Speaker 1: Lately.
Speaker 2: Welcome to the Late Pay.
Speaker 3: Great to have your company.
Speaker 4: I'm James Macpherson with Liz Storer and Joe Hildebrand coming
Speaker 4: up tonight. The campaign endorsement Anthony Albanese did not want
Speaker 4: turns out you really don't want everyone voting for you.
Speaker 4: We'll explain why a little later. Plus when we look
Speaker 4: at the papers. The Courier Mail has a front page
Speaker 4: story tomorrow with new polling showing labor surging ahead, and
Speaker 4: activist Noel Pearson reckons there's too much Indigenous cultural studies
Speaker 4: in our school curriculum and it needs to be pared back.
Speaker 4: We'll get to all of that a little later. But first,
Speaker 4: I always thought we lived in a free country. I thought,
Speaker 4: especially during an election campaign, we were free to talk
Speaker 4: about matters of public policy. I thought we lived in
Speaker 4: Australia rather than say, you know, China. But check out
Speaker 4: what happened today outside of polling booth in the Victorian
Speaker 4: electorate of Jagger Jagger, a Family First Senate candidate, was
Speaker 4: told by an Australian Electoral Commission worker that she wasn't
Speaker 4: allowed to advertise her policies because well, some people just
Speaker 4: didn't like them.
Speaker 5: I've had a few people who are quite upset.
Speaker 1: I just want to speak to about what you're speaking
Speaker 1: to them.
Speaker 3: What about speaking about.
Speaker 1: About late term abortions? Okay, you don't like that. It's
Speaker 1: not my opinion. It's a horrible thing, though, and that's
Speaker 1: why I want to stop it.
Speaker 6: If I ask you, if you would like to speak
Speaker 6: to everybody that your policies, you're more than welcome to.
Speaker 7: But just that point before now, if I can please.
Speaker 1: Ask, can I.
Speaker 7: Elsey every other of you?
Speaker 1: I'm not allowed to mention abortion just for now. I've
Speaker 1: had some compaignts and I just want to run it
Speaker 1: up the cheam.
Speaker 3: Okay, you wouldn't mind, thank you now.
Speaker 4: That video went viral after it was posted online by
Speaker 4: Adelaide law professor doctor Joanna Howe, and then doctor Howe
Speaker 4: became a target of the Electoral Commissions penchant for censorship.
Speaker 4: They posted a message on her Instagram age, I'll read
Speaker 4: it for you. We're respectfully asking you to take the
Speaker 4: video down from this person's p for this person's privacy.
Speaker 4: They're a hard working temporary officer doing her best to
Speaker 4: fulfill her role in a complicated environment. Maybe someone needs
Speaker 4: to tell the Australian Electoral Commission. It's really not that complicated.
Speaker 4: Whether you're pro abortion or anti abortion, you have the
Speaker 4: right to put forward your position, especially when you're standing
Speaker 4: for public office. Rather than respectfully requesting the video be
Speaker 4: taken down, perhaps the Electoral Commission should respectfully be thanking
Speaker 4: doctor Johannah Howe for bringing it to their attention and
Speaker 4: respectfully apologizing to the Family First candidate for getting in
Speaker 4: the way of her communicating her policies as she's perfectly
Speaker 4: entitled to do.
Speaker 8: Liz indeed, well, this is an election interference, period, plain
Speaker 8: and simple, which is the very antithesis of the AEC's remit.
Speaker 8: They should have in fact apologized and said obviously, this
Speaker 8: girl hasn't been trained properly. As someone who's worked in state,
Speaker 8: federal and local governments for over eight years, that person
Speaker 8: being me, I have seen all kinds of biffs on
Speaker 8: polling booths, pre polling especially, it gets incredibly fiery, people
Speaker 8: have massive arguments, but I have never once seen in
Speaker 8: person or in the media an AEC representative telling a
Speaker 8: candidate to shut up about their own policies. Oh, you're
Speaker 8: making people uncomfortable, Well, good congratulations that means those people
Speaker 8: still have a soul.
Speaker 1: This year's a federal election issue. The other side of
Speaker 1: this debate.
Speaker 8: Forty pro abortion organizations have lobbied the federal government and
Speaker 8: let them know that whoever wins.
Speaker 1: Government this time round, they're.
Speaker 8: Demanding that they fulfill all their demands.
Speaker 1: But you get one pro.
Speaker 8: Life voice, one person giving a voice to the voiceless,
Speaker 8: one person sticking up for the almost round about. We
Speaker 8: don't get exact numbers for obvious reasons, but approximately eighty
Speaker 8: thousand babies a.
Speaker 1: Year in Australia who are terminated.
Speaker 8: Just one person, and all of a sudden, you've got
Speaker 8: the AEC flying in the face of their own remit
Speaker 8: to get this woman to shut up at all costs.
Speaker 8: It's an absolute disgrace. They should have come out and
Speaker 8: simply said sorry, we do acknowledge that this is the
Speaker 8: very opposite of what AEC stands for, and our jobs
Speaker 8: on pre polling booths and polling booths on the day
Speaker 8: we apologize this person's now being retrained.
Speaker 1: That was the only appropriate.
Speaker 8: Response, and instead they've turned around after people have been
Speaker 8: concerned about the freedom of speech happening at pre polling booths,
Speaker 8: and then ask the pre eminent pro life voice in Australia,
Speaker 8: doctor Joanna Howe, to help cover up what they did by.
Speaker 1: Taking down their pos. Irony is dead.
Speaker 8: It's it's completely unforgivable, Joe, I think.
Speaker 9: Fair enough to say, you know, I don't reveal the
Speaker 9: identity of the worker, who is obviously quite young. And
Speaker 9: obviously all the people who work on these booths, they're
Speaker 9: doing it just on a temporary basis, so they're not
Speaker 9: people who work for AAS.
Speaker 8: But they are trained not to tell candidates not to spruit.
Speaker 2: Their lawful you were things.
Speaker 9: I mean, look, obviously it's very it's very concerning if
Speaker 9: that is in fact what is happening and that's been done.
Speaker 9: But she did say, look, I just need to speak
Speaker 9: to my supervisor. Would you mind just not doing it
Speaker 9: for now till I can get some direction on this.
Speaker 9: So I don't know if it's the end of the world,
Speaker 9: and we don't. I don't do we know what decision
Speaker 9: was ultimately made. I don't know if we do. But
Speaker 9: but I think the real the real story here and
Speaker 9: the real villains is not the AAC worker, but Jagga
Speaker 9: Jagger is a seat based around sort of inner Melbourne,
Speaker 9: around the sort of city of Durbin, which is very,
Speaker 9: very heavily green tinged. I think they've probably already signed
Speaker 9: their own treaty and they're always getting in, They're always
Speaker 9: doing exciting new things with theirsh collection to make it
Speaker 9: more sustainable. But so I suspect that there'd be a
Speaker 9: lot of kind of vexatious complainants, very much to the
Speaker 9: left of the political spectrum, who have made a boy
Speaker 9: the sort of people who would say, sorry, this is
Speaker 9: very triggering for me. So I think it's actually them
Speaker 9: who the blame should be leveled at, rather than a
Speaker 9: young worker, a young temporary worker who is just trying
Speaker 9: to respond to this sort of avalanche of compliance. And
Speaker 9: as I said, if you wouldn't mind just not doing
Speaker 9: it for now, please.
