Phone and just let them know that it's okay and
Speaker 11: just to stay calm, and that's the best.
Speaker 7: We can do.
Speaker 12: We've just hope that nobody's done anything really silly that
Speaker 12: they're going to regret for the rest of their lives.
Speaker 1: So obvious concern family members watching stuff on Telly, hearing
Speaker 1: it on the radio, game Gee, what's going on? Is
Speaker 1: this bond Ei two point zero? Well, thankfully not. In fact,
Speaker 1: the police a couple of hours after all of it
Speaker 1: started came out and said that this was basically a
Speaker 1: fight between teenagers in the food court.
Speaker 13: In terms of the incident, I have looked at the CCTV.
Speaker 13: It involves three youth and I will call them boys
Speaker 13: under eighteen years of a Caucasian appear pearance. They approach
Speaker 13: another group of boys and an altercation occurs. The expandable
Speaker 13: batons are seen and at this stage we can't discount
Speaker 13: any other weapons, but we do have some reports that
Speaker 13: a knife may be involved.
Speaker 1: Okay, So here's the bit where I'm going to probably
Speaker 1: get into trouble if we learn something in the next
Speaker 1: twenty four hours that is different than what the police
Speaker 1: had told us today, or more than happily reverse my
Speaker 1: position and eat my words. And I understand why the
Speaker 1: shopping center that had been at the heart of things
Speaker 1: that had taken place the same brand of course in Sydney,
Speaker 1: wanted to react with full force. Now again, I'm not
Speaker 1: suggesting that if you were in the food court it
Speaker 1: is not a scary experience to see teenagers fighting. I'm
Speaker 1: not pretending that I'd like to get whacked with a
Speaker 1: baton anytime soon. But very obviously this was not, as
Speaker 1: best as we know, some sort of mass event where
Speaker 1: random members of the public were being targeted. This was
Speaker 1: part of the response of the police. Now remember, yes,
Speaker 1: perhaps the early calls were someone with a weapon is
Speaker 1: running around the shopping center. They're running in with machine guns. Now,
Speaker 1: better safe than sorry is probably the right place to be.
Speaker 1: But can we go back and play all of those
Speaker 1: people who were talking to the media, because their panic
Speaker 1: is obvious, they don't know what's going on. They could
Speaker 1: think that people are running around with guns thankfully it
Speaker 1: was the police that were responding to this situation. And
Speaker 1: I'm sitting here comfortably being able to say what I
Speaker 1: think should and shouldn't have happened. But to me, this
Speaker 1: could have been dealt with by local security before we
Speaker 1: start calling in the cops.
Speaker 9: Right.
Speaker 1: Yet, the panic or dore I say, potential overreaction, well,
Speaker 1: that in and of itself creates its own sense of fear.
Speaker 1: Again that people who spoke to the media today.
Speaker 5: I think they said something about David Jones and weapons
Speaker 5: being used if you could find an exit and get
Speaker 5: out safely to do so.
Speaker 6: We just had everybody like screaming and stuff, and we
Speaker 6: just saw a couple of people running and so me,
Speaker 6: me and my friend we just run.
Speaker 9: Through and everyone just started running at us to the
Speaker 9: exit door. And yeah, so people were screaming at us
Speaker 9: to like, yeah, run out.
Speaker 10: They're extremely, extremely worried and concerned. They don't know what's
Speaker 10: going on. We've had to update them through.
Speaker 11: The phone and just let them know that it's okay
Speaker 11: and just to stay calm, and that's the best we
Speaker 11: can do.
Speaker 12: We've just hope that nobody's done anything really silly that
Speaker 12: they're going to regret for the rest of their lives.
Speaker 1: So again, I don't imagine for a second what it's
Speaker 1: like to be the security guards, the police officers, or
Speaker 1: the people inside the shopping center. But obviously security should
Speaker 1: have been able to respond to this. Perhaps this is
Speaker 1: one of those moments where one of the things that
Speaker 1: we should have learned out of BONDI was that a
Speaker 1: security guard should have more than just a walkie talking
Speaker 1: to respond to certain situations. Not suggesting that all of
Speaker 1: them need to have guns, but I am suggesting that
Speaker 1: perhaps the security manager should have access to things like
Speaker 1: pepper spray, something to be able to de escalate a situation,
Speaker 1: because there's a whole bunch of other emotions that are
Speaker 1: connected when police start running around not knowing what they're
Speaker 1: responding to, but still they're running around with machine guns.
Speaker 1: Is that in part because of an over militarized police
Speaker 1: force where every government gives them more money and more
Speaker 1: powers to respond to potential threats. Perhaps if I got
Speaker 1: the wrong end of the stick here, I'll gladly own
Speaker 1: it tomorrow, But it felt like today this was one
Speaker 1: of those moments where a better armed security force would
Speaker 1: have been able to deal with this. As opposed to
Speaker 1: the mass panic that went out across much of suburban
Speaker 1: Adelaide today. But speaking of the Westfield Centers and the
Speaker 1: Bondai Center, which of course resulted in people's deaths a
Speaker 1: couple of months ago. Well, as you remember, the person
Speaker 1: who became an absolute focus of hate was this bloke
Speaker 1: we don't use his name. The person who, of course
Speaker 1: we turned around in love is this person, Police Inspector
Speaker 1: Amy Scott. She wasn't meant to be in that area,
Speaker 1: she wasn't part of the overall response. Instead wandered to it,
Speaker 1: and she's the one who, of course, as you know,
Speaker 1: I ended up firing the fatal shot, thankfully put the
Speaker 1: bloke down and ended the situation. Well, she's been given
Speaker 1: the first of what I would imagine as many Bravery awards,
Speaker 1: and rightly so. But the reason I mentioned her at
Speaker 1: the start of tonight's show is because we actually got
Speaker 1: to hear her speak. Now. Obviously it's her choice not
Speaker 1: to give interviews, it's her choice to try to not be,
Speaker 1: as she said on Friday, to be defined by this moment.
Speaker 1: But I do want to hear from her, and I
Speaker 1: do want you to hear what she had to say.
Speaker 1: This in part is what she had to say.
Speaker 12: I don't want people to forget how incredible they were
Speaker 12: on that day. And you are only as strong as
Speaker 12: the people around you. And that goes for my incredible
Speaker 12: family and friends. After that, the other first responders both
Speaker 12: at the scene and at the hospitals, and the extraordinary
Speaker 12: acts of bravery that we saw from everyday civilians. It
Speaker 12: was second to none.
Speaker 1: She represents the best of us and the best of
Speaker 1: people who run towards trouble when the rest of us
Speaker 1: will calmly walk away from it. She like every other
Speaker 1: police officer, and you know, we're very pro police on
Speaker 1: this program, which is that they are people who they
Speaker 1: intersect with people at their worst possible time and their
Speaker 1: worst possible days. But she is right, we are as
Speaker 1: strong as the people around her. It is not fun
Speaker 1: to have gone through what she has. It's a traumatic
Speaker 1: experience for any officer who's had to pull a gun,
Speaker 1: let alone pull the trigger.
Speaker 12: She had more to say, really importantly as well, are
Speaker 12: those victims. They're family and friends who will be forever
Speaker 12: dealing with an unfathomable tragedy. So it's really important for
Speaker 12: me to keep those people at the forefront of everything,
Speaker 12: and that's where they are. For me, They're always on
Speaker 12: my mind.
Speaker 1: Now we've got little gold medals for people who did
Speaker 1: immense harm like Daniel Andrews. Let's find little gold medals
Speaker 1: for people who stop harm and end up doing good
Speaker 1: as a result of preventing that harm. Strength and love,
Speaker 1: Toney World under you for being able to have the
Speaker 1: strength to talk about it as she did this weekend.
Speaker 1: Now you may have heard by now the Opposition has
Speaker 1: a plan to change where our power comes from nuclear Now,
Speaker 1: I always mispronounced it. I apologize. I'm Bogan to my
Speaker 1: core and I practice and practice and practice, but I
Speaker 1: always end up saying it the wrong way. So I apologize.
Speaker 1: But we get now the first poll which actually tells
Speaker 1: us how people feel about Dutton's plan. This would of
Speaker 1: course be zero emissions in terms of the climate care issues,
Speaker 1: but obviously it costs a lot of money to make. Well,
Speaker 1: here's the poll, let's have a look. Here comes out
Speaker 1: tonight via the channel on newspaper City Morning, Herald of
Speaker 1: the Age and the Brisbane Times. Forty one percent of
Speaker 1: people say yes, thirty seven percent of people say no,
Speaker 1: and up for grabs twenty two percent of people. Now,
Speaker 1: this is going to be fascinating because it shows that
Speaker 1: this is a winnable argument for both sides. Is it
Speaker 1: going to be fear and memes that get their first story?
Speaker 1: Is it going to be the twenty first century is calling?
Speaker 1: And this is the same source of energy where places
Speaker 1: like France, cities like Paris are able to keep the
Speaker 1: lights on to host things like Olympic Games. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: the same by the way, when it comes to Los
Speaker 1: Angeles and California. But it might of course be the
Speaker 1: case for Griusblane twenty thirty two if the current government
Speaker 1: is in place, But it will be should it be
Speaker 1: Peter Dutton who is the Prime minister going into those
Speaker 1: Olympic Games in Queensland. As you can see, fifty one
Speaker 1: percent of Labor voters no, sixty percent of Coalition voters yes,
Speaker 1: fifty one percent of Greens voters are no. But really
Speaker 1: interesting to see that twenty two percent of people are unshort. Now,
Speaker 1: remember we were looking at Poles when it was allegedly
Speaker 1: sixty forty in favor of yes when it came to
Speaker 1: the voice. Now, it is always easier to be on
Speaker 1: the no side of a case, if you want to
Speaker 1: ram ram ram, you can say many things against a
Speaker 1: policy rather than advocacy of a policy. And I think
Speaker 1: we're starting to see a sort of a revenge of
Speaker 1: the voice that is coming out of the federal government
Speaker 1: and trying to get back as if they were the
Speaker 1: opposition to the opposition, as opposed to the government needing
Speaker 1: to justify their own policies. Here but wait, watch and
Speaker 1: see twenty two percent still up for grabs. We will
Speaker 1: find out as the week's roll on who is winning
Speaker 1: that debate, because I think who wins it quickly is
Speaker 1: going to be the one who ends up winning it
Speaker 1: in the end. Now, of course, it doesn't really matter
Speaker 1: whether fifty one or fifty five or sixty percent of
Speaker 1: Australia likes something or doesn't like something. It's about how
Speaker 1: it plays in one hundred and fifty one different little
Speaker 1: elections within elections that, of course, we are due towards
Speaker 1: the end of this year or early next year. As
Speaker 1: for direct propositions about renewables versus nuclear power, here we go.
Speaker 1: The red here is that Labour wants to get to
Speaker 1: renewables and the Coalition wants to go for the nuclear option.
Speaker 1: Forty three percent of people are in favor of Labour's position.
Speaker 1: That means, of course that even if you started to
Speaker 1: cut in half the number of undecideds, then clearly that
Speaker 1: ends up in favor of the Labor Party. Again, regardless
Speaker 1: of whether you like the policy or don't. I try
Speaker 1: to show you the data so you know where it
Speaker 1: comes from. Course that is helped by a huge result
Speaker 1: in Green's voters and Labor voters. What is missing, of
Speaker 1: course from some of this data is how do the
Speaker 1: people who don't vote for major parties, How does it
Speaker 1: go state by state? What's it like in the cities
Speaker 1: versus the bush, because that will give us more information
Speaker 1: about what is actually going to happen when it comes
Speaker 1: to the potential political consequences. Now, people are basically asked
Speaker 1: to rate out of one hundred percent the types of
Speaker 1: energy that they are most comfortable with. An extreme majority
Speaker 1: of people are completely in love with the concept of
Speaker 1: solar panels on their roof feeding into a battery, meaning
Speaker 1: they essentially get to cut themselves off from the rest
Speaker 1: of the grid. The best part of what eighty eight
Speaker 1: percent of people, according to the same pole, say that
Speaker 1: that is the number one and preferred form of energy.
Speaker 1: After that you get hydro electricity. Now, of course we
Speaker 1: know that snowy two point zero could be costing what
Speaker 1: how many billion dollars more, but still people seem to
Speaker 1: like the idea renewables in general. Then we keep going
Speaker 1: down the road to a solo farms about fifty percent,
Speaker 1: home batteries under fifty percent gas powered, as well as
Speaker 1: wind turbines. Wind turbines are really low compared to a
Speaker 1: solar and we all know because of the impacts that
Speaker 1: happen on the land that we're getting now down to
Speaker 1: thirty four percent when it comes to things that the
Speaker 1: government is actually getting over the line at the moment
Speaker 1: when it comes to say, offshore wind farms, nuclear just
Speaker 1: an eight percent and then cole way back at two percent.
Speaker 1: But I'm surprised that the numbers were even that high
Speaker 1: for the alternative prime minister's position because the same newspaper,
Speaker 1: the same news organization has been going wild with the
Speaker 1: number of articles and opinion pieces and cartoons that day
Speaker 1: after day after day after day after day they have
Speaker 1: been giving very heavy firepower to the Labor Party. These
Speaker 1: are just some of the cartoons that make him a
Speaker 1: Soviet style leader. Or there he is glum looking like
Speaker 1: mister Nuclear in front of little old renewables elbow there. Apparently,
Speaker 1: of course gas and renewables aren't part of the Duton
Speaker 1: planned the fact that we know they are. Otherwise he's
Speaker 1: presented as a clown. Or if that's all too subtle
Speaker 1: for you, he's a bomber who's literally dropping nuclear bombs
Speaker 1: onto solar panels, just in case they aren't subtle enough
Speaker 1: for you. And as I say, story after the story
Speaker 1: after the story after story after story, we all know
Speaker 1: where they are. That's fine. They're independent always apart from
Speaker 1: the fact that you can't find anyone back in what
Speaker 1: in their own poll, a significant number of people are
Speaker 1: open too, and that is not an all renewables future.
Speaker 1: We even get the cartoon of him as Homer Simpson
Speaker 1: looking stupid, and that's of course because he's balled, you see,
Speaker 1: so he's looking stupid. Apparently he's fat, no i am,
Speaker 1: And for some reason there's a melting ice cream just
Speaker 1: to make their point nice and clear. And this is
Speaker 1: where we get to when I so often have talked
Speaker 1: about the difference between news and narrative, Now clearly on
Speaker 1: this program. This is a comment based program. But also
Speaker 1: during this significant portion of the show where I give
Speaker 1: my comment, it is behovin on me to try to
Speaker 1: give you dar to try to show you things like
Speaker 1: poles you may agree or disagree with. Try to show
Speaker 1: you things from the Bureau Statistics, try to show you
Speaker 1: things from the CSIRO, and then watch all of the
Speaker 1: politics around it. And you may disagree with the politics
Speaker 1: that is around it or the comment that I put
Speaker 1: on it. But I try to start from this agreed
Speaker 1: place of a piece of data. For that said, though
Speaker 1: the Opposition leader was at a Liberal Party conference this
Speaker 1: weekend pushing the barrow, the.
Speaker 14: Coalition's energy policy will see Australia achieve our three goals
Speaker 14: of cheaper, cleaner and consistent power. In the more immediate term,
Speaker 14: we will ramp up domestic gas production to get power
Speaker 14: prices down and to restore stability in the grid.
Speaker 1: Surprisingly, Anthony Abernezi, while not responding to the speech, we
Speaker 1: know how he feels about it.
Speaker 15: I mean, this is just a fantasy.
Speaker 8: Instead of snow White and the seven Dwarves, this is
Speaker 8: Peter Dutton, the seven nuclear reactors.
Speaker 1: See what I mean that the revenge for the voice.
Speaker 1: Thing even saw one of the labor ministers saying, well,
Speaker 1: if you don't know, oh so clever they see, this
Speaker 1: is the opportunity to prove how crazy and unstable and
Speaker 1: out of touch and all the rest of it, the
Speaker 1: sort of giant caricature that they've tried to build of
Speaker 1: Peter dutt't for some time. And now they say this
Speaker 1: is the policy that proves it. But there's one or
Speaker 1: two talking points that I can't help but say, are
Speaker 1: you serious now? The CSIRO, of course, a scientific organization,
Speaker 1: somehow has become at the center of the conversation about
Speaker 1: economics about how much does all of this cost. I
Speaker 1: went into some chapter and verse with you about the
Speaker 1: idea that the renewable system that we are currently in
Speaker 1: the middle of is many hundreds of billions of dollars,
Speaker 1: and the Peter Dutton plan is about six to eight
Speaker 1: billion dollars per these sites. But of course, remember let's
Speaker 1: imagine let's bump them up to ten, let's bump them
Speaker 1: up to twenty billion dollars. It's still way below the
Speaker 1: amount of federal government money which is being put into
Speaker 1: the building of renewables. So either way you pay, it
Speaker 1: is the case with renewables, it is the case with nuclear.
Speaker 1: But of course the grand difference here is that, ironically,
Speaker 1: this is the Daniel Andrews approach, which is to build
Speaker 1: things that are into the power grid that are therefore
Speaker 1: owned by the taxpayer, not money given to private organizations
Speaker 1: to just get it built, like the Billion Dollar Fund, which,
Speaker 1: among others, people like Mike cannon Brooks and companies connected
Speaker 1: to Malcolm Turnpull have got their hand out for the
Speaker 1: government doesn't own shares in those. It will help them
Speaker 1: get up, help them get building, but there's no return
Speaker 1: to the taxpayer. Of course, these facilities will be owned
Speaker 1: by the taxpayer and presumably will not be as interested
Speaker 1: in the profit motive, meaning when they set their prices.
Speaker 1: But still the CSIRO. Now, Tanya Plibasik, she was on
Speaker 1: the telly today and God loves she's trying to find
Speaker 1: a reason to scare you about Peter Dutton's power plan.
Speaker 4: We know that this will cost hundreds of billions of dollars,
Speaker 4: hundreds of billions of dollars that Australian taxpayers would rather
Speaker 4: see spent on hospitals, roads and schools than expensive, risky nuclearyactors.
Speaker 1: The balls, hundreds of billions of dollars that should otherwise
Speaker 1: go to hospitals and schools and police. Well, let's go
Speaker 1: back to the CSORO. Let's read the top line of
Speaker 1: their very statement about the cost of renewable energy. Now,
Speaker 1: in two thousand and seveneen they put out a report
Speaker 1: which set it to cost one t for trillion dollars.
Speaker 1: That now updated their stats and it is now just
Speaker 1: a mere five hundred billion dollars to move completely to renewables.
Speaker 1: So go back and play Tell your PLUPI sick again.
Speaker 1: She's saying the reason we shouldn't follow Peter Dutton's idea
Speaker 1: on power is because it will cost hundreds of billions. Well, mate,
Speaker 1: your version costs hundreds of billions of dollars.
Speaker 4: We know that this will cost hundreds of billions of dollars,
Speaker 4: hundreds of billions of dollars that Australian taxpayers would rather
Speaker 4: see spent on hospitals, roads and schools than expensive, risky
Speaker 4: nucleary actors.
Speaker 1: As opposed to solar panels that if there's a giant hailstorm,
Speaker 1: you have to replace them. Wind turbines which run out
Speaker 1: of a lifestyle, run out of their lifespan in a
Speaker 1: couple of decades, all of which becomes landfill. Just what
Speaker 1: out the back of Burke Again, my issue on this
Speaker 1: subject has been unchanged for as long as we've been
Speaker 1: talking together on the Telly cost of transition. Now they
Speaker 1: say there's no cost of transition when it comes to
Speaker 1: renewables reality according the CSIRO, apparently the great economic modelers
Speaker 1: of the CSIRO, and yes, of course they're singular, little
Speaker 1: uncollective brain span is far bigger than mine. The bloke
Speaker 1: who is the security guard in the car park would
Speaker 1: no doubt ace in any intellectual test in the world.
Speaker 1: But there's some common sense sitting right in front of
Speaker 1: us here. If we're going to spend hundreds of billions
Speaker 1: of dollars on a form of energy, which one do
Speaker 1: you go with? That's the debate. That's it. If they're
Speaker 1: trying to scare you about cost while ignoring their plan
Speaker 1: that costs more and does not have a technology that
Speaker 1: will last as long or be as effective, then they
Speaker 1: assume you've got no idea what's going on. But you do,
Speaker 1: and you can see this for everything that it is. Meantime,
Speaker 1: I want to show you again very helpful that This
Speaker 1: map was put up by the ABC. It shows the
Speaker 1: seven different sites that are on their way potentially under
Speaker 1: the Dutton plan. Now, as you can see, the blue
Speaker 1: are coalition seats. Red is a Labor seat. There's a
Speaker 1: gray which is an independent seat, but that's in Bloke,
Speaker 1: who was elected as a National then declared himself to
Speaker 1: be an independent because he was scared of a teal
Speaker 1: So he's trying to sort of out teel a teel
Speaker 1: or pre teel ateel. So essentially six out of the
Speaker 1: seven are in coalition seats. So, as I said to
Speaker 1: you last week, the real bet here for Peter Dutton
Speaker 1: is that he is gambling with his own seats. He's
Speaker 1: not coming up with seats he needs to win. These
Speaker 1: are seats that he would need to hold. So how's
Speaker 1: the polling going there? Again, this was fresh word and
Speaker 1: numbers that came via The Australian reported for sky News.
Speaker 1: Here that as you can see that there is growing
Speaker 1: support in the regions. It sits basically at about fifty
Speaker 1: to fifty. Now again you'll see lots of poles from
Speaker 1: lots of people, but I'm going to show you the data. Now,
Speaker 1: I don't trust the poles from the Australia Institute whi's
Speaker 1: are far left wing, sort of greenstink tank. I don't
Speaker 1: care what the teels are going to come up with
Speaker 1: polling equally, I don't care what the nuclear industry is
Speaker 1: going to come up with. But right now, majority of
Speaker 1: people in the places that will end up with these
Speaker 1: things are currently pro By the way, Pete Dutton, free
Speaker 1: piece of marketing advice. Tell everyone in these seats they
Speaker 1: will get free power under the plan for at least
Speaker 1: twenty years, and then watch other places start to put
Speaker 1: their hand up saying what free energy for twenty years?
Speaker 9: Cool?
Speaker 1: I'm up, I'm in now. Of course, the other side
Speaker 1: of this is where much of the media that is
Speaker 1: writing the articles or doing the cartoons or setting their
Speaker 1: hair on fire about this is the option because the
Speaker 1: climate warth were ended in twenty twenty two, because apparently
Speaker 1: that was the forever election. No, if that policy at
Speaker 1: all passed. Yes, it was forty three percent emissions. Yes
Speaker 1: it was a massive jump in renewables, but there was
Speaker 1: a promise of two hundred and seventy five dollars when
Speaker 1: it comes to your power bills. That's never going to happen. Oh,
Speaker 1: but they're not breaking that promise. The modeling has just
Speaker 1: changed anyway. David Little Proud is dunking as hard as
Speaker 1: he possibly can on the teels. Now this makes me
Speaker 1: feel good because I don't know the teals. I don't
Speaker 1: know how this helps the cause though, But have a look.
Speaker 15: Don't your fellow Australians count?
Speaker 8: And I just say, we seek to understand those TiAl
Speaker 8: members of Parliament, but they should seek to understand us
Speaker 8: of the burden they're asking regional Australians to bear. I mean,
Speaker 8: is it is so entitled for them to look down
Speaker 8: their nose dripping with self righteous sanctimony, saying this is
Speaker 8: the only pathway, but to hell with our lifestyle.
Speaker 1: And this is the point, as I have said how
Speaker 1: many times in a row, the teel seats don't have
Speaker 1: any plans for some sort of electricity generation, all right.
Speaker 1: They're not going to have a solar farm, they're not
Speaker 1: going to have wind turbines, they're not going to even
Speaker 1: have them offshore. So they're able to say renewables all
Speaker 1: the way. Why because maybe some of the people can
Speaker 1: have solar panels on their roof and sort of cut
Speaker 1: themselves off from the overall grid. Fine, fair enough. Maybe
Speaker 1: there's even plans for batteries at the end of streets,
Speaker 1: so one little streak can hive itself off from another
Speaker 1: little street. But let's be really honest here. They don't
Speaker 1: have any skin in the game because they don't have
Speaker 1: to have the solar panels, they won't have the nucular
Speaker 1: power plants, they don't have to have the coal fire
Speaker 1: power plants. So they're able just to push the agenda
Speaker 1: knowing that whatever happens, they won't see any of the consequences.
Speaker 1: These are the people who go nuts if you want
Speaker 1: to build a unit block in their part of Australia,
Speaker 1: let alone trying to change energy creation. Perfect example NEPO
Speaker 1: baby riding in the again Sidnay Morning Herald. What a surprise,
Speaker 1: says Dutton's given up on the till seats. What about
Speaker 1: a nuclear reactor in Vorklues. Oh yeah, cool, Okay, But
Speaker 1: I don't believe that you guys have got skin in
Speaker 1: the game until you're willing to say, you know what,
Speaker 1: let's have the same burden they have in regional Australia.
Speaker 1: I'm not suggesting that we should cover all of Centennial
Speaker 1: Park in Sydney with solar panels or wind farms. But
Speaker 1: maybe you could just hive off a little bit of
Speaker 1: a doggy park just to show that you are willing
Speaker 1: to have in your part of Australia. What is happening
Speaker 1: in regional Australia every single day and under this plan
Speaker 1: of this government, these teals, this green and this media
Speaker 1: more more more every day, thousands of solar panels, thousands
Speaker 1: of wind farms. Again, when you have one in your electorate,
Speaker 1: then you can say you're part of the solution. If
Speaker 1: you don't have any of these options in your electorate,
Speaker 1: then you are just playing the politics of all of it.
Speaker 1: People in regional Australia don't hate renewable energy because they
Speaker 1: don't believe in climate change. They are sick of seeing
Speaker 1: big companies that will make big money with big government
Speaker 1: just rolling over the top of them. And it doesn't
Speaker 1: matter whether it's Mudgy, or it's Ballarat, or it's Queensland
Speaker 1: or it's offshore wind in other places, locals, funnily enough,
Speaker 1: just like in the teal seats, don't want to see
Speaker 1: their suburbs change forever. So we can ruin the earth
Speaker 1: to save the atmosphere. Oh yeah, one percent of the atmosphere,
Speaker 1: while China does whatever it wants till twenty thirty. Back
Speaker 1: in the real world, where cost of living is the
Speaker 1: front and center, it's the main game. We talk about
Speaker 1: it every night because it's the thing that is affecting
Speaker 1: your life, your friend's life, your family's life. Now, of
Speaker 1: course you're struggling to find a way to pay the
Speaker 1: same bills you did six months ago, twelve months ago,
Speaker 1: two years ago, twelve interest rate rises since this Prime
Speaker 1: Minister came to office. Of course, it doesn't matter for
Speaker 1: Albow and charmers, because they, of course just last week
Speaker 1: got their third pay rise this term, the second highest
Speaker 1: in a decade. The highest and a decade was the
Speaker 1: one before this. Three in one term six hundred thousand dollars.
Speaker 1: So this may surprise some of the politicians, who of
Speaker 1: course may be hate watching the show. But the facts
Speaker 1: are here from that pesky right wing thing tank, the
Speaker 1: Australian Bureau of Statistics about the number of people who
Speaker 1: have multiple jobs in the country. It's almost a million
Speaker 1: people who currently work more than one job to make
Speaker 1: ends meet. Figures from the Bureau of statistics show record
Speaker 1: one hundred and seventy four thousand people have had more
Speaker 1: than one job in March of this year, equivalent to
Speaker 1: about one in fifteen workers or six point seven percent
Speaker 1: of total employment. This matter is because the number between
Speaker 1: nine and ninety five and twenty nineteen was somewhere between
Speaker 1: five and six percent of people who had more than
Speaker 1: one job, and we are way above that, close to
Speaker 1: almost seven percent. Once you start to get down into
Speaker 1: the states, Victoria is the highest, with the overall number
Speaker 1: of two hundred and seventy two thousand people juggling more
Speaker 1: than one job. That's seven point three percent of overall employment.
Speaker 1: Remember between nine and only five twenty nineteen, it was
Speaker 1: five percent of people who had two jobs. Now one
Speaker 1: state alone Victoria seven point three percent, basically the same
Speaker 1: number of South Australia and Tasmania. Owen they've got the
Speaker 1: calcula are out. I should the calculator out. I should
Speaker 1: tell you are in lefty land. Remember the truth of
Speaker 1: the two little too late tax cuts that we have
Speaker 1: called too little too late all year, because they are.
Speaker 16: And we've got one hundred and seven billion dollars in
Speaker 16: tax cuts flowing in the coming year years from July
Speaker 16: already and that will provide that average tax cut of
Speaker 16: thirty six dollars a week.
Speaker 1: Well, the Guardian decided to well, talk to their mates
Speaker 1: inside the government, get out the calculator and guess what.
Speaker 1: Thirty six dollars a week. Magically, if you have two
Speaker 1: people working, becomes sixty dollars a week. So this is
Speaker 1: the new way to tell people. Okay, the reality's thirty
Speaker 1: something bucks, but if it's two of you at sixty dollars.
Speaker 1: But again, the arrogance of these people to think that
Speaker 1: sixty dollars is enough to turn anyone's life around. Remember,
Speaker 1: if you earn forty five thousand dollars, it's fifteen bucks
Speaker 1: a week. So the average, yes, might be where the
Speaker 1: average person is working sort of up around the seventies
Speaker 1: and eighties, maybe a little bit higher. But for the
Speaker 1: people who are actually struggling, actually in a hole, trying
Speaker 1: to pay for House twelve, infrastrate rises since this bloke
Speaker 1: became Prime minister, powerbells up the ying yang because we
Speaker 1: absolutely have to. We can only go renewables, and that's
Speaker 1: hundreds of billions of dollars. But the other guy's idea
Speaker 1: that could cost hundreds of billions of dollars, so the
Speaker 1: frustration for obvious reasons. Oh yeah, and remember how every
Speaker 1: time you've heard about these cost of living assistances which
Speaker 1: aren't really going to touch the sides, but as an
Speaker 1: overall issue, when inflation is still stubborn and not getting
Speaker 1: down to that two to three percent margin that the
Speaker 1: Reserve Bank needs it to get down to. While they
Speaker 1: keep saying this is a way of saying, trust us
Speaker 1: not adding to inflation, not adding to inflation, while not
Speaker 1: adding to inflation, well, of course, if it does add
Speaker 1: to inflation, then the Reserve Bank, who of course is
Speaker 1: not cutting interest rates. Remember at the last monthly meeting
Speaker 1: they talked about raising them, not cutting them. They thankfully
Speaker 1: have held on. But they're still holding on while the
Speaker 1: squeeze is the titus that's been in a generation. If
Speaker 1: these things are inflationary, then guess what they're going to
Speaker 1: put up rates again? And funnily enough, the good people
Speaker 1: of Westpac Banking organization they were the subject of this story.
Speaker 1: A sixty billion dollar jump in federal and state government
Speaker 1: spending in the coming financial year will add to inflation
Speaker 1: and risks keeping interest rates higher for longer. The Westpac
Speaker 1: senior economist says this extra money was equivalent to a
Speaker 1: fiscal impulse worth two point two percent of GDP in
Speaker 1: the coming financial year. So just just chug a chugger,
Speaker 1: chug it. Just the machine, right, it just rolls over
Speaker 1: the top of you. But the people who are writing
Speaker 1: all the laws, they're fine. They get pay rises that
Speaker 1: are the highest in the decade, or the second highest
Speaker 1: in the decade, or they get three of them since
Speaker 1: they became the leaders of this country. Oh but we're
Speaker 1: giving you back thirty something dollars of your own money.
Speaker 1: I wonder if you've got somebody who loves you, then
Speaker 1: it might be sixty dollars. Please be thankful. The crumbs
Speaker 1: taste lovely. Well. Small business, I mean every single night
Speaker 1: I can tell you a story about small business that's struggling.
Speaker 1: But guess what are two of the major driving factors
Speaker 1: that are currently causing massive problems for small businesses around
Speaker 1: the country. That's right, fuel and power costs. So they're
Speaker 1: trying to scare you about a bloke's policy that will
Speaker 1: cost less than the current policy, and you pay more
Speaker 1: tax than ever before because they've increased it on fuel
Speaker 1: oh yeah, vote for them because they care about cost
Speaker 1: of living. Please the other one. It plays jingle bells
Speaker 1: as they say, all right, here we go, thank you. Now,
Speaker 1: as you know, this week Friday is going to be
Speaker 1: the first of the debates between Trump and Biden. Now,
Speaker 1: there are some people who say one will pull out,
Speaker 1: both will pull out, somebody will find a reason. But no,
Speaker 1: let's assume it's taking place this Friday, the debate between
Speaker 1: Trump and Biden. Now, it's not going to be like
Speaker 1: the one in twenty twenty, not just because they're cutting
Speaker 1: the mics off and not showing both of them at
Speaker 1: the same time, but that setting there is the Official
Speaker 1: President's Debate Commission. Well, that's all been pushed on one side.
Speaker 1: This is just turn up in a studio and see,
Speaker 1: ann we won't show anyone walking on, we won't show
Speaker 1: anyone walking off, nobody's shaking hands, Your MC gets cut
Speaker 1: off when it's the end of your answer, and we're
Speaker 1: not going to be able to show both of them
Speaker 1: at the same time. So all of that is the
Speaker 1: conditions in and around the debate. Donald Trump, he's not
Speaker 1: doing much debate prep. If he is, he's doing it
Speaker 1: in between rallies, because he's saying things like this at
Speaker 1: a recent rally today in front of tens of thousands of.
Speaker 17: People, he could fall off the stage, he could fall
Speaker 17: up the stairs.
Speaker 1: He falls up.
Speaker 17: From twenty thousand feet of paratroopers.
Speaker 1: Landing right in front of him.
Speaker 17: Everybody or the foreign leaders are watching, and he turns
Speaker 17: around to look at a tree, right nah, And then
Speaker 17: they say it was fake.
Speaker 1: He was fine, and then the press goes along with it.
Speaker 1: They go along with it. Now Biden is currently a
Speaker 1: Camp David, which of course is the rural retreat for
Speaker 1: the president. That's where he's currently doing his debate prep.
Speaker 1: As I say, whether Trump's just not going to do
Speaker 1: any of it, he's just going to wing it, or
Speaker 1: he's doing it behind the scenes, we'll all wait and see.
Speaker 1: But hopefully he brings props with him, because this is
Speaker 1: how he explains bid nomics.
Speaker 18: On day one, we will throw out badenamics and replace
Speaker 18: it with maganamics. Correctly, Under Baden, the economy is in ruins.
Speaker 18: Inflation has cost the typical family twenty eight thousand dollars.
Speaker 18: Think of that.
Speaker 1: The infletion is killing people. Now, as for the polls,
Speaker 1: I want to show you something that's changed this month,
Speaker 1: and it's nationally who's winning. I'm going to show you
Speaker 1: a lot of these between now and November. But there's
Speaker 1: a website called five thirty eight. Yes, lefty leaning in
Speaker 1: its commentary, but its data is pretty solid, okay, which
Speaker 1: is about a month ago, Trump was leading nationally by
Speaker 1: about a point and a bit. Tonight Biden is leading
Speaker 1: by zero point three. So this is all margin of
Speaker 1: era stuff. But as you know, it's not about the
Speaker 1: national vote because the mega states will go through the
Speaker 1: roof for Trump and the lefty states will go through
Speaker 1: the roof for Biden. It's all about swing states. So
Speaker 1: let me show you a map. This is a great website,
Speaker 1: by the way, two seventy dot com you two seventy
Speaker 1: to win dot com that I used. So in the
Speaker 1: top right hand corner is Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania down
Speaker 1: moving around clockwise here, Georgia is the next one, which
Speaker 1: is sort of in the bottom right of the country.
Speaker 1: Then we start to move towards California, where Arizona and
Speaker 1: Nevada are Okay, based off current polls right now, we
Speaker 1: would end up with the Republicans at two eighty seven,
Speaker 1: two eighty seven electoral votes. That is Trump winning Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1: But what's really important about those things is Pennsylvania he
Speaker 1: won in twenty sixteen, but he lost in twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: Before that, Republicans had basically not won since Reagan or
Speaker 1: even before then, Nevada, they haven't won it in decades.
Speaker 1: So if he does that, it's historic and he clearly
Speaker 1: becomes the president. However, look at this map. If Biden
Speaker 1: wins Nevada and Pennsylvania, he wins two seventy six to
Speaker 1: the Republicans to sixty two. So it's tight. So now
Speaker 1: you can start to look not just at fifty states.
Speaker 1: You look at seven states, You look at six states,
Speaker 1: you look at four states. Now pretty much the data
Speaker 1: to keep your eyes on. Here is Trump still leading
Speaker 1: in Nevada and in Pennsylvania. If he does, he wins.
Speaker 1: If he doesn't, he loses, and four more years or
Speaker 1: most likely two years of Biden and two years of Harris.
Speaker 1: All right, I've talked too long. Quick breakback with more
Speaker 1: in a moment. No looks they left his Sunday night.
Speaker 1: We'll get their bold predictions. In a sector as run.
Speaker 1: Dmc famously said you talk too much, very patiently waiting
Speaker 1: none other than James Ashby running of course for One
Speaker 1: Nation in the seat of Ypoon, sorry Keppel in the
Speaker 1: Queensland election Christy McSweeney with the pr Council lovely, lovely people.
Speaker 1: All right, So James, just in terms of political messaging,
Speaker 1: right like you've seen literally just the craziest of responses
Speaker 1: to the Duton nuclear stuff. Right. The polls right now
Speaker 1: say there's about twenty two percent of people undecided. We'll
Speaker 1: all wait and see how that goes. But I'm going
Speaker 1: to play it for the third time. This is tenure
Speaker 1: plupersex chief argument against him, which is we're costing too
Speaker 1: much money. Roll at one more time and your immediate
Speaker 1: response off the back, mate, go.
Speaker 4: He is saying to Australians, I don't trust you. I
Speaker 4: don't trust you with the costings we've done. If he's
Speaker 4: done the costings, or he's saying we've announced a policy
Speaker 4: without costing it is when has an opposition ever gone
Speaker 4: to the Australian people with something as fundamental as saying
Speaker 4: we're going to slam the brakes on renewables, We're going
Speaker 4: to move to nuclear instead, and they've done it without
Speaker 4: a costing.
Speaker 1: I mean, seriously, James.
Speaker 2: Taking media advice from Linda Bernie's old advice by the sounds,
Speaker 2: but in fact it might be better to roll Linda out.
Speaker 15: She might have something half decent to say on this.
Speaker 2: So ill prepared Labor for this announcement that they have
Speaker 2: been caught off guard, and Labor really don't have an
Speaker 2: argument against Peter Dutton's very sensible plan for a stability
Speaker 2: of not only our electricity grid but also our economic
Speaker 2: future as well, because if we're to sustain the manufacturing
Speaker 2: that we want in this country, there's not much left.
Speaker 15: We've got to have reliable, cheap power.
Speaker 2: And look, if there's one thing I could employ you
Speaker 2: to have a sensible conversation with your people at News Corp.
Speaker 2: Any of the newspapers. Don't put these stories behind payballs.
Speaker 2: Make sure that the Australian people can read all the data,
Speaker 2: all the debate, both sides of the argument. I think
Speaker 2: all your newspapers did a very good job during the
Speaker 2: voice and I think this debate here is equally as important.
Speaker 2: Can I also say how proud I am of the
Speaker 2: people for actually saying in that questionnaire that they were undecided.
Speaker 2: That's a really bold move from a lot of Australian
Speaker 2: people to actually say, look, I haven't made a decision
Speaker 2: because I don't know the facts on this. I think
Speaker 2: the more we can inform people about how reliable power
Speaker 2: will be in this country. If we've got a mix
Speaker 2: of power from nuclear, wind, solar, the whole lot gas.
Speaker 15: Included too, we will not end up like a.
Speaker 2: Basket case electricity grid like they've got in South Africa.
Speaker 2: You speak to anyone who's recently come out of South Africa.
Speaker 2: They don't have stability in their grid and so they've
Speaker 2: got these rolling blackouts that.
Speaker 15: Happen every single day.
Speaker 2: Every house has got to have a generator which is
Speaker 2: fired up with either petrol or diesel, and it's because
Speaker 2: they don't have stability. We've been told towards the end
Speaker 2: of this year we're likely to have rolling blackouts in
Speaker 2: some parts of the country. I don't want that. I'm
Speaker 2: sure nobody in this country wants it. But until we
Speaker 2: get it, I don't think people realize how good we've
Speaker 2: had it in this country for a long time. I say, well,
Speaker 2: Doneder Peter Dutton, I say, well done to the Coalition
Speaker 2: as a whole for putting forward sensible policy that Australia
Speaker 2: now can differentiate the two Labor who want instability in
Speaker 2: our power and the Coalition who want to make sure
Speaker 2: that everybody has cheap reliable power as we move forward
Speaker 2: as a nation.
Speaker 1: Such an important point, Christy, about that undecided factor, right,
Speaker 1: because remember the early pollings in there around the voice
Speaker 1: there was only two options, and that's certain you were
Speaker 1: forced to make a decision. And when forced to make
Speaker 1: a decision, we got to sixty forty. But if you
Speaker 1: see right now, forty one thirty seven, forty one in
Speaker 1: favor of it, thirty seven against, twenty two up for grabs.
Speaker 1: Presumably by this point in time, if you weren't tending
Speaker 1: then you probably will start trending towards yes as an idea.
Speaker 1: But the blitz greak of information coming back against it,
Speaker 1: the endless flood of cartoons. And I'm not just talking
Speaker 1: from Labor INMPS here, Christy, that twenty two percent they're
Speaker 1: open to an argument, but will they be able to
Speaker 1: hear one.
Speaker 7: Well, the government's made a few whears this week.
Speaker 9: It's not like the coal is hasn't given them several
Speaker 9: months to work on a decent attack to this, and
Speaker 9: what they came up with was, I think it was
Speaker 9: Richard Miles not being able to combat how much the
Speaker 9: renewable energy cost of their agenda would be versus the
Speaker 9: nuclear energy cost. So it's a bit of well, if
Speaker 9: you can't land a number on yours, why are you
Speaker 9: baiting the coalition into delivering a cost. It's also a
Speaker 9: failure to recognize that the Government didn't go to the
Speaker 9: last election with a whole swag of policies either. It
Speaker 9: was a considerable small target election where they played Scott
Speaker 9: Morrison as their major attack rather than a policy suite
Speaker 9: for Australia, so much so that the Prime Minister was
Speaker 9: even caught on the back foot being wedged into a
Speaker 9: responding at a press conference that he would give people
Speaker 9: a five point one percent wage hip, something that he
Speaker 9: rolled back.
Speaker 7: And then decided to support.
Speaker 9: So that was essentially industrial relations policy on the run,
Speaker 9: which turned into something that they heralded.
Speaker 7: So a couple of.
Speaker 9: Errors are Springfield and The Simpsons. Memes and The Simpsons
Speaker 9: debuted on Australian television and in the US in nineteen
Speaker 9: eighty nine.
Speaker 7: This is old.
Speaker 9: Narrative, old messaging for old policy and old rerun of
Speaker 9: wars to satisfy the aging hippie base of labor, and
Speaker 9: of course we know they are dominant in Labour's left faction.
Speaker 9: Young people are willing to have the discussion around well,
Speaker 9: we're technology natives. We've grown up with technology to develop
Speaker 9: policy solutions. Yes, renewable is great technology as well, but
Speaker 9: nuclear is also great technology. They don't see the difference
Speaker 9: of one technology is better than another technology. They are viewing, well,
Speaker 9: let's use all technology to solve policy challenges.
Speaker 1: Well, remember the fourteen year old kid who absolutely schooled
Speaker 1: the minister when he was on Channel two a little
Speaker 1: bit earlier in the year. Now, this is a this
Speaker 1: is a wed through. I'm not entirely sure what we're
Speaker 1: supposed to do as the response to this, but there's
Speaker 1: a story around suggesting that people who migrate to the
Speaker 1: country will be at a disadvantage when it comes to
Speaker 1: their retirement because they haven't been there their entire working life.
Speaker 1: In order to put money into superannuation, and supposedly it's
Speaker 1: about one hundred and forty thousand dollars which will end
Speaker 1: up as the divide between people who have been working
Speaker 1: their whole lives or paying super since the nineties and
Speaker 1: those that have arrived recently. Okay, well that's fairly obvious, James,
Speaker 1: that's maths. But what is the suggestion we're supposed to top
Speaker 1: it up on the number of years that you weren't here.
Speaker 1: What's the get their apparent problem? But what's the apparent solution.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I looked at this myself today and I was
Speaker 2: thinking to myself, what are you asking us to do.
Speaker 2: You're asking us to give you this big fat check
Speaker 2: upon arrival. Sorry, if it doesn't suit you, don't come here.
Speaker 2: You've got to plan your future as much as I've
Speaker 2: got to do the same. And the same families whose
Speaker 2: wife decides that she wants to take the next twelve
Speaker 2: years off to raise the kids, their economic decisions that
Speaker 2: families have got to make. Paul, one of the biggest
Speaker 2: things that we've got here is a problem with our
Speaker 2: superannuation scheme with migrants as it is. And I say
Speaker 2: that because we bring in several million people to work
Speaker 2: in this country for a very short period of time
Speaker 2: on different visas. When they leave the country, they're able
Speaker 2: to cash their Super out. Perhaps we've got to look
Speaker 2: at what we do with those people, because Super was
Speaker 2: designed for retirement, not for backpackers who want to come
Speaker 2: here for two years, work on fruit farms and in
Speaker 2: various different industries, and then when they go take that
Speaker 2: money out of our economy. Maybe we look at how
Speaker 2: we repurpose that, don't allow them to cash it out
Speaker 2: when they leave the country. But yeah, I didn't know
Speaker 2: what the purpose of this story was, to be quite frank.
Speaker 2: And I hope that we're not paying for this into
Speaker 2: the future.
Speaker 1: Yeh, I'm with your sibold predictions. I'm not two his time. Also,
Speaker 1: we'll have a chat about METS and a brand new
Speaker 1: pole telling us that we don't really like protests, even
Speaker 1: the so called peaceful ones. More and to seek here
Speaker 1: on Paul Murray Live this Sunday night. Thanks for watching.
Speaker 1: Send me an email Paul at skynews dot com dot you.
Speaker 1: This time next week we're going to be in Bruceman
Speaker 1: if you'd like to join us in McGregor outsound at
Speaker 1: skynews dot com dot A you this Sunday night. Thank
Speaker 1: you for watching here with James Ashby and with Christy
Speaker 1: McSweeney Christy. You go first off the rank here, which
Speaker 1: is another pole, same people about the nuclear thing, but
Speaker 1: this time about protests. Apparently, only fifty three percent of
Speaker 1: people believe that a legitimate protest is having a rally
Speaker 1: in a park or outside of Parliament. Forty one percent
Speaker 1: say marching on the streets. Then we start to fall
Speaker 1: camping at universities just fourteen percent of people say that
Speaker 1: it's okay, blocking access to an MP's office ten percent,
Speaker 1: then protesting at the home of somebody nine percent, with
Speaker 1: the assistance of the ABC not quite asked, and then
Speaker 1: we start to go down and down and down until
Speaker 1: we eventually get to a damage an electorate office, which
Speaker 1: amazingly four percent of people think is okay. This is
Speaker 1: a great insight because I would have thought that holding
Speaker 1: a rally would have been eighty percent of people are
Speaker 1: okay with it, but only fifty three percent. Is that
Speaker 1: because we're a little protested out? Well?
Speaker 7: Are they all from Melbourne like me? And that protest fatigue?
Speaker 9: I've lost sight and lost count of every time I
Speaker 9: look out my office window in Spring Street and see
Speaker 9: some crowd or another protesting on the steps of Parliament
Speaker 9: or blocking traffic with extinction, rebellion or where I live
Speaker 9: in sin Kilda East, Free Palestine, right in the heart
Speaker 9: of Jewish dominance, Sinkida East.
Speaker 7: So we have fatigue here in Melbourne.
Speaker 9: It's nice to see that the rest of the country
Speaker 9: is probably also suffering a little bit of fatigue with
Speaker 9: people jumping on woke bandwagons and may I say quite
Speaker 9: often many people protesting don't have any critical thought or
Speaker 9: insight into what they actually are protesting, and that's a
Speaker 9: whole other discussion. But of course people have the right
Speaker 9: to protest freely and peacefully.
Speaker 7: But hasn't it just gone a little bit too far?
Speaker 1: Well, what about this? Just sixty seven percent of green
Speaker 1: photos think that it's okay to hold a rally at
Speaker 1: a park or go outside Parliament. Only fifty percent of
Speaker 1: eighteen to thirty four year olds think it's okay to
Speaker 1: do the same. So Jones, we are learning here that
Speaker 1: the apparent militancy and the hard leftism and the great
Speaker 1: changes in our democracy that everyone wants to take the
Speaker 1: strict guess what, it's garbage pushed by university students or
Speaker 1: their alumni who love it. The average Australian is not
Speaker 1: turned on by this stuff.
Speaker 2: No, thankfully, we don't have protests here in your pun
Speaker 2: And when I am in Brisbane and I do see
Speaker 2: a protest, I always look for two things.
Speaker 15: If it's full of I turn a blind eye. I'm
Speaker 15: not interested.
Speaker 2: And I look for the hair color, because if it's
Speaker 2: multicolored green and blue hair, I just go again not interested.
Speaker 15: We have had a gutfull. I think Christy's all right.
Speaker 2: Once upot a time when you saw a protest you thought, okay, well,
Speaker 2: obviously this is upset a few people. Now we're protesting
Speaker 2: absolute rubbish. These in camps or whatever you want to
Speaker 2: call them at the universities. They should have been moved on.
Speaker 2: They should never have been allowed to happen in the
Speaker 2: first place. I despise anybody who ruins somebody else's property.
Speaker 2: I hate it, whether it be a parliamentary office or
Speaker 2: somebody's house. You shouldn't be spray painting stuff on people's
Speaker 2: walls and shouldn't be destroying them. So no, I'm over
Speaker 2: the protests. They've lost their merit. And for anyone that
Speaker 2: wants to disrupt traffic blue themselves to roads, I reckon
Speaker 2: sink the boot into them.
Speaker 15: I can't stand those buggets.
Speaker 1: I'm with you. I'm with you, just the frustration that
Speaker 1: the visceral frustration people have. Right, it's yeah, all right,
Speaker 1: let's get a bold predictions for the weekend. Christi Bigsweeney,
Speaker 1: it's absolutely definitely happening this week apart from Trump and Biden.
Speaker 1: Eleven am Friday here on Sky News.
Speaker 9: Look, I think we are going to see the government
Speaker 9: get the shock of its life, no pun intended.
Speaker 7: When the polls for people.
Speaker 9: Willing to have that discussion around clear energy might move
Speaker 9: from twenty two percent undecided to people having another week
Speaker 9: or so to think about it might move into the
Speaker 9: yes positive column.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I do too. We suddenly get these proper polls
Speaker 1: actually breaking it down on the question, we'll get into it.
Speaker 1: And again that don't again, don't be afraid. I'm sure
Speaker 1: don't know. It's okay as a position a right, James,
Speaker 1: your thoughts on the prediction for the weekend.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the only nuclear meltdown over the next two weeks
Speaker 2: will be within the Labor Party and every pun will
Speaker 2: be put in this Fridays Please explain cartoon thing. The
Speaker 2: only political party who can get away with doing cartoons
Speaker 2: is one nation.
Speaker 1: I got to say ps this week by the give
Speaker 1: Up Sensational, Sensational and Gold Logi nominee Robert Irwin thankfully
Speaker 1: went no further than just appearing inside the cartoon. Thank
Speaker 1: you guys to appreciate it. We'll see you again next week.
Speaker 1: Thank you guys, appreciate it. No books, no lefties, And
Speaker 1: speaking of the logies, not generally we don't get in
Speaker 1: for that stuff. But a really lovely man has been
Speaker 1: nominated for the Gold Logi. He's been in the television
Speaker 1: industry for decades and he is the gold standard of
Speaker 1: the way you should conduct yourself as a professional in
Speaker 1: the business. His name is Larry Emder. Larry has done
Speaker 1: everything from news to variety shows and of course is
Speaker 1: there on the morning show over on Channel seven. For
Speaker 1: what it's worth, Let's all go, let's go all in
Speaker 1: for Larry. All right, Larry for the Gold I don't
Speaker 1: know how you do it and vote in text and
Speaker 1: all the rest of it. Larry's a lovely bloke. I'm
Speaker 1: sure my endorsement's really going to help. But still he
Speaker 1: is a lovely bloke and he deserves the award. If
Speaker 1: the award is actually about people who deserve the award,
Speaker 1: for their commitment to the television industry. Love you Las,
Speaker 1: all right, here's the Royal Report see tomorrow.