Speaker 1: From the Skyinging Center.
Speaker 2: This is Paul Murray Live.
Speaker 3: Happy Wednesday. Thank you very much for watching. Lots to
Speaker 3: get to so let us begin now. Australia is, of
Speaker 3: course a diverse country. I know people like Laura Tingle
Speaker 3: think that it's mostly white people who are afraid of
Speaker 3: the odd different person that is around, but of course
Speaker 3: we all know that there are lots of people from
Speaker 3: lots of different places. All you have to do is
Speaker 3: look at the census. The census, of course a couple
Speaker 3: of years old, but still the most obvious numbers that
Speaker 3: we have twenty six million people in the country. Eighteen
Speaker 3: and a half million people are born in Australia. There
Speaker 3: are eight zero point two million people that are born overseas.
Speaker 3: As you can see here when we compare things from
Speaker 3: twenty thirteen and twenty twenty three, the bell curve is
Speaker 3: pretty much the same. But the countries of which people
Speaker 3: come from most are England, India, and as you can see,
Speaker 3: the Orange, which is the more recent number, way higher
Speaker 3: than previous times, as is things like China, Music, Philippines, Vietnam,
Speaker 3: et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 2: But on top of that, of course.
Speaker 3: There is a far bigger diaspora, which is the number
Speaker 3: of people whose parents were born overseas and how many
Speaker 3: year agon that is, well, I can tell you it's
Speaker 3: about half. About half of all of Australia has a
Speaker 3: parent at least one that was born overseas. This sense
Speaker 3: has found that forty eight point two percent of the
Speaker 3: population continues to be drawn from around the globe, with
Speaker 3: twenty six percent of people reporting the birthplace as overseas.
Speaker 3: But the connection back to it is what we're talking
Speaker 3: about now. Obviously, as people come from lots of different places,
Speaker 3: they bring with them a change in the mix of
Speaker 3: the people who believe in their version of God. Now
Speaker 3: in Australia, traditionally it has been in modern times Christianity,
Speaker 3: which has been the number one faith in the country,
Speaker 3: and it does remain that way, but it is not
Speaker 3: the majority of the population is certainly the majority of
Speaker 3: those who believe in Oh God. Islam is now three
Speaker 3: point two percent of the population, Hinduism is two point seven,
Speaker 3: Buddhism two point seven, Judaism is in and around that
Speaker 3: number as well.
Speaker 2: And the number of people who don't believe in any
Speaker 2: religion at all.
Speaker 3: And you know I am amongst them, but I have
Speaker 3: no respect towards people of faith. I just think it's
Speaker 3: important for me to be honest with you. Is thirty
Speaker 3: eight and a bit percent.
Speaker 2: Now LEFTI is.
Speaker 3: Of course, they cheer on this number, desperately hoping that
Speaker 3: there's one day where the none of the above eventually
Speaker 3: gets to fifty percent and they're no longer what will
Speaker 3: we have to hear about Judeo Christian values, et cetera,
Speaker 3: et cetera. But of course from whence people come and
Speaker 3: what they believe in does form their belief system for
Speaker 3: obvious reasons. But today we learn yet again that there
Speaker 3: are people amongst us who would like faith to become
Speaker 3: an even bigger issue in our politics.
Speaker 2: There are multiple groups.
Speaker 3: And this one in particular, who would like to get
Speaker 3: the Australian Muslim community to start using their political power
Speaker 3: to get what they want in terms of foreign policy,
Speaker 3: which in this case would be no support for Israel
Speaker 3: and for that to be in return for their vote.
Speaker 3: And while the number may be small in terms of
Speaker 3: the entire country, in obvious pockets of the country, the
Speaker 3: number of people of the Islamic faith is higher than
Speaker 3: it has ever been so Muslim votes matter is one
Speaker 3: of the many different websites or movements that are trying
Speaker 3: to suggest that one's faith should also start to.
Speaker 2: Affect the way one votes.
Speaker 3: Now, this group say that their collective voting block is
Speaker 3: the most valuable and underutilized asset that they have, and
Speaker 3: they claim that there's twenty seats in particular where the
Speaker 3: numbers are significant enough to determine who ultimately ends up
Speaker 3: winning the seats. Now, articles about this phenomenon tell us
Speaker 3: that according to Bureau statistics, twenty nine of one hundred
Speaker 3: and fifty one federal electorates have five percent.
Speaker 2: Or more of the Islamic.
Speaker 3: Vote faith, I should say, and basically all of those
Speaker 3: are now held by Labour Party people. Now the twenty
Speaker 3: nine seats, sixteen of those seats are held by the
Speaker 3: Labour Party on margins of ten percent or more, and
Speaker 3: the previous election it had suffered primary vote swings against
Speaker 3: it of up to eighteen percent.
Speaker 2: Now, of course, we saw when traditional.
Speaker 3: Labor Party seats weren't getting the vote that they expected
Speaker 3: in places like Cabramatta in Sydney's West Fairfield in and
Speaker 3: around the area, that of course they thought they could
Speaker 3: just drop the American lady from Scotland, Ireland on top
Speaker 3: of the population of the seat of Fowler, and locals
Speaker 3: like Dae Lee said no. So the Labor Party got
Speaker 3: the shock of its life. It was no longer able
Speaker 3: to just tell local communities who their local representative would
Speaker 3: be from central office of the Labor Party.
Speaker 2: This movement is an extension in and of that.
Speaker 3: Writing about it today in the Australian newspaper, they spoke
Speaker 3: to a series of not necessarily Islamic political leaders, but
Speaker 3: certainly prominent Islamic figures in Western Sydney, including a bloke
Speaker 3: from I think the Lebanese Muslim Association, who said that
Speaker 3: this whole effort could be revolutionary. Our community is nuanced.
Speaker 3: It's filled with second and third generation migrants. Hence why
Speaker 3: I was talking there not just about where people were born,
Speaker 3: but where their parents or their grandparents were born. And
Speaker 3: that is expected to be a backlash against Labour because
Speaker 3: they haven't come up against Israel enough. The community leader,
Speaker 3: doctor Jamal Riffe, has also said that although most elections
Speaker 3: will fought over the economy, the next one will have
Speaker 3: a greater emphasis on foreign policy, namely.
Speaker 2: Of course, the conflict.