Speaker 1: Not talk about your policies. I mean, that's utterly that's
Speaker 1: a joke.
Speaker 2: Again. But if the final decision of the AE.
Speaker 8: Worker honestly thought that was appropriate, then she must have
Speaker 8: received no training whatsoever.
Speaker 2: But she would have just received the complaint.
Speaker 9: She wouldn't have known what the what the person had
Speaker 9: been saying, God knows what these sort of these sort
Speaker 9: of hysterical hypercarens were saying about what the.
Speaker 4: And I reckon it must have been Hypercarens, because when
Speaker 4: you listen to the response of the family first can
Speaker 4: this seems very She seemed very polite and pretty reasonable
Speaker 4: considering she was being told to shut up about her
Speaker 4: own policies. Indeed, so I thought she treated the AEC
Speaker 4: worker with absolute politeness. So I struggle to believe that
Speaker 4: any complaints about that can that would have been because
Speaker 4: the candidate was being rude or aggressive.
Speaker 8: Indeed, and hats off to Ray Rancy there in Victoria,
Speaker 8: in the seat of Jagga Jagger.
Speaker 1: You are in hater heartland.
Speaker 8: Strength to your arm to Spain now where Spanish news
Speaker 8: broadcasts are going to be police to ensure that men
Speaker 8: and women on news programs get the same amount.
Speaker 1: Of talking time.
Speaker 8: Yes, this is an actual law that has been passed
Speaker 8: we read today. According to the law, new casts must
Speaker 8: newscasts rather must convey an equal and non discriminatory image
Speaker 8: of men and women. They are not permitted to promote
Speaker 8: directly or indirectly situations of discrimination based on sex. The CIMAC,
Speaker 8: which is their National Commission on Markets and Competition, will
Speaker 8: review between eight hundred and one thousand and fifteen minute clips,
Speaker 8: which will be reviewed by a consulting firm that has
Speaker 8: been provided with one hundred and twenty one thousand euros
Speaker 8: for both twenty twenty five and twenty twenty six. So
Speaker 8: they're going to be monitoring Spanish news the two hundred
Speaker 8: and fifty hours of broadcasting per year to ensure that
Speaker 8: men haven't talked more than women, women haven't talked more
Speaker 8: than men. I actually think this is not going to
Speaker 8: work in women's favor when we're all reminded of just
Speaker 8: last week on the ABC and Micas Sucker's Michael Sucker's
Speaker 8: disgraceful treatment by the women there.
Speaker 6: Michael Sooker, you say you're going to do it. We
Speaker 6: know how many houses you've built while you were in
Speaker 6: government in that area. It was a few thousand, but
Speaker 6: now it wasn't a.
Speaker 1: Few thou Sorry, Sarah, I'll get my chance. You will
Speaker 1: correct the record on that.
Speaker 6: Let me just get I'm going to ask you one
Speaker 6: more time, and everyone is listening to me, ask this question,
Speaker 6: how many social and affordable houses will you build?
Speaker 3: Well, we will fund social and for right.
Speaker 10: That's it.
Speaker 1: You're not I'm not getting an answer. You'll get an
Speaker 1: answer out of me.
Speaker 6: A minute.
Speaker 8: We've done a hute shortage of housing around our country.
Speaker 8: I'm pretty sure this is going to mean women in
Speaker 8: Spain on news programs have to talk less and won't
Speaker 8: get to talk more.
Speaker 1: I find it incredibly funny.
Speaker 4: What I find incredible is that you took over a
Speaker 4: minute thirty for that introduction. I took only just over
Speaker 4: two minutes to introduce the entire show plus a topic.
Speaker 3: So I don't know. Maybe these laws could work the
Speaker 3: other way.
Speaker 1: Listen, that's what I mean. I think that's going to
Speaker 1: be the outcome.
Speaker 2: I'm very excited.
Speaker 9: I can't wait for them to be introduced in Australia
Speaker 9: so that Brodman Bishop will finally.
Speaker 2: Let me speak.
Speaker 4: The Spanish government are regarding this, if you allow men
Speaker 4: to speak more than women on a news program as quote,
Speaker 4: a very serious offense, and networks face fines of up
Speaker 4: to two point six million Australian dollars if they violate
Speaker 4: the laws. What's amazing to me is that you don't
Speaker 4: need government to do this. We've got broadcasters in the
Speaker 4: UK and then Australia who want to do it to themselves.
Speaker 4: The BBC a few years ago set up a system
Speaker 4: to keep track of which genders and which ethnicities were
Speaker 4: represented in TV programs to make sure there was equity,
Speaker 4: and SBS back when they reported that said, then I
Speaker 4: quote this is from an SBS journalist. Surprisingly, there are
Speaker 4: no rules on gender or ethnicity based diversity enforced in Australia.
Speaker 4: So you've got SBS journalists being surprised that the government
Speaker 4: aren't mandating certain quotas of different people being represented on television.
Speaker 9: From a memory that would have wiped out about half
Speaker 9: the SBS.
Speaker 2: Board because.
Speaker 9: They got a little bit of trouble for being white
Speaker 9: of at a polar bear and a snowstorm. But he's
Speaker 9: pretty I just I just find it very weird that
Speaker 9: we are just sort of ticking boxes based on gender
Speaker 9: or sex or digging into people's ethnic makeup. You know,
Speaker 9: we're going to get the DNA background next or whatever.
Speaker 9: I remember recently someone came to me and wanted to
Speaker 9: into me as part of a sort of panel show
Speaker 9: whatever you want to call it, at the south By
Speaker 9: Southwest Festival that was coming to Sydney, and they have
Speaker 9: a thing now and I was quite surprised. They sent
Speaker 9: me the application to fill out and they have a
Speaker 9: question that says, what is your racial background?
Speaker 2: And and you actually have to fill it.
Speaker 9: Now, this is the sort of thing that used to
Speaker 9: be done in a part of South Africa.
Speaker 2: You know, are you a colored? Are you a black?
Speaker 2: Are you a white? Are you an Indian?
Speaker 9: I mean, I just I just found I mean maybe
Speaker 9: it was like a sort of you know, a re
Speaker 9: education for me so I could under understand what it
Speaker 9: liked to be right Anyway, I knew as soon as
Speaker 9: I finished, as I filled it out, there was absolutely
Speaker 9: no way in hell that's going anywhere near that fest
Speaker 9: of all. I just fill out. You know, aryan superman
Speaker 9: and you've.
Speaker 3: Got a changeo.
Speaker 1: You could easily make something up about you.
Speaker 2: I did know. I did something.
Speaker 9: I think I said something like, you know, self hating
Speaker 9: Irish Catholic who everybody thinks he is Jewish.
Speaker 2: I didn't get through it.
Speaker 4: I've talked before about a mate of mine who worked
Speaker 4: for the ABC and he wanted to go for a promotion.
Speaker 4: But as he was filling out the documents to apply
Speaker 4: for it, one of the criteria was what diversity characteristics
Speaker 4: would you bring to the role. The poor guy couldn't
Speaker 4: think of any but what a waste of taxpayer money.
Speaker 4: The Spanish government will actually use taxpayer money to pay
Speaker 4: consultants to sit and just trawl through hours and hours
Speaker 4: of news footage calculating who talks for how long and
Speaker 4: whether or not it's fair. I mean, you would be
Speaker 4: irate when you're a taxpayer that's how your money's being spent.
Speaker 8: Now, I can't wait to see the results because I
Speaker 8: think it will show that we women, as we're famous for,
Speaker 8: do talk more than the men to robots. Now, Elon
Speaker 8: Musk has said that just within a matter of years,
Speaker 8: robots are going to replace the best surgeons in the world.
Speaker 8: He tweeted just yesterday robots will surpass good human surgeons
Speaker 8: within a few years and the best human surgeons within
Speaker 8: five years.
Speaker 1: Neuralink, that's his.
Speaker 8: Own company, had to use a robot for the brain
Speaker 8: computer electrode insertion that's a brain.
Speaker 1: Chip, as it was impossible for a human to.
Speaker 8: Achieve the required speed end presition. This is on the
Speaker 8: back of Medtronic Hugo. They've called it robotic assisted surgery,
Speaker 8: which is now all the rage.
Speaker 1: They're sprooking their new robotics.
Speaker 8: This picture of the mockup of what they're actually doing
Speaker 8: with the robot isn't very reassuring, but they do tell
Speaker 8: us it is now performed over one hundred and thirty
Speaker 8: seven lie on real people surgeries without a hitch. And
Speaker 8: when you look at this next video and the precision
Speaker 8: in which these robots can make incisions and make stitches
Speaker 8: and do all the fine finicky things surgeons do, you
Speaker 8: wonder if they're right.
Speaker 11: This is Sony's surgical robot which can perform microsurgery with
Speaker 11: great precision. To demonstrate its procedure, a small cut was
Speaker 11: made on a corn grain which the robot stitched with
Speaker 11: great precision. This robot has been specially designed for performing
Speaker 11: super microsurgery, which allows surgeons to operate on extremely small
Speaker 11: vessels of less than one millimeter. For this, a specialist
Speaker 11: with experience and steady hands is usually required.
Speaker 8: Imagine being a surgeon in training at the moment, that's
Speaker 8: eleven to thirteen years of training here in Australia that
Speaker 8: you've undergone to finally work on live and do whatever
Speaker 8: they need done, and you've just learned within five years Mate,
Speaker 8: you're going to be redundant.
Speaker 1: Joe, how would you take it?
Speaker 9: Well, look, I've got a lot of concerns with this.
Speaker 9: Thank you very much for raising it, Liz, because this
Speaker 9: is the sort of brave new world we're facing, and
Speaker 9: other mainstream media outlets simply do not give it the
Speaker 9: attention it deserves.
Speaker 2: Firstly, if we could go back to.
Speaker 9: Elon Musk's original tweet, the graphic that we showed you
Speaker 9: right up the top of the show, Elon Musk says,
Speaker 9: robots will surpass good human surgeons within a few years,
Speaker 9: and the best human surgeons within five years.
Speaker 12: Shouldn't we be replacing the worst human surgeons?
Speaker 3: What are we doing replacing the best ones?
Speaker 12: They're the best, which will be starting with the bad ones.
Speaker 2: And you know what happens.
Speaker 12: When you start replacing the good ones, is that the
Speaker 12: bad ones you get to The next video that we saw,
Speaker 12: which was a robot that's so bad at surgery it
Speaker 12: thinks to the human is a cop of corn.
Speaker 2: They're very different.
Speaker 12: One's a human being and the other's corn, and the
Speaker 12: Roman can't even tell the.
Speaker 2: Difference, and sity there trying to stitch up the corn.
Speaker 2: The cord's fine anyway.
Speaker 9: Thankfully, we also caught a glimpse of just how this
Speaker 9: technology could be applied. In fact, as you know, I
Speaker 9: always do my research, and I've actually found video evidence
Speaker 9: of this surgery being applied not to a cob of corn,
Speaker 9: but to a real, live human being. This is the facts, people,
Speaker 9: This is what you won't see elsewhere. Now, notwithstanding the
Speaker 9: kind of creepy way that Luke checked out his sister
Speaker 9: as she was walking out the door, that I think
Speaker 9: is a much better application of robot surgery than cutting
Speaker 9: up corn.
Speaker 4: Is this really replacing surgeons or is this just robot
Speaker 4: assisted surgery?
Speaker 1: We have that already.
Speaker 8: We have that already, and the doctors using it love
Speaker 8: it because they can do incredible things in tandem with
Speaker 8: the technology that is available to still need just talking
Speaker 8: about the robots themselves being the surgeon, but you would.
Speaker 4: Still need a human being surgeon on hand if things
Speaker 4: go wrong. Surely robots couldn't anticipate every complication, as so
Speaker 4: often happens in an operating theater. My concern would be
Speaker 4: less about surgeons being replaced, because I'm not sure that
Speaker 4: would ever happen. But robots operating don't have a sense
Speaker 4: of compassion, don't have the same judgment or ethics that
Speaker 4: a human being has I'm not sure I want to
Speaker 4: be operated on by someone who is only cognizant of algorithms.
Speaker 3: Rather than you know, my this is human welfare.
Speaker 9: This is the theory that always just blows my mind
Speaker 9: because what happens is not so much the robots who
Speaker 9: are doing the actual surgery, but what happens if AI
Speaker 9: gets to the point. So you know, Isaac Asimov has
Speaker 9: got his first law of robotics, which is that you
Speaker 9: can do no harm to humans or whatever. But what
Speaker 9: if you had an AI that was told, right, your
Speaker 9: number one priority, no matter what, is to save human life,
Speaker 9: it's to save the human race.
Speaker 2: How long would it be.
Speaker 9: Before that robot says, right, we are so overpopulated that
Speaker 9: the planet is going to use up all its resources
Speaker 9: and it turns into Thanos from the Marvel movies. Or indeed,
Speaker 9: you know what happens if a robot surgeon has someone
Speaker 9: and decides that actually, it's quality of life after the
Speaker 9: surgery would be so poor that would be better off dead,
Speaker 9: and the robot just and again, this is not a
Speaker 9: decision that the robot surgeon would make in the operating theater.
Speaker 9: And by the way, do you know they can stitch
Speaker 9: up blood vessels that are half a millimeter. I mean,
Speaker 9: that's amazing, even you know, even like you know, Charlie
Speaker 9: T I can't do that, So that is because amazing.
Speaker 9: But again, what if you have robots just making all
Speaker 9: these you kind of I don't know.
Speaker 2: There's something really.
Speaker 4: Terrifying rational in operating theater, especially if it's an emergency operation,
Speaker 4: that you want a human being making those decisions, not
Speaker 4: a pre programmed computer.
Speaker 8: Well, what you're saying, Joe, is that ultimately there'll be
Speaker 8: far more utilitarian. That's right, Yes, Ultimately, this person's a burden,
Speaker 8: and therefore, or.
Speaker 9: The robot will say, I know how many people I have,
Speaker 9: you know, I am like deep thought or like hol
Speaker 9: In two thousand and one or whatever. I know how
Speaker 9: many people are waiting for X number of surgeries, And
Speaker 9: if we expend this amount of time and resources on
Speaker 9: this person here, we could actually better divert those resources
Speaker 9: to save ten lives over here instead of this one
Speaker 9: life here. And therefore it is a perfectly rational decision that.
Speaker 8: This organ transplant should go to a better recipient.
Speaker 9: I'm not performed, so that's exactly right, or something I'm
Speaker 9: operat on a seventy year old.
Speaker 2: And they're hard.
Speaker 9: And I've just become aware that there is a twelve
Speaker 9: year old who suddenly needs a heart transplant, and they
Speaker 9: would have seventy more years than the years I'm giving
Speaker 9: this person. Therefore, I am saving more life if I
Speaker 9: cease operating, pick up the heart and bug it in
Speaker 9: the new kid.
Speaker 2: So the question fix.
Speaker 4: The question becomes, is AI the beginning of the apocalypse
Speaker 4: or is it the answer to things like low birth
Speaker 4: rates in western countries and the need for immigration. KPMG's
Speaker 4: digital boss John Money seems to think that AI is
Speaker 4: going to solve a whole lot of problems, especially for
Speaker 4: Western nations. As I said, with falling birth rates, he said,
Speaker 4: ultimately the sort of work that we would have traditionally
Speaker 4: offshore to India will no longer need to offshore as much.
Speaker 4: We'll keep the revenue here in Australia, obviously because robots
Speaker 4: will be doing the work we're relying on others to do.
Speaker 3: He says to me, this has to be it.
Speaker 4: This has to be the opportunity for us to drive
Speaker 4: productivity without having to drive immigration. So, for instance, if
Speaker 4: you've got a warehouse that requires two thousand workers. What
Speaker 4: if most of it was automated and you only required
Speaker 4: two hundred workers, Well, then you could have a shrinking
Speaker 4: birth rate. You wouldn't have to import a workforce from overseas.
Speaker 4: You just get robots to do the jobs that otherwise
Speaker 4: would have had to have been done by human beings.
Speaker 4: And this is exactly the point that Larry Fink, the
Speaker 4: CEO of Blackrock made.
Speaker 13: Have a listen, We'll be able to elevate the standard
Speaker 13: of living in countries and the standard of living of
Speaker 13: individuals even with shrinking populations. And so the paradigm of
Speaker 13: negative population growth is going to be changing, and the
Speaker 13: social problems that one will have in substituting humans from
Speaker 13: machines is going to be far easier in those countries
Speaker 13: that have declining populations.
Speaker 4: Now, I know you don't like Larry Fink, Liz, but
Speaker 4: what's wrong with what he's.
Speaker 8: Saying, Well, it is terrify fine, because what we're saying
Speaker 8: is we're going to need less humans. Which you'll notice
Speaker 8: in the backdrop there's speaking at the World Economic Forum,
Speaker 8: which believes that we're so overpopulated, there's too many humans.
Speaker 8: They're all about population control. So this would be music
Speaker 8: to their ears. But he said in another part of
Speaker 8: that speech, this will go very well for what he
Speaker 8: called xenophobic countries simply because they haven't thrown their borders
Speaker 8: wide open to people from all around the world. Because
Speaker 8: again for the same reason they've got shrinking birth rates,
Speaker 8: they won't need to rely on immigration anymore. Obviously, for
Speaker 8: a country like Australia, our question is, firstly, once this
Speaker 8: thing takes off, what are we going to do with
Speaker 8: the loads of people that we've imported in February two
Speaker 8: hundred thousand alone, Like we are talking mind blowing numbers
Speaker 8: that we are funneling into our country. Is it a
Speaker 8: surprise to anyone that one third of us wasn't even
Speaker 8: born here in Australia? What are we going to do
Speaker 8: with all these masses of people When you look at
Speaker 8: even the highly skilled, so it's not just low skilled
Speaker 8: like factory workers that robots are going to be able
Speaker 8: to replace. We're talking highly skilled, as we just did
Speaker 8: there with surgeons. How many jobs are going to be
Speaker 8: left for human beings to earn money, put a roof
Speaker 8: over their heads and provide for their families.
Speaker 4: There's always been the case, though, hasn't it technology, the
Speaker 4: superseds the last technology. People have to be retrained, they
Speaker 4: find new jobs that progress.
Speaker 9: That's right, and it has always had, I suppose the
Speaker 9: question is what happens when you hit the sort of
Speaker 9: event horizon or the tipping point at which robots can
Speaker 9: effectively replace almost They're better at everything, almost all human activity.
Speaker 9: And again what Larry Fingers saying is absolutely terrifying and dystopian,
Speaker 9: because what he is saying is that in the so
Speaker 9: the countries with the shrinking populations that are failing to
Speaker 9: reproduce themselves all the wealthiest Western countries. So he's basically saying,
Speaker 9: this new resource that will increase your quality of life
Speaker 9: will only really work in parts of the world that
Speaker 9: already have the highest quality of life. And the way
Speaker 9: that it will and the sort of double bottom line,
Speaker 9: if you like, the extra benefit is that it will
Speaker 9: remove any anxieties about social cohesion or any xenophobic instincts
Speaker 9: that people have, because you won't need to bring people
Speaker 9: in anymore. So it basically it basically says, don't worry xenophobes,
Speaker 9: We're going to replace migrants with robots, so you don't
Speaker 9: have to worry about your culture being stolen or whatever,
Speaker 9: or crime or whatever.
Speaker 1: I do you think that's xenophobic, But well, this is
Speaker 1: this robots.
Speaker 9: The point, the point being is that that happens, what
Speaker 9: about for everyone else in the world, for the vast
Speaker 9: majority of the world's population, this will be unaffordable. They
Speaker 9: still have no population deficit, and so they will probably
Speaker 9: be cheaper and easier to use humans instead of robots
Speaker 9: for manual labor. In the case of China, obviously forced labor.
Speaker 8: And although they're leagues ahead of us in Ai, absolutely
Speaker 8: leaks ahead of.
Speaker 9: Us in they're also leagues ahead of us in slave labor.
Speaker 9: But the point being that China has because China has
Speaker 9: has all this stuff that it's doing, but still it
Speaker 9: has a much bigger and much poorer population that it
Speaker 9: has to that it has to deal with, and it
Speaker 9: does nothing to serve with anything. There's nothing to you know,
Speaker 9: to deal with poverty in Africa or India.
Speaker 4: Of course, the KPMG Digital Bosses point was, if we've
Speaker 4: got robots doing jobs, we don't have to import immigrants,
Speaker 4: and then demand for housing becomes less and housing thus
Speaker 4: becomes more affordable. That is a major problem in our country.
Speaker 4: South Australian Council has a solution to the housing crisis.
Speaker 4: They're going to hike rates on privately owned vacant lots
Speaker 4: of land in a bid to force land owners to
Speaker 4: either develop homes on those lots or give them off
Speaker 4: to others who will.
Speaker 3: Vacant lots already.
Speaker 4: Attract a rate of twenty percent higher than develop lots
Speaker 4: of land. This is in the council area of Onka
Speaker 4: Peringa in Adelaide. Say it with confidence, one of their
Speaker 4: council has said, and I quote, this just doesn't bring
Speaker 4: on more homes in the market. It activates neighborhoods, stimulates
Speaker 4: construction and ultimately contributes to the local economy and activity.
Speaker 3: This is about a bit of fairness.
Speaker 4: It's about asking whether those who are sitting on undeveloped
Speaker 4: land are contributing equally to the infrastructure and services to
Speaker 4: benefit the land. I get the point. But in terms
Speaker 4: of fairness, is it really fair that the council hike
Speaker 4: up your rates to achieve their goals. If it's your
Speaker 4: vacant block of land and you want to let it
Speaker 4: sit vacant, will you own it? So what's fair is
Speaker 4: whatever you decide as for the council pulling levers, and
Speaker 4: they argue the only lever they have is rates to
Speaker 4: achieve the outcomes they are after, rather than to serve
Speaker 4: rate payers. I'm not so sure that's a good thing,
Speaker 4: and maybe councils should get their own houses in order
Speaker 4: before they start asking everybody else to sacrifice. Councils continually
Speaker 4: run up deficits while they have sister city agreements.
Speaker 3: They fly all over the world.
Speaker 4: They give money to stupid social causes that have nothing
Speaker 4: to do with benefiting rate payers. I get that this
Speaker 4: might help produce some more homes, but I just think
Speaker 4: it's bad policy when you're violating people's property ownership rights.
Speaker 8: Yeah, property rights have just gone out the window. I mean,
Speaker 8: they're in a bad state in this country if you
Speaker 8: ask me to begin with. But no matter how high
Speaker 8: you hike the rates, dear counsel, it's still going to
Speaker 8: be a hell of a lot cheaper than developing the land.
Speaker 8: Do you have any idea how much that costs. Why
Speaker 8: don't you just to start demanding what nature of development
Speaker 8: you want to see on the land. At this point, Oh,
Speaker 8: we want more houses, you have to build housing. What
Speaker 8: if they want to build something else. The owners should
Speaker 8: get to say what and when they do with their
Speaker 8: own land and making it less affordable.
Speaker 1: For it to sit.
Speaker 8: There is just shameless revenue raising if you ask me. Sure,
Speaker 8: they're creating an incentive for the land to.
Speaker 1: Be developed, but is it right. No, I really don't
Speaker 1: think it is.
Speaker 9: Councilors tell people what they can do in their land
Speaker 9: all the time. They zone lands for different purposes.
Speaker 8: In the zoning is a different issue. The former counselor,
Speaker 8: I can tell you that.
Speaker 9: Say, but you're saying, I own this bit of land,
Speaker 9: I should be able to build a house here if
Speaker 9: I want to say, well, no, you can't because you're
Speaker 9: in an industrial zone. So but if I bought a
Speaker 9: bit of land, or this is my bit of plan,
Speaker 9: I want to build a ten story house, well no
Speaker 9: you can't. They change the rules on me to achieve
Speaker 9: outcomes that they want.
Speaker 1: The story.
Speaker 8: This isn't a matter of them refusing a development application
Speaker 8: because they don't like the manner of the development. This
Speaker 8: is a case of there's a vacant block of land,
Speaker 8: the owner's not doing anything with it.
Speaker 1: We don't like that. We're going to try and force
Speaker 1: you to do.
Speaker 9: It's called use or use it or lose it provisions,
Speaker 9: and that they exist already in Australia. Everywhere there's there's
Speaker 9: laws that. In fact, in the last last year's budget
Speaker 9: there were a whole bunch of extra but the penalties
Speaker 9: were already there, but they were double, they increased many
Speaker 9: many fold. I can't remember exactly off the top of
Speaker 9: my head of people I think was especially foreign owners
Speaker 9: who had property in Australia, who had a house in
Speaker 9: Australia they bought as an investment property, say, and they were
Speaker 9: just waiting for it to you know, a crew in
Speaker 9: value and to appreciate and then they'd sell it for
Speaker 9: a proper but it just sits empty. They would have
Speaker 9: to pay tens of thousands of dollars. I think we
Speaker 9: ended up being over one hundred thousand dollars or something,
Speaker 9: something so punitive that it basically meant you have to
Speaker 9: rent it out. And that was one of the measures
Speaker 9: for helping to ease the housing crisis. Now I have
Speaker 9: no problem with that whatsoever, So don't I don't see why.
Speaker 4: I have no problem with that either. But that's because
Speaker 4: it's owned by Australia.
Speaker 2: I own my house and it is very very full.
Speaker 1: Any vacant locks.
Speaker 9: I don't have any vacant punished for owning No, I
Speaker 9: have none whatsoever, and I'm more than happy, more than
Speaker 9: happy to keep it that way. I think we should
Speaker 9: be using every single bit of land that we have
Speaker 9: and in feeling it as much as we have to
Speaker 9: make sure that people are using it as not just
Speaker 9: being sat there left vacant so that the owner can
Speaker 9: then sell it.
Speaker 3: For your mind, you have any vacant bedrooms in your home.
Speaker 2: I don't. Actually they are also all full.
Speaker 4: It's just a matter of degrees as to how far
Speaker 4: you go once you violate the principle of this is
Speaker 4: my property. I can do what I want on my property.
Speaker 9: I think that at the point, I think they've already
Speaker 9: been suggestions and again whether or not people should you know,
Speaker 9: there should be an extra penalty pay if you have
Speaker 9: an investment property that's just sitting empty. I don't know
Speaker 9: if they yet apply to Australian owners, but certainly certainly
Speaker 9: to foreign owners they do so surely they have property
Speaker 9: rights too, or do they not?
Speaker 1: I believe they should.
Speaker 2: I think it's different with.
Speaker 9: Foreign I believe if you owned a bit of land
Speaker 9: in say Bali, A lot of Australians have a lot
Speaker 9: of a ballet, which is actually impossible because the Indonesians.
Speaker 2: Just make it such a basket case.
Speaker 3: Land in China this is no problem.
Speaker 2: But I think either you know you have rights or
Speaker 2: you don't. I think you use it or lose it.
Speaker 2: Can I get in there or.
Speaker 1: Agree to disagree? Well?
Speaker 8: Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has come out swinging
Speaker 8: against net zero policies.
Speaker 1: Today.
Speaker 8: I quote votes feel like they're being asked to make
Speaker 8: financial sacrifices and changes in lifestyle when they know the
Speaker 8: impact on global emissions is minimal.
Speaker 1: Preach brother.
Speaker 8: He says any strategy based on either phasing out fossil
Speaker 8: fuels in the short term or limiting consumption is a strategy.
Speaker 1: Doomed to fail.
Speaker 8: Now he's not actually calling for labor to halt its
Speaker 8: push to decarbonize the UK economy. He's simply saying, you
Speaker 8: guys need to rethink the way you're going about this,
Speaker 8: because it is not working except for impoverishing the everyday
Speaker 8: person who's just trying to heat their homes in the UK,
Speaker 8: where it's possible to freeze to death and have some
Speaker 8: quality of life over there, if you're running a small business,
Speaker 8: if you've got a factory, et cetera, and so on.
Speaker 8: Energy prices over there are also extortionate for the same
Speaker 8: reason that they are here. Good on him for saying something,
Speaker 8: but good grief, he's taken.
Speaker 4: A while, he's slow, but he gets there in the end.
Speaker 4: I was going to start, I can't believe I'm agreeing
Speaker 4: with Tony Blair, but then I realized, no, no, he's
Speaker 4: agreeing with the rest of us, because most of us
Speaker 4: have thought this for a long long time. He's actually
Speaker 4: recommending some interesting things. He's recommending that money be spent
Speaker 4: not on trying to achieve net zero, but rather on
Speaker 4: climate adaptation.
Speaker 3: It's not a bad idea.
Speaker 4: He's also recommending get this investment in small scale nuclear reactors.
Speaker 4: Remember this is a labor Prime Minister sounds for me,
Speaker 4: and he said, and here's an idea. What if we
Speaker 4: got India and China to reduce their emissions, we start
Speaker 4: destroying our own economies.
Speaker 2: So much to take that guy, Prime Minister.
Speaker 4: The other was he said, you know, the benefits of
Speaker 4: net zero are continually exaggerated, and the debate is said,
Speaker 4: is riven with irrationality.
Speaker 3: Not that we've seen any of that in Australia.
Speaker 14: No, mate, you can shut your mouth.
Speaker 2: You can shut you American people your social paths like you.
Speaker 14: Death, disease, displacement, starvation, people dying of first arable farming
Speaker 14: lands turning into desert, and most likely billions of people dead.
Speaker 4: I can't imagine why support for action on climate change
Speaker 4: is dwindling. Tony Blair said that the public are starting
Speaker 4: to lose their support for this stuff. I'm not sure
Speaker 4: that politicians ever had the public support for this stuff.
Speaker 4: But good that Tony Blair has finally woken up and
Speaker 4: is now saying what most of us have been saying
Speaker 4: for a long long time.
Speaker 2: Joe, Yeah, I don't.
Speaker 9: Well, it's one of those things that there is public
Speaker 9: support for it, but that's port very very quickly declines
Speaker 9: as soon as there's a cost attached to it. So
Speaker 9: people say, yes, we should do more on climate change,
Speaker 9: yes we sud this is this, but as soon as
Speaker 9: they have to pay more, so as there's a risk
Speaker 9: of them losing their job, soon as any of these
Speaker 9: things come into play, suddenly it becomes a second edition.
Speaker 9: And we've seen, you know, just in this election with
Speaker 9: cost of living, Suddenly all these things that people thought
Speaker 9: were important, everything from climate change to transgender issues, to
Speaker 9: welcomes to country, they've all taken a back seat. And
Speaker 9: these are things that people thought really really important, you know,
Speaker 9: before the cost of living crisis hit. They all take
Speaker 9: a back seat as soon as there's anything economic about
Speaker 9: the challenges people are facing.
Speaker 2: So that's what happened. So Tony Blair is absolutely right.
Speaker 9: Yes we have to address climate change, but you can't
Speaker 9: do it in a way that just says, sorry, you
Speaker 9: pour luddite, knuckle dragon, coal miner. You have to sacrifice
Speaker 9: your job and your livelihood so that you know the
Speaker 9: rest of us. Can you sip our arm and lattes
Speaker 9: in peace and not have to worry about the planet
Speaker 9: we go to a break?
Speaker 4: Could the Labor Party be any more contemptuous of voters?
Speaker 4: Senator Penny Wong said today that the Indigenous Voice to Parliament,
Speaker 4: you know, the one that sixty percent of us voted
Speaker 4: no to just a couple of years ago. She said,
Speaker 4: it is an inevitability. Doesn't matter that we've already voted no.
Speaker 4: She's sure there'll be a second vote, and if necessary,
Speaker 4: a third and a fourth vote until voters finally get
Speaker 4: it right.
Speaker 3: Here's what she said.
Speaker 5: He thought it was the right thing to do, and
Speaker 5: you know a lot of the First Nations leaders wanted
Speaker 5: the opportunity. So look, I think we'll look back on
Speaker 5: it in ten years time and it'll be like marriage equality.
Speaker 5: It'll become something to be like. People go, do we
Speaker 5: have an argument about that?
Speaker 4: She's so confident a voice to Parliament will be legislated
Speaker 4: one day, we'll look back and say, I can't believe
Speaker 4: we even had a disagreement about that. Now, listen to
Speaker 4: the Prime Minister tell you that you didn't hear what
Speaker 4: you just heard?
Speaker 2: Is Pennywong right? Is the voice sort of inevitable?
Speaker 10: Well she didn't say that at all, So you just
Speaker 10: played it people will I think I think it was
Speaker 10: a very modest proposal, but it didn't receive the support
Speaker 10: of the Australian people. And that is what Penny Wong
Speaker 10: is saying.
Speaker 3: Can you believe this guy?
Speaker 4: You just heard what Penny Wong said? They played it
Speaker 4: on the radio and then he says, no, no, you
Speaker 4: didn't hear.
Speaker 2: What you just heard.
Speaker 9: Well, it's a very very foolish thing for Penny Wong
Speaker 9: to have said, I forget.
Speaker 3: What Penny Wong said.
Speaker 4: What about Anthony Albineazy there just totally gaslighting everybody.
Speaker 9: Well, he is desperately trying to make the point that
Speaker 9: the voice, as Tony Abbott says.
Speaker 2: Trying to make the point.
Speaker 3: But what about what he said about Wong said.
Speaker 9: Well, she didn't openly say explicitly we will legislate the voice.
Speaker 3: And you know this is like a tactical obfustigation that
Speaker 3: you We're going to go to a break.
Speaker 4: When we come back, we'll look at what's making news tomorrow,
Speaker 4: including the last Redbridge pole showing surging ahead just days
Speaker 4: before the federal election.
Speaker 3: That's coming up in just a moment.
Speaker 4: Well, we're talking just before we went to the break
Speaker 4: about Penny Wong bringing up the voice again and suggesting
Speaker 4: it could be tried again. That's the front page of
Speaker 4: Tomorrow's Daily Telegraph.
Speaker 2: Yes, it certainly is.
Speaker 9: And also I have to say the subject of a
Speaker 9: something call I wrote about just saying how incredibly smug
Speaker 9: and stupid these comments were, So I'm not defending them.
Speaker 9: But yes, Wong digs up Labour's voice nightmare, throwing campaign
Speaker 9: into chaos. Penny drops get it is the headline. Anthony
Speaker 9: Albaneze's path through election victory has been thrown into chaos
Speaker 9: by his Foreign Minister Penny Wong after she implied the
Speaker 9: dump Indigenous Voice to Parliament would in the future.
Speaker 2: Be considered an inevitability.
Speaker 9: Coalition Indigenous Affairs spokes women just senter Namdjibba Price said
Speaker 9: Labor simply won't take no for an answer on the
Speaker 9: voice proposal. So yeah, very very damaging, sloppy, messy, careless
Speaker 9: comments from Penny Wong. But I can certainly say I
Speaker 9: can guarantee you there is no plan whatsoever. Everyone in
Speaker 9: the government is absolutely scared of any sort of rerun
Speaker 9: of the Voice. They don't want to touch any of
Speaker 9: that stuff with a barge pole, and that's why they're
Speaker 9: not touching anything like treaty or any of that stuff.
Speaker 4: And itone, except for Penny Wong, her comparison between the
Speaker 4: same sex marriage plebacite and the voice referendum is so
Speaker 4: misplaced for a number of reasons. But I'll give you
Speaker 4: just one when she says, you know, one day the
Speaker 4: voice will be regarded as what was that about?
Speaker 3: As same sex marriage.
Speaker 4: The only reason same sex marriage is now regarded as Okay,
Speaker 4: we've got it is because those who voted no to
Speaker 4: it at the plebacite said, well, you know what, the
Speaker 4: majority of Australian said yes, so we won't continually oppose
Speaker 4: it and continue. I mean it's it, unlike those who
Speaker 4: lost the Voice referendum who continually bring it back up
Speaker 4: and argue that well, Australian's got it wrong. They didn't
Speaker 4: understand they were tricked and insists that will repeat the
Speaker 4: referendum until we get it right.
Speaker 9: Well, there's actually irony upon irony because obviously referring to
Speaker 9: it'll be about marriage equalities, So what was.
Speaker 2: All the fuss about.
Speaker 9: She's obviously not referred to the fact that marriage equality failed.
Speaker 9: She's referred to the fact that it got up. So
Speaker 9: clearly she's answering on the assumption that something like the
Speaker 9: Voice or whatever gets up.
Speaker 2: But the biggest irony, of.
Speaker 9: Course, is that the rud Gillard government refused to do
Speaker 9: anything on marriage equality and Penny Wong, and I don't
Speaker 9: blame her at all for she was just towing the
Speaker 9: party line very nobly and it was obviously through gritted teeth.
Speaker 9: But Penny Wong would not come out against the government
Speaker 9: and held the party line.
Speaker 2: And it was the Liberal Party that actually put it
Speaker 2: to a vote.
Speaker 9: And I believe that people who actually said, you know,
Speaker 9: instead of having a referendum, we could have a postal
Speaker 9: pleba site and that might just be a way to
Speaker 9: solve the issue the postal survey. And I believe it
Speaker 9: was Tony Abbott and one Peter Dutton who actually put
Speaker 9: forward this is a way to sort of break the
Speaker 9: impass and get marriage equality up. So Peter Dutton, freedom
Speaker 9: fighter for Australia's Lgbtaiqi plus.
Speaker 2: Community, speaking to put that out in a business card
Speaker 2: to the front.
Speaker 1: Page of the Courier Mail.
Speaker 8: Global Uncertainty Strikes reads the splash Dutton slumps on poll eve.
Speaker 8: Global uncertainty caused by the actions of US President Donald
Speaker 8: Trump appears set to deny the Coalition to hear of
Speaker 8: any chance of returning to government. According to new polling,
Speaker 8: the red Bridge Accent polling reveals Labor has pulled clearly
Speaker 8: ahead with fifty three forty seven support. It also finds
Speaker 8: global uncertainty is the biggest driver for people deciding.
Speaker 3: How to vote.
Speaker 1: Almost half of those polls.
Speaker 8: Said it would be among the top reasons for them
Speaker 8: in deciding who to oppose at the ballot box on Saturday.
Speaker 8: I do find it so curious that so much media
Speaker 8: that I've read throughout this campaign keeps making it out
Speaker 8: like it's a legitimate race. I've sort of the very
Speaker 8: beginning of this campaign that I didn't think the Liberals
Speaker 8: had a chance for the simple reason of electoral map.
Speaker 8: It would take an act of God to flip twenty
Speaker 8: three seats. For me, it's always been that simple. I
Speaker 8: will not be surprised when Labor inevitably wins on Saturday.
Speaker 1: So this poll to me, is not shocking in the least.
Speaker 9: Well, the Libs were very competitive, or much more competitive,
Speaker 9: but the truth is they've just pissed away their lead.
Speaker 2: Indeed, so very this is a national pole.
Speaker 9: We've also got Redbridge doing a massive tracking pole in
Speaker 9: the twenty marginal seats. And again the Libs were ahead,
Speaker 9: you know, fifty two forty eight in February when the
Speaker 9: campaign began in earnest and ever since that rate cut,
Speaker 9: Labor came out of the blocks strongly. The Libs have
Speaker 9: been paying catch up. Ever since there's been slopping this
Speaker 9: over policy. Trump has really, really hurt them and another thing,
Speaker 9: and sadly they seem to keep making the same mistakes.
Speaker 9: Another thing. There's a breakdown of all the number one
Speaker 9: issue or the number one issues, all the issues that
Speaker 9: are driving driving voter anxiety, what they fear, the policies
Speaker 9: that are making them vote for the coming day, every
Speaker 9: single one of them, every single one. All cost of living,
Speaker 9: all cost of living, This cultural war stuff means absolutely nothing.
Speaker 9: And yet Peter Dutton has spent the last week of
Speaker 9: the campaign and talking about welcome to a lot of.
Speaker 4: The things that are driving the vote, according to this
Speaker 4: article in the Career Mail, and the polling are just rubbish.
Speaker 4: I mean the number one issue for people voting labor
Speaker 4: is the promise of free GP visits, which doctors have
Speaker 4: come out and said if Anthony Albanez he thinks everyone's
Speaker 4: going to start bolt billing, I mean he's living in fantasy.
Speaker 4: The second most popular thing was the promise to end
Speaker 4: supermarket price gouging. There's been a dozen or more reports
Speaker 4: saying price gouging is if it is happening, it's a
Speaker 4: minor thing.
Speaker 3: It's not a major thing.
Speaker 4: And the thing that was driving the vote away from
Speaker 4: Peter Dutton, aside from a fear that he was a
Speaker 4: minnie Donald Trump. Was the cost of new clear which
Speaker 4: Labour keeps saying will be what six hundred billion dollars,
Speaker 4: which has been two used as a lie. So that's
Speaker 4: what's driving.
Speaker 2: Because there's two sets of figures.
Speaker 4: Always speaking of figures, let's go to the front page
Speaker 4: of the Canberra Times. A bid to cut forty billion
Speaker 4: dollars from debt is the headline. But here's the interesting part.
Speaker 4: The coalition will publish its costings two days out from
Speaker 4: the election, with the figures expected to show it will
Speaker 4: shave off forty billion dollars of total.
Speaker 2: Two days too soon, I'll ask me Jane.
Speaker 5: Now.
Speaker 4: Jane Hume was on Sky News earlier tonight and she
Speaker 4: was saying the coalition's costings would be released imminently. She
Speaker 4: promised it would not be Friday afternoon, so she was
Speaker 4: on with Laura Jay's this morning actually and pretty much
Speaker 4: said it will be tomorrow, Thursday, just two days out
Speaker 4: from the election. I guess it's it's very smart politicking, Liz, No,
Speaker 4: it's not.
Speaker 1: You don't have time to sell anything in two days.
Speaker 8: The average punter who's just working their nine to five
Speaker 8: and trying to get through their lives with some semblance
Speaker 8: of peace. Won't be remotely aware of your plan to
Speaker 8: cut forty billion. They simply will not know when they
Speaker 8: go to vote. Millions have already voted, by the way,
Speaker 8: we've set new.
Speaker 1: Records in pre polling. I do not understand why any
Speaker 1: parties wait.
Speaker 8: This long to unveil something, this big, something this great, forty.
Speaker 1: Billion off the debt.
Speaker 8: Yeah, take my vote please, Except people don't know.
Speaker 1: And what are you going to do in the next
Speaker 1: two days to make.
Speaker 8: Them all abundantly aware of your amazing plan that you
Speaker 8: revealed forty eight hours prior.
Speaker 1: Are you kidding me? I give up?
Speaker 3: Are they just limiting opportunity for I give up? I'm done.
Speaker 2: You always release your costings at the last possible minute.
Speaker 1: This is ridiculous. No one will be aware.
Speaker 2: This is their own tactical obfuscation. It's not about that.
Speaker 9: All the policies are out there. All the good stuff
Speaker 9: that they're doing is out there. They've told everyone about that,
Speaker 9: they'd get that out.
Speaker 3: How they're going to pay for it?
Speaker 2: They're going to pay for it.
Speaker 9: Obviously, the million dollar question they' say, oh, we're going
Speaker 9: to do it by getting forty billion dollars from debt,
Speaker 9: just like that, and of course labor and everyone else
Speaker 9: is going to be all over that like a cheap suit.
Speaker 1: No what, it's time to fact check it in forty
Speaker 1: eight hours.
Speaker 2: That's the whole point.
Speaker 3: Yes, that's right, it's really quick, Joe. Before we go
Speaker 3: to a break, Yeah, advertise a little one that I love.
Speaker 9: The Green's labor boost has Donet on edge in blue
Speaker 9: ribbon seat Liberals. Stertled there is growing concern within Liberal
Speaker 9: Party that Green's preferences could hand Labor victory in Stert
Speaker 9: with PM Anthony Albernezi, Opposition leader Peter dunn't dashing to
Speaker 9: Adelaide campaign today to campaign there, So Stert and Booth
Speaker 9: via the two swing steats suit two marginal seats in Adelaide,
Speaker 9: I say swing steats Labor has never actually won stirt.
Speaker 9: They've been trying for decades, they've never actually done it.
Speaker 9: But it sits on zero point five of a percent party,
Speaker 9: so it's very low hanging through.
Speaker 3: All right, we're going to go to a break.
Speaker 4: We'll continue with our political discussions. Because Anthony Albanesi has
Speaker 4: been endorsed by someone he'd rather didn't vote for him
Speaker 4: at all.
Speaker 3: Will explain what happened in just a moment.
Speaker 4: Well, you think, if you're running for public office, you
Speaker 4: want as many endorsements as you can get, But Liz,
Speaker 4: it turns out there's at least one endorsement. Anthony Albanesi
Speaker 4: would prefer not.
Speaker 2: To have no.
Speaker 1: Indeed.
Speaker 8: American Joe Exotic, who is the star of Tiger King.
Speaker 1: You may have seen it on Netflix. He's currently a prison.
Speaker 8: Inmate serving twenty two years for a raft of felonies.
Speaker 1: He's taken to his social media to say keep Australia
Speaker 1: safe and awesome. All my friends in Australia vote.
Speaker 8: For Anthony Albanesi Well today with a photoshopped image by
Speaker 8: the way, that isn't actually them together rubbing shoulders. Well today,
Speaker 8: Anthony Albanize, he was asked did he pay for this
Speaker 8: star spangled endorsement?
Speaker 7: Joe Exotic from the hit series Tiger King is on
Speaker 7: a more serious note is he's serving a prison sentence
Speaker 7: for a murder and has been convicted of animal abuse.
Speaker 7: He's also just endorsed you on Instagram. How do you
Speaker 7: feel about that? Have you ever met him? And has
Speaker 7: anyone in labor paid for his endorsement.
Speaker 3: Goodnessationm Levity.
Speaker 4: I have a very passionate support for one particular animal, Tito,
Speaker 4: and I'm looking forward to voting with her on Saturday.
Speaker 1: All good laugh from Anthony Albanezy there. I think Toto
Speaker 1: is his dog.
Speaker 2: Tto is his dog, and I just.
Speaker 9: You know what, I just we should stop talking about
Speaker 9: the dog. But I love he loves he really. I
Speaker 9: can tell you that is not an act. He really,
Speaker 9: he really really loves that dog, and that's very sweet.
Speaker 4: The Prime Minister went on to say in his answer
Speaker 4: to that question, which quite amused me.
Speaker 3: He said, I think the.
Speaker 4: Point of that question was to ask the question rather
Speaker 4: than to get an answer. And I remember watching that
Speaker 4: Press Club interview this afternoon thinking, oh, the state of journalism, Like,
Speaker 4: what a stupid question. But of course I think the
Speaker 4: reporter got exactly what she wanted. It's been all over
Speaker 4: the papers today and here we are talking about it.
Speaker 4: I think it's what they call clickbait.
Speaker 2: Yes it is.
Speaker 9: But I'm going to have to fact check the reporter
Speaker 9: because she said that Joe was serving a prison sentence
Speaker 9: for murder. In fact, it was just attempted murder. There
Speaker 9: were two counts of it was convicted. Joe Exotic was convicted.
Speaker 9: This is Wikipedia, so I must be right. Was convicted
Speaker 9: and sends to twenty two years of in prison on
Speaker 9: seventeen federal charges of animal abuse and two counts of
Speaker 9: attempted murder for hire for the plot to kill Carl Baskin.
Speaker 9: They put the animal cruelty charges ahead of the attempted
Speaker 9: murder charges.
Speaker 1: How would you feel if you're cald Baskin.
Speaker 4: Well, Joe Exotic will not be voting on Saturday, so
Speaker 4: we don't ever worry about him.
Speaker 3: That's all from us stick Around. Coming up in just
Speaker 3: a moment is the Reader Penney Show.
Speaker 1: Good Night,