Speaker 3: Now you've heard a couple of other people talk about
Speaker 3: this tonight, and rightly so. That the idea of our
Speaker 3: foreign policy determining who you would hire to be the
Speaker 3: government for the next three years is a big change
Speaker 3: in our politics. But there is something on top of
Speaker 3: all of this that we are always fascinated by. And
Speaker 3: as Australia changes, and as certain parts of Australia become
Speaker 3: like the more like the people who'd been born in
Speaker 3: other countries, and again this is happening all over the country,
Speaker 3: well then surely at some point in time those communities
Speaker 3: are going to expect that the local politician ends up
Speaker 3: being somebody who looks like them, thinks like them, and
Speaker 3: believes like them. Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that we're
Speaker 3: talking about a search for the ethnicity of a electorate
Speaker 3: and then automatically a group of one former nationality will
Speaker 3: end up voting in one particular way, because of course
Speaker 3: that would be racist. Why because just like white people,
Speaker 3: indigenous people, Chinese people, gay people, trans community, whatever, everyone
Speaker 3: doesn't think the same thing as everyone else in their
Speaker 3: neighborhood or their likeness. But this phenomena is going to
Speaker 3: be fascinating to watch of all of the many things
Speaker 3: that will be fascinating about the next election. If the
Speaker 3: assumption is that the Labor Party is going to be
Speaker 3: playing a game between majority and minority, and the assumption
Speaker 3: at this point in time is that there's not going
Speaker 3: to be a change of government. After the example that
Speaker 3: have been set by the people of Fowler and the
Speaker 3: largely Vietnamese community, will other communities around the country start
Speaker 3: to mobilize around other issues. And it's a challenge for
Speaker 3: those of us that talk about politics all day every
Speaker 3: day because largely much of the media that talks about
Speaker 3: politics is blind to what is actually happening in diverse communities.
Speaker 3: It's why news organizations like SBS are quite important to
Speaker 3: us to get a better understanding when people of the
Speaker 3: community are able to report on the community now. In
Speaker 3: the olden days, the way that people were able to
Speaker 3: send a message to particular ethnic communities was to have
Speaker 3: a good relationship with the local editor of the local
Speaker 3: language newspaper.
Speaker 2: But now things are very different.
Speaker 3: As we saw in the last federal election that a
Speaker 3: huge number of Chinese voters did not like the attitude
Speaker 3: that the federal government had previously taken to challenging China.
Speaker 3: By their own admissions, one of the many sources of
Speaker 3: news that they are receiving is through things like wei Chat.
Speaker 3: We Chat, as has been reported by many organizations here
Speaker 3: in Australia, ends up pushing much of the media that
Speaker 3: comes out of China, which of course is controlled by
Speaker 3: the Chinese government. Other reporting suggests that much of the
Speaker 3: ethnic media in relation to the Chinese community in Australia
Speaker 3: again has some connection back to the overlords in Beijing.
Speaker 3: It doesn't mean that these voters are stupid, and I
Speaker 3: don't want anyone to deliberately misinterpret it, run off to
Speaker 3: some umpire and say I'm saying something racist. No, what
Speaker 3: I'm talking about is a genuine conversation that those of
Speaker 3: us who claim to know what's going on in the
Speaker 3: world of politics need to start to open our eyes to,
Speaker 3: which is a diaspora of people who won't just vote
Speaker 3: labor because they always have, or just vote liberal like
Speaker 3: they always have. In fact, the Chinese community is a
Speaker 3: perfect example about this. Largely Chinese voters were able to
Speaker 3: send Liberal Party MPs at say the twenty ten, thirteen
Speaker 3: and sixteen election. They voted for Scott Morrison, in twenty nineteen,
Speaker 3: but then there was a big change, a very obvious change.
Speaker 3: So this is just a way of me saying that
Speaker 3: we're going to do the best that we can to
Speaker 3: keep an eye on the types of messages that are
Speaker 3: floating out in the community that have nothing to do
Speaker 3: with the traditional media that you see and we watch
Speaker 3: and we listen to. And I need your help with this.
Speaker 3: If you see things that are interesting that you think
Speaker 3: attempts to influence people based through race or through faith,
Speaker 3: I just love to see it. I'd just love to
Speaker 3: see the types of messages that are going on because, frankly,
Speaker 3: it's the media that most of us are not seen,
Speaker 3: but increasingly, with half of the country having parents born
Speaker 3: overseas and more people than ever before speaking languages other
Speaker 3: than English at home, the reality is the question is
Speaker 3: for people like the Liberal Party trying to gain votes
Speaker 3: or the Labor Party trying to hold on to.
Speaker 2: Votes, how do they communicate with these groups?
Speaker 3: Who are the people making the ads, Are they redubbing
Speaker 3: things or are they changing the messages? Again, if you
Speaker 3: find examples and you can tell me what's really going on,
Speaker 3: I'd just be fascinated.
Speaker 2: To learn about all of this.
Speaker 3: I'm not skeptical of it because the reality is, if
Speaker 3: you and I had gone to a country where we
Speaker 3: were speaking the at times minority language, or were from
Speaker 3: a minority culture, where we would obviously see gat news
Speaker 3: from Australia via sources like skynews dot com dot Au,
Speaker 3: we'd be trying to read the newspapers online that we
Speaker 3: were reading when we were living here. So it's no
Speaker 3: different than people in reverse in parts of our community.
Speaker 3: So if you find examples of this stuff, I'd be
Speaker 3: fascinated to know.
Speaker 2: What's going on.
Speaker 3: Because the group that is claiming that they're going to
Speaker 3: be moving the Islamic vote around may not necessarily be
Speaker 3: standing candidates, but they may well end up heavily influencing
Speaker 3: potentially where votes are going to go. This is going
Speaker 3: to be a very interesting election, but it sometime this
Speaker 3: year or definitely next year, it'll be fascinating to see
Speaker 3: what happens and what information is floating around. Send me
Speaker 3: the emails, Paul at skynews dot com dot Au.
Speaker 2: Now, I don't know if.
Speaker 3: You've heard this, but there's a conversation at the moment
Speaker 3: and a fierce battle about what percent of one percent
Speaker 3: of global emissions Australia should be cutting by twenty thirty.
Speaker 3: Peter Dutton has reignited the political fight over climate change.
Speaker 4: If the Coalition submits a less ambitious twenty thirty target,
Speaker 4: Australia be the first country to do so under the
Speaker 4: Paris Agreement.
Speaker 5: Peter Dutton says he remains committed to net zero emissions
Speaker 5: by twenty fifty, but today he effectively abandoned Australia's legislated
Speaker 5: short term target. Electorally risky, especially in inner city electorates.
Speaker 3: Oh, don't make the teals acrey, please, please, they will
Speaker 3: glower in our direction. They already have well well under
Speaker 3: Graham Lloyd, the former Environment editor now I think associate
Speaker 3: editor at the Australian newspaper, because he actually put it
Speaker 3: on the table here that.
Speaker 2: Australia ain't getting kicked out of Paris.
Speaker 3: The world is not turning on Australia if we turned
Speaker 3: down the dial on the ambitions. Now remember the destination
Speaker 3: is the same net zero twenty fifty. But as Graham
Speaker 3: writes today, Australia has no chance of being kicked out
Speaker 3: of the Paris Agreement. Whatever Peter Dutton may do, the
Speaker 3: biggest stick that you and Armory would have, which is
Speaker 3: to deny Albanezi his chance to host a climate conference,
Speaker 3: should be he be re elected in twenty twenty six,
Speaker 3: but of course it wouldn't matter because Albanezy.
Speaker 2: Would be re elected. Peer pressure but.
Speaker 3: Simply is the only tool at the UN's disposal now.
Speaker 3: A little warning to lefties though now they think that
Speaker 3: the politics on climate change has changed so dramatically that
Speaker 3: what failed in twenty nineteen, that was wrapped up in
Speaker 3: lies in twenty twenty two with two hundred and seventy
Speaker 3: five dollars off your power bills and five hundred thousand
Speaker 3: new jobs, that now that they're in government, and because
Speaker 3: of the Teals and the Greens, they'll stay there forever.
Speaker 3: The expectation now is that they're going to go even
Speaker 3: harder by twenty thirty five. As Shari Markson reported in
Speaker 3: her program an hour ago, that process could be anywhere
Speaker 3: between sixty five and seventy five percent emissions reduction targets
Speaker 3: by twenty thirty five. So the idea that we would
Speaker 3: eventually get to one hundred percent and effectively be therefore
Speaker 3: net zero in twenty fifty, but we keep turning the
Speaker 3: dial up as fast as possible so that we get
Speaker 3: the bulk of the work out of the way before
Speaker 3: we get to twenty and fifty. Now, of course, this
Speaker 3: is all great for the people who don't rely on
Speaker 3: paying for power or running a business or all of
Speaker 3: the obvious things that have to change as a result.
Speaker 3: But all of those people are the ones already sitting
Speaker 3: in the lobby groups that are getting government money to
Speaker 3: help to achieve the power side of that equation. Or
Speaker 3: they're the politicians who, of course just keep getting pay rises,
Speaker 3: including the biggest in a decade that they got just
Speaker 3: last year. So their assumption is the horse has bolted.
Speaker 3: There is nothing to be seen here. But Peter Dutt't
Speaker 3: clearly believes that there is a political angle here that
Speaker 3: perhaps while the destination remains the same, the journey is
Speaker 3: one that could be negotiated. And again convenient truth for
Speaker 3: lefties who like to always talk about Australia as a
Speaker 3: megapolluta because of the per capita pollution that we make.
Speaker 3: Of course they don't say that when it comes to
Speaker 3: a per capita recession. I do know we use the
Speaker 3: other figures, But of course when it comes to pollution.
Speaker 3: It's just how much is in the air right and
Speaker 3: as you know, Australia about one percent, China more than
Speaker 3: thirty percent. China can continue to do whatever the hell
Speaker 3: it wants still twenty thirty. So the betting here, I
Speaker 3: think from Peter Dutton, as we've seen this thing grow
Speaker 3: over the week, and the Labour Party's done an pretty
Speaker 3: good political job of turning the subject from their own failures,
Speaker 3: which has been pretty much the story for the past
Speaker 3: few months, into the red hot outrage in and around
Speaker 3: the Paris Agreement this week. But for Peter Dutton, his
Speaker 3: assumption is that if forty three is too high and
Speaker 3: we're not achieving it, then what's going to happen at
Speaker 3: sixty five and seventy five Either we never achieve those
Speaker 3: goals or way.
Speaker 2: More needs to happen.
Speaker 3: And even then at the end of the day, even
Speaker 3: when we hit two thousand and thirty, that's when China
Speaker 3: starts to get measured on what they have to do
Speaker 3: before their net zero goal, of course of two thousand
Speaker 3: and sixty. I've said this a few times this week
Speaker 3: because I wanted to sink in when you inevitably have
Speaker 3: to fight about this with younger members of your family,
Speaker 3: which is, if Australia did everything, it's one percent of
Speaker 3: the world's problems fixed. China is thirty percent. Back to
Speaker 3: that grapt because it's also important to note some of
Speaker 3: the other countries that are involved here. When it comes
Speaker 3: to India, there are about ten percent. The United States
Speaker 3: is at about fourteen percent. Now, unless you're living under
Speaker 3: a rock, you know there's a presidential election this year.
Speaker 3: Peter Dutton's bet is that Trump wins because you see,
Speaker 3: the Paris Agreement is not law in the United States
Speaker 3: because it passed through the Parliament like an international treaty should. Instead,
Speaker 3: it was arch Obama who signed up to it via
Speaker 3: presidential order, which meant when Donald Trump became the president,
Speaker 3: he tore the damn thing up. When Joe Biden became
Speaker 3: the president, he re signed up to it. So the
Speaker 3: likelihood is if Trump wins, he tears it up in
Speaker 3: January of twenty twenty five, meaning that the election we'd
Speaker 3: be having in twenty twenty five would be one where
Speaker 3: the country that's producing what twenty something percent or sorry,
Speaker 3: I should say fifteen percent. My eyes are terrible tonight,
Speaker 3: fifteen percent of the world's emissions.
Speaker 2: Would be in the same box as the one.
Speaker 3: That's producing the best part of thirty So what forty
Speaker 3: five percent of the world would not be playing by
Speaker 3: any rules before two thousand and thirty. So what might
Speaker 3: seem as an automatic political loser today if Trump wins.
Speaker 3: If Trump wins, could become a more competitive position by
Speaker 3: the election should it be held in January of next year.
Speaker 3: For his part, he is Peter Dunton.
Speaker 6: Day we saw the Prime Minister and his very angry
Speaker 6: state that he was in, telling people that he couldn't
Speaker 6: really explain what a sixty five to seventy five percent
Speaker 6: target looks like. In February of next year, the government's
Speaker 6: going to have to sign up to a new target
Speaker 6: by twenty thirty five.
Speaker 1: Now, what does it mean for families who.
Speaker 6: Are struggling at the moment where Anthony Albanez he promised
Speaker 6: at the last election that there would be a two
Speaker 6: hundred and seventy five dollars decrease in your power bill.
Speaker 6: Instead there's been one thousand.
Speaker 2: Dollar increase in your power bill.
Speaker 6: But how much higher will your electricity prices go under
Speaker 6: this Prime Minister.
Speaker 3: And the weekend rattled Prime Minister was off with the
Speaker 3: fairies today because of course Airbus Albo knows an awful
Speaker 3: lot about what it's like to look out a window
Speaker 3: and enjoy the clouds. He also knows because he's getting
Speaker 3: not one but two brand new private jets.
Speaker 2: Oh that's right.
Speaker 3: Sorry, they were ordered under the Morrison government. But this
Speaker 3: government's been in power for two years and is powerless
Speaker 3: to challenge them. He's still getting two new private jets.
Speaker 3: So today he decided to go.
Speaker 2: On this.
Speaker 3: Dance a metaphor if you will, about his plan versus
Speaker 3: Dutton's plan. And the problem is the destination is the
Speaker 3: same net zero twenty fifty. That's the same for the Libs,
Speaker 3: the same for the Greens, the same for one day,
Speaker 3: the same. Everyone's position is net zero twenty fifty. So
Speaker 3: certainly it's labor and liberal, I should say net zero
Speaker 3: twenty fifty. So what exactly is the Prime Minister trying
Speaker 3: to do here when the destination is the same place.
Speaker 7: And now what Pety Dutton is saying is that he
Speaker 7: won't have a twenty thirty target. He won't tell you
Speaker 7: what he will do before the election. It's a bit
Speaker 7: like someone getting on a plane at the new airport
Speaker 7: on one of those mystery flights where you don't know
Speaker 7: where you're going to go, You don't know what the
Speaker 7: destination is. You think you're going to wa direction, but
Speaker 7: you find yourself on the other part of Australia or
Speaker 7: the other part of the world, and you can't You
Speaker 7: can't get off your flight until twenty forty because that's
Speaker 7: when the nuclear fantasy will land, if they can find
Speaker 7: a location, if they can find someone who'll fund a
Speaker 7: nuclear power plant. Until then, you're going to have to
Speaker 7: parachute out of the plane and take pot luck at
Speaker 7: where you.
Speaker 2: Land nailed dirt. The destination is the same knit zero
Speaker 2: twenty fifty.
Speaker 3: If nucular kicks in twenty forty, then guess what that
Speaker 3: would all count on? Where we are heading for twenty fifty.
Speaker 3: But of course there's an election in twenty twenty four,
Speaker 3: twenty twenty five, and Albo believes that we're constantly fighting
Speaker 3: the last election. But of course the difference between the
Speaker 3: twenty twenty two election and the twenty twenty four or
Speaker 3: twenty twenty five election is it interest rates have gone
Speaker 3: up twelve times since he became Prime Minister, cost of
Speaker 3: living is demonstrably worse people's capacity to say I'll pay
Speaker 3: a little bit more if we can solve x percent
Speaker 3: of one percent of the world's problems, while China can
Speaker 3: do whatever it wants, and depending on what happens in
Speaker 3: the American election, forty five percent of the world won't
Speaker 3: be doing much before twenty twenty thirty.
Speaker 2: That's the game.
Speaker 3: But the Prime Minister thinks there's enough people particularly frustrated
Speaker 3: and angry. And this is sort of the ultimate proof
Speaker 3: of the uga booger of Peter Dutton. But we've got
Speaker 3: into such detail every night because I know you're going
Speaker 3: to have to debate this with your friends and family
Speaker 3: over the next few days. I've shown you where this
Speaker 3: started with a couple of lines of the Australian newspaper
Speaker 3: willfully misinterpreted to now what we now know towards the
Speaker 3: end of the week is the government is getting ready
Speaker 3: to go as high as seventy five percent while they
Speaker 3: can't currently even achieve forty three percent, and Peter Dutton
Speaker 3: says let's take it slowly, but will still end up
Speaker 3: in the same place. Who knows what will happen. Trump
Speaker 3: winning or losing will be a big factor in whether
Speaker 3: that policy hurts or helps the coalition. Now, I know
Speaker 3: we're not allowed to talk about immigration because nasty Nicki,
Speaker 3: Sava and the rest of the gang says that this
Speaker 3: is racist to talk about it.
Speaker 2: But we are because we.
Speaker 3: All know there's not enough houses for the people who
Speaker 3: live here already, let alone the number of people who
Speaker 3: keep being tipped into the country. So we can keep
Speaker 3: zero point one percent economic growth, and so the government
Speaker 3: can turn around and say we've got a surplus, right,
Speaker 3: So they're all sitting pretty in the sort of comfy
Speaker 3: bits of the country while the rest of us are going,
Speaker 3: can we just have a little break here please? And
Speaker 3: a perfect example of that is rental properties. Now, I
Speaker 3: remember a friend of mine saying a couple of years
Speaker 3: ago to me that a big issue on the Gold
Speaker 3: Coast was how many people couldn't find a rental property.
Speaker 3: The penny of your really dropped for me until about
Speaker 3: six months after that.
Speaker 2: But what about this today?
Speaker 3: That rental stock in Victoria has gone down by fifteen
Speaker 3: and a half thousand properties, meaning there's fifteen thousand less
Speaker 3: places to rent this year compared to last year in Victoria.
Speaker 3: But of course there's even more people than ever before
Speaker 3: that are looking around now In Queensland, one of the
Speaker 3: solutions that they have, which is for people who currently
Speaker 3: are using their empty houses to go out for weekly
Speaker 3: rentals on airb and b to put simply make it
Speaker 3: too hard for people to rent their empty house out now.
Speaker 3: Of course, if you've just got a nice joint with
Speaker 3: a nice view and every couple of months you let
Speaker 3: somebody stay there for the weekend, that's not the issue.
Speaker 3: But the council in Brisbane, freshly re elected, has just
Speaker 3: said that you're now going to need a permit if
Speaker 3: you want to let your house out via Airbnb.
Speaker 2: The hope there is the people who are.
Speaker 3: Letting out empty houses will go well, I'm not going
Speaker 3: to permit bargaret put somebody in for six months or
Speaker 3: twelve months. Adrian Schuner, the local mayor, says that the
Speaker 3: council will only issue a permit if the landlords are planning,
Speaker 3: approvals are all in place, and if it's appropriate and
Speaker 3: if it has the support of the body corporate, so
Speaker 3: you might have a unit. But everyone else says I'm
Speaker 3: tired of people coming and going. Guess what, you won't
Speaker 3: be able to rent it out so isn't that amazing
Speaker 3: You own property, but it's the council that decides what
Speaker 3: you're allowed to do with the property that you own.
Speaker 3: And if it's not the council, then it'll be that
Speaker 3: annoying lady next door, the Karen next door will be
Speaker 3: able to tell you what you can.
Speaker 2: And can't do in your own home.
Speaker 3: Now, plenty of Australians love going to Indonesia Bali specifically,
Speaker 3: they have done so for some time. But again, the
Speaker 3: ABS put out some stats today telling us the number
Speaker 3: one location for Australians in twenty twenty three Indonesia. Now,
Speaker 3: I would have thought that Australia that America would have
Speaker 3: been higher on that list. But today one hundred and
Speaker 3: thirty three thousand trips to Indonesia, one hundred and twenty
Speaker 3: one thousand trips to New Zealand, ninety one thousand.
Speaker 2: Troops to Japan.
Speaker 3: But of course, for many people, the place they go
Speaker 3: in Indonesia is Bali.
Speaker 2: And while many.
Speaker 3: People go and sun themselves that a resort, there are
Speaker 3: plenty of other people who they don't care. It's just
Speaker 3: a chance to have as many bing tangs as possible.
Speaker 3: Get the T shirt and hopefully get home in one piece.
Speaker 3: Why am I telling you all of this tonight because
Speaker 3: that I'm one tourism destination for Australians, which is Indonesia,
Speaker 3: are now telling people up front knock it off. So
Speaker 3: in the same way that they are very clear about
Speaker 3: drugs and the penalty for drugs is death in Indonesia.
Speaker 3: The penalty for carrying on like a luci unit who's
Speaker 3: having fun on a forty trip, well, I won't be death.
Speaker 3: It may will end up being a significant fine or
Speaker 3: potentially time in prison. I tell you all of that
Speaker 3: because clearly Australians love going to Bali. I'm telling you now,
Speaker 3: calm down, make it like half a wild night rather
Speaker 3: than the full on wild nights for obvious reasons, but
Speaker 3: perhaps the biggest party if the Greens ever getting shared anything,
Speaker 3: could well be here at home. You may have seen
Speaker 3: this around today now. Of course, this is the Greens
Speaker 3: trying to sort of out left the left because the
Speaker 3: legalized cannabis people are elected in the News of Wales Parliament.
Speaker 3: But the Greens say we can go better than just marijuana,
Speaker 3: can't we?
Speaker 8: Ideally, it would be great if people didn't drink, because
Speaker 8: it really is a poison and people didn't smoke cigarettes,
Speaker 8: but they want to so regulate it. I think the
Speaker 8: same thing we should start thinking about that with currently
Speaker 8: illegal drugs like cocainey.
Speaker 2: Good luck, no chance, no chance.
Speaker 3: Now we've got the Olympics coming up end of July.
Speaker 3: But I've got to be honest, that's not the sporting
Speaker 3: event I get particularly excited about.
Speaker 9: Now.
Speaker 3: I want you to think about like best evers, like
Speaker 3: Peter Brock or Michael Jordan, Muhammad Ali. These are legends
Speaker 3: of their sports. Well, there is one legend who sits
Speaker 3: above all of them. There is a sport.
Speaker 2: Called Major League eating in the United States, and on.
Speaker 3: The fourth of July and a patriotic duty at New
Speaker 3: York's Coney Island, they come from near and far to
Speaker 3: try to challenge the champion. Joey Chestnut is his name,
Speaker 3: and he has won more hot dog eating contests than
Speaker 3: I've had hot dogs. And I'm a fat blake, so
Speaker 3: that's how good he eat is. Well, today I woke
Speaker 3: to a disgrace to an absolute face, which was the
Speaker 3: sixteen time champion. Joey Chestnut is out. He is not
Speaker 3: allowed to compete in this year's fourth of July Nathan's
Speaker 3: hot dog eating contest shown around.
Speaker 2: The world on ESPN.
Speaker 3: Why because he has recently started a sponsorship with a
Speaker 3: plant based hot dog company. Now the dogs taste the
Speaker 3: same going down, but Nathan's who are the people who
Speaker 3: make the hot dogs that they eat on the fourth
Speaker 3: of July say sorry.
Speaker 2: This is not acceptable.
Speaker 3: So the sixteen time champion, the Goat of Goats, has
Speaker 3: been banned from being able to climb man Man one
Speaker 3: more time. And plenty of people in the United States
Speaker 3: are Chris falling at this idea, including the Great Painton
Speaker 3: McAfee on ESPN.
Speaker 10: Let the guy sucked down dogs is what we're all saying.
Speaker 10: And there's enough time to figure this whole thing out.
Speaker 10: And I hope that we're able to get it accomplished,
Speaker 10: because if I turn that on and I got some
Speaker 10: Bush League and hot dog eaters on my TV, I'm
Speaker 10: not going to be impressive.
Speaker 2: Sing it brother, sing it loud.
Speaker 10: I need to see the disgusting show that Joey Justin does. Yeah,
Speaker 10: and that's how you celebrate America. They need to figure
Speaker 10: this out. AJ I'm bum dat.
Speaker 2: Three words free Joey Chestnut.
Speaker 3: I don't think Bromba Bishop will Stephen Conroy care, but
Speaker 3: we'll talk about other things straight after the break Here
Speaker 3: on Paul Murray Live, Lenny me because it's disgusting. Well,
Speaker 3: who knows they're passionate for Joey Chestnut or even their
Speaker 3: knowledge of major league eating? But Bromwin Bishop is here
Speaker 3: along with Stephen Conroy. Look, I don't know whether you
Speaker 3: want to get behind me here, Steve, and you're a
Speaker 3: numbers man, brom when you know how to manage a branch,
Speaker 3: I mean, can we free the major league eating guy?
Speaker 3: Have you ever heard of this concept Browin of just
Speaker 3: literally competitive eating of hot dogs?
Speaker 2: Disgusting? Yeah, it's awful. Stephen? Have you ever been a
Speaker 2: fan of you? This bloken.
Speaker 1: I but I have.
Speaker 4: I have always taken note of how many the winner
Speaker 4: you can act like, consume and tatler of admiration. I've
Speaker 4: long ago given up trying to a hot dog, But
Speaker 4: I have nothing admiration for the amount of the revels.
Speaker 3: Stuffed down the moment his record seventy six in ten minutes,
Speaker 3: seventy six ten no, no, no, which is not so anyway.
Speaker 3: Let's get the proper stuff. So let's talk about twenty thirty,
Speaker 3: let's talk about targets, Let's talk about elbow on his
Speaker 3: mystery flight rubbish. Right, Okay, So I'll be very direct.
Speaker 3: When I heard Live's pulling out a Paris agreement, I've gone,
Speaker 3: hang on, how does this help in the ten seats
Speaker 3: that they need?
Speaker 2: And all the rest of it?
Speaker 3: Right, Matt Canavan comes on the show on Monday and says, well,
Speaker 3: you've ever complicated it. It's just about what you believe it,
Speaker 3: whether this is the right.
Speaker 2: Way to go with the wrong way to go.
Speaker 3: And just like many people said, well the conventional wisdom
Speaker 3: is yes, it's going to get up. Well he picked
Speaker 3: no when it was sixty forty and guess.
Speaker 2: Where it all ended up. Bromwin.
Speaker 3: Have they done the right thing or do they need
Speaker 3: Trump to win bills to keep going up and then
Speaker 3: they can start to win.
Speaker 11: It's the right thing. And historically since Rudd was first elected,
Speaker 11: the coalition has been has one seats and one elections
Speaker 11: in every election except twenty twenty two, when because of
Speaker 11: Morrison going off to Glasgow it was no longer an
Speaker 11: issue of difference between the parties. But we won every
Speaker 11: other time when it's in contention, and people focus on
Speaker 11: what it is doing to their lives. And when Peter
Speaker 11: says that he's focused on Australia, not Paris, and he
Speaker 11: won't bankrupt the country to meet the unattainable target of
Speaker 11: the Labor Party makes a.
Speaker 3: Lot of sense well, especially when, particularly as shry is reporting,
Speaker 3: if the conversation is currently forty three we can't get
Speaker 3: to but we'll eventually get to seventy five by twenty
Speaker 3: thirty five, then again the normality a change. If the
Speaker 3: easy stuff has.
Speaker 2: Already been done, then clearly that's going to be fascinating
Speaker 2: about what and were.
Speaker 11: Destroys entirely our rural industry.
Speaker 3: I wanted to get seven and then we can get
Speaker 3: into the fight about it all. Stephen, the reverse of
Speaker 3: the tough question to you wrote, because again I know
Speaker 3: sort of the ease with which it's like, okay, please
Speaker 3: feel free to.
Speaker 2: Step on this land line.
Speaker 3: But if Trump becomes president and then you end up
Speaker 3: with a scenario that I out on before, where China
Speaker 3: doesn't get messaged TI twenty thirty, the US pulls out completely,
Speaker 3: that's forty three percent of global emissions. Good luck trying
Speaker 3: to sell people on seventy five percent of one percent
Speaker 3: is urgently needed by twenty thirty five.
Speaker 4: Look, I mean the maths of what you described there
Speaker 4: don't represent the debate in Australia. The majority of the
Speaker 4: Australian public, as demonstrated by the last election, believe that
Speaker 4: we need to move through in newr Boss and they
Speaker 4: would like to move as fast as we can. The
Speaker 4: challenge the Labor has always been, and I think it's
Speaker 4: beginning to absolutely get into the sweet spot, is that
Speaker 4: it absolutely says gas has to be part of this transition.
Speaker 4: That was always going to be needed to be the case,
Speaker 4: no matter how hysterical or the Green's got. The manufacturing
Speaker 4: sector in this country, which we're trying to rebuild, need
Speaker 4: a gas supplied electricity in the short term. So managing
Speaker 4: the gas part of this equation, albeit drawing from the Greens,
Speaker 4: has always been Labors charge. I think it's hitting the
Speaker 4: sweet spot right now. I think it's in a position
Speaker 4: where it can manage its way through the transition. But
Speaker 4: Peter Dutton's position of saying I'm not going to tell
Speaker 4: you it's too hard to do out of governments. I've
Speaker 4: seen experiments.
Speaker 1: Like this before.
Speaker 4: Not having a policy, you're able to be attacked from
Speaker 4: all sides. Frankly, what you've really done, is it said I,
Speaker 4: if I can just finish Brombent. What it's really done,
Speaker 4: is it said every single Teal and Green voter, every
Speaker 4: single Teal and Green bot if I want to see
Speaker 4: action on climate change, I have to give my preference
Speaker 4: to labor another you like labor or not. On the
Speaker 4: Middle East, every preference will be coming to labor now.
Speaker 4: And that's where I think the mistake puttered Upton's mode.
Speaker 3: I would suggest, by the way, just just slightly. Though conversely,
Speaker 3: of course, if one nation's currently sitting what at seven percent,
Speaker 3: if they ended up with a preference mix that gets
Speaker 3: closer back to twenty nineteen, twenty two, twenty twenty two,
Speaker 3: then that will help the LMP in some areas, not
Speaker 3: all areas. But again I suppose that's their argument that
Speaker 3: if we can get a primary vote to forty plus,
Speaker 3: all of this.
Speaker 2: Game, but let's get back in there.
Speaker 11: We are yet to see whether the money will flow
Speaker 11: in the same way for the Teals as it did previously,
Speaker 11: because already the person who gave them half a billion
Speaker 11: dollars said, no.
Speaker 2: More English is Jewish.
Speaker 1: Oh yes and not interested.
Speaker 11: So there's a whole for stuff. We also, I remarkably
Speaker 11: heard mckela referred to as.
Speaker 2: It inner city seat.
Speaker 11: Really, I don't think so. And I would remind everyone
Speaker 11: who likes to look at the figures from the yes
Speaker 11: from the no vote that it was virtually fifty to
Speaker 11: fifty and that was with no support from the Liberal
Speaker 11: Party at all, just committed people in the electorate who
Speaker 11: said we're going to vote no.
Speaker 3: So okay, So Stephen, I want to just ask this
Speaker 3: one more and then we'll move on, right, which is
Speaker 3: we can see where Albo's going to try to fight
Speaker 3: it on again. The assumption that horses bolted, just like
Speaker 3: votes for the left climate change for the right, has
Speaker 3: to be solved, deal with all the rest. Bromwin's shaking
Speaker 3: your head, which is why I asked this question. Do
Speaker 3: you have to be careful about what we assume is
Speaker 3: conventional political wisdom about the financial costs of things when
Speaker 3: the financial mix of voters in twenty four and twenty
Speaker 3: five is very different than it was in twenty two.
Speaker 4: Correct, Well, look, I think that's a that's an absolute
Speaker 4: fair point, and what we know right now today is
Speaker 4: the most potent issue across the entire country, regional, in
Speaker 4: the north, in the south, wherever you want to talk
Speaker 4: about is cost of living.
Speaker 1: So Peter Dutton's only path forward here is to.
Speaker 4: Link further rises and energy prices purely to the government's policies. Now,
Speaker 4: the problem he's got consistently is that the state liberal
Speaker 4: parties don't support.
Speaker 1: Him on this.
Speaker 4: Very close and dear friend of Bromwinn, close and dear friend.
Speaker 1: The state liberals.
Speaker 4: He reposed coal mines federal as state labor government keeping
Speaker 4: going longer, Okay, So the problem is that the state
Speaker 4: Liberals continue to have an entirely different position to Peter Dutt,
Speaker 4: and it's going to be hard for him to try
Speaker 4: and blame these things entirely on labor because his own
Speaker 4: state former now, as Brombin correctly says, state governments contributed
Speaker 4: to the price increases because they closed down, just like
Speaker 4: Daniel Andrews closed down too quickly a caul fire power
Speaker 4: station that was needed in Victoria.
Speaker 1: Matt Keane did the same.
Speaker 4: So it's a more complex issue today than it was
Speaker 4: five years.
Speaker 1: Liberal governments closed it down.
Speaker 11: I said before the last state election that should perite
Speaker 11: lose it will be Matt Keane's fault and it was,
Speaker 11: and he is a pariah in the party, useless and irrelevant.
Speaker 11: So the important thing that the point that you did
Speaker 11: make that is right is that the question of the
Speaker 11: cost of what the transmission lines that have been rolled out,
Speaker 11: the cost of the ambition of mister Bowen is going
Speaker 11: to hurt the Australian people and it is linked to
Speaker 11: the cost of living, and that is Labour's policy. Well,
Speaker 11: this is this is the key issue and they're wound
Speaker 11: into one.
Speaker 3: And this is why this is why I love the
Speaker 3: longer chat on certain topics like this Rod because you're
Speaker 3: seeing the idea behind the fight, not just the fight
Speaker 3: itself and who ends. And again the conventional wisdom you
Speaker 3: couldn't possibly back the no case. Guess what ended up happening.
Speaker 3: So that's that conventional wisdom and the idea is Look,
Speaker 3: I'm fascinating in all of it, but let's move on.
Speaker 3: So pennamal Aanawskis has announced something late this evening that
Speaker 3: is of great interest to me because I always think
Speaker 3: that it represents something kind of other than what many
Speaker 3: people think that it does. Now he is apparently about
Speaker 3: to put a new law into the South Australian Parliament
Speaker 3: that will essentially get rid of political donations. Now, this
Speaker 3: of course would mean that the political parties are paid
Speaker 3: money by the Electoral Commission based off how many votes
Speaker 3: they get. Now, of course that would instantly mean that
Speaker 3: if you win government, you have more money than the
Speaker 3: party that didn't win government, So that helps the incumbent.
Speaker 3: Right on top of that, of course, you have all
Speaker 3: of the staff, all of the machine, all of the
Speaker 3: tax pack, tax payer funded polling like we've seen Palichet,
Speaker 3: Miles and Alan and Andrews have been doing, and you're
Speaker 3: able to do that. So you've got that feeding into
Speaker 3: your India political machine. Plus the government advertising that at
Speaker 3: the federal level they're going to spend what forty million
Speaker 3: bucks telling you about something you don't have to apply for,
Speaker 3: So the benefits of incumbency go through the roof. Of course,
Speaker 3: this wins the dinner party conversation because money in.
Speaker 2: Politics is terrible.
Speaker 3: Of course, part of this is also limits on how
Speaker 3: much each party can spend in any one seat.
Speaker 2: But remember the unions, which.
Speaker 3: Are fifty percent of the Labor Party, are all independent,
Speaker 3: which means Labor gets to spend two dollars to every
Speaker 3: one dollar of everyone else.
Speaker 2: And if you want to disrupt.
Speaker 3: The team Red team Blue game, the best you can
Speaker 3: do is you still a limit on your spending, but
Speaker 3: the most money you can get is two seven hundred
Speaker 3: dollars from individuals. So how many of those do you
Speaker 3: need to get to seventy?
Speaker 2: You get the point.
Speaker 3: It helps the incumbent, it helps the government in this
Speaker 3: case labor at one point, somebody else Broman. We've had
Speaker 3: ding dongs over the years about all of this. I
Speaker 3: think that giving a financial advantage to incumbency is bad
Speaker 3: for democracy.
Speaker 2: That's how high I am on it where it.
Speaker 11: Were you work, and I think the idea of eliminating
Speaker 11: donations just widens the gap between those who are in
Speaker 11: power or elected into the even in opposition from the
Speaker 11: people who are being governed. I've always felt that industry
Speaker 11: had an obligation to make a contribution because that was
Speaker 11: part of being a good moral citizen, and to contribute
Speaker 11: where they believe the right policies lie. In latter times
Speaker 11: they kind of littan some for you and some for you,
Speaker 11: but at least they're having to justify that they're giving
Speaker 11: it yes, I loved it when the teal said no
Speaker 11: donations except for us.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, yeah, of course, that of course was different.
Speaker 11: But I really do. And then you're owned by the government.
Speaker 11: The government is paying for everybody, and it's wrong. That's
Speaker 11: really wrong in a democracy.
Speaker 2: I do think it's that high.
Speaker 3: And you know, I don't normally play the democracy card
Speaker 3: for the sake of entertaining you. That's what they do
Speaker 3: about Trump on Lefty TV. Here's what the Sathastralian Premier
Speaker 3: had to say tonight.
Speaker 9: I am not talking about captain political donations. I'm not
Speaker 9: talking about living the number of donations or the strict
Speaker 9: where donations come from.
Speaker 3: Am I announcing a new transparency erasing.
Speaker 9: Around electric donations because tonight I announced that we seek
Speaker 9: to ban all political donations.
Speaker 12: I don't care if you're a sickert company or a
Speaker 12: shoe store, whether you burn fossil fuels or you can
Speaker 12: pat it against them, whether you're a business or you're
Speaker 12: a trade union.
Speaker 9: Political donations are out part of the model.
Speaker 2: At Lease tonight, Stephen.
Speaker 3: It's all good if it's your side, and this is
Speaker 3: your side. But I think this sort of stuff that
Speaker 3: I think there is a problem with this. I know
Speaker 3: I'm in about a zero point.
Speaker 2: One of one percent people who agree. It's me and Bromwin.
Speaker 2: But I think the stuff's bad.
Speaker 3: I think all it does is breaking an existing power
Speaker 3: base of the government of the day.
Speaker 4: Well, look, I think you know Reasian history suggests that
Speaker 4: analysis is wrong.
Speaker 2: Paul.
Speaker 4: Now, as you know, we've talked about this a couple
Speaker 4: of times before over the years. I'm a big supporter
Speaker 4: of banning donations, restricting donations, whichever.
Speaker 1: Description you want.
Speaker 4: Well, I think and I'm with Peter in principle. I
Speaker 4: just think that there's a reason that other states have
Speaker 4: gone down the limiting the donations rather than capping limiting,
Speaker 4: rather than an outright ban, because the High Court has
Speaker 4: found and implied right to free speech. And they did
Speaker 4: it under the hawk Keeping government many many years ago
Speaker 4: over when I think they from Chief Justice advertising yeah,
Speaker 4: so and so they found and implied right to free speech.
Speaker 4: And I think a couple of times they've been challenged
Speaker 4: in New South Wales to the laws, but because they've
Speaker 4: been crafted in a way that have allowed some donations,
Speaker 4: as in capping per electric type thing, the High Court
Speaker 4: has found in favor of that I suspect the pure
Speaker 4: band that Peter's talking about. I suspect will run into
Speaker 4: legal problems in the High Court. But as to the
Speaker 4: principle behind this, the point I'm made at the beginning point,
Speaker 4: and so I think you're.
Speaker 3: Wrong if you get to spend two dollars more than
Speaker 3: every other Canada, how's that fair?
Speaker 2: That's my I've got to go to a break. How
Speaker 2: is that fair? Labor? The union is independent?
Speaker 3: Well, having fifty percent of to say in your party's constitution.
Speaker 1: Happy to come back after the break. I know you've
Speaker 1: got sponsors.
Speaker 2: Let's do it. Well done, Thank you.
Speaker 11: And the High Court. Let us all down on that decision.
Speaker 3: Correct, all right, quick break back with more, a little
Speaker 3: on that, but a whole lot more.
Speaker 2: You're on, Paul Murray, lave Joey Chess on them. Just
Speaker 2: press forwards. In my mind I even keep time and.
Speaker 8: To show.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much for watching Bromwa.
Speaker 3: Bishop is here, Stephen Conroy just quickly before the break
Speaker 3: we had this conversation. My point was to Steve and
Speaker 3: are given thirty seconds to answer.
Speaker 2: Then we change the world.
Speaker 3: We move on, which is under all of these changes,
Speaker 3: forget the donations, what about the spending caps. The High
Speaker 3: Court ended up ruling that unions are able to operators
Speaker 3: independent from the Labour Party, but of course they are
Speaker 3: the Labor Party. So Stephen, doesn't that mean that the
Speaker 3: unions and the Labor Party are spending two dollars in
Speaker 3: service of one candidate, but every other candidate can only
Speaker 3: spend one dollar?
Speaker 4: Obviously this is broken late this afternoon evening, Paul, So
Speaker 4: I've had a chance to go into that level of detail.
Speaker 1: I think there's always a fair.
Speaker 4: Argument that you've got to find the right balance when
Speaker 4: you include the unions and the labor movement in a
Speaker 4: broader alliance. So I think there's a fair argument that
Speaker 4: that needs to be looked at, and that's always been
Speaker 4: one of the ones that's been hardest to try and
Speaker 4: sort out for us when we've been trying to have
Speaker 4: these debates.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think it's a thing we look again if
Speaker 3: there's structural changes the Labor Party, and then we move around.
Speaker 2: Interesting to see, interesting to see all right? Now?
Speaker 3: I mentioned at the start couple of other shows and
Speaker 3: people have talked about this tonight, which is Islamic leaders
Speaker 3: suggesting that the power of the Muslim vote needs to
Speaker 3: start to be harnessed. Now it's not necessarily about running
Speaker 3: a candidate pushing preferences around, but it's certainly about saying
Speaker 3: that there's a group of vote that may be held
Speaker 3: back from the Labor Party to get its attention, chiefly
Speaker 3: at this moment against Israel when it comes to what's
Speaker 3: happening in Gaza. But is is this, Let's be honest,
Speaker 3: is this the future of Australian politics, That the different
Speaker 3: diaspora will start to demand that politics becomes global not local.
Speaker 11: As far as Islamic candidates concerned, yes, it will, others
Speaker 11: not so much. Daili was the exception because she worked
Speaker 11: together with a strong Labor mayor. Yes, Franklin was really
Speaker 11: really cranky about it, and that was a very powerful coupling.
Speaker 11: But I'm afraid the emergence rhetoric we'en are hearing about
Speaker 11: running Islamic candidates and seizing being part of the power structure.
Speaker 11: It doesn't surprise me at all. I'm just surprised it
Speaker 11: hasn't happened already. And I must say I took a
Speaker 11: look again at Samuel P. Huntington's book and essay before
Speaker 11: that on the clash of civilizations, and his prognostication is
Speaker 11: that future wars will be fought on the basis of
Speaker 11: culture and not countries, and that Islam, the religion of Islam,
Speaker 11: is almost becoming stronger and stronger because religion in the
Speaker 11: worst is receding, and it gives them an added strength.
Speaker 11: So it doesn't surprise me, and I think we really
Speaker 11: have to think very seriously about it.
Speaker 3: But I mean, in fairness, somebody who is of any
Speaker 3: religion can't be banned from run, of course, can't be
Speaker 3: banned from trying to influence, what type of influence and where?
Speaker 3: A longer debout, over a longer time, Stephen, is this
Speaker 3: the future of politics? I've got about thirty seconds. Yeah, Look,
Speaker 3: I'm fortunately it's not the first.
Speaker 4: I mean, if you want a couple of examples in
Speaker 4: my lifetime of politics, Cyprus, the Turks and the Greeks
Speaker 4: have been going at it's in different states where the
Speaker 4: Turks have a bigger population than the Greeks, and vice versa.
Speaker 4: They've demanded positions the Macedonians, and the Greeks don't mention
Speaker 4: that they've finally reached the settlement over the Macedonia issue.
Speaker 1: So this isn't the first time that.
Speaker 4: Australia has had highly politicized debates around some of these issues,
Speaker 4: so it's not new.
Speaker 1: This is just a newer version of it.
Speaker 3: But certainly, as I were saying before, it's a blind
Speaker 3: spot for those of us who talk about it all
Speaker 3: the time to not actually know what's happening in some
Speaker 3: of these communities, which is why I want people to
Speaker 3: send us examples of what they see in their local
Speaker 3: language papers, online and all the rest of it. Guys,
Speaker 3: thank you very much, do appreciate it so much more
Speaker 3: to discuss, which shall do so next week, all right,
Speaker 3: stand by for the.
Speaker 2: Late debate moments from here on Paul Murray Live, or
Speaker 2: in fact, I should say Sky News.
Speaker 3: I'm taking Tomorrow night off to hang out with the kids,
Speaker 3: so James Morrow will be here, but I'll see you
Speaker 3: on Sunday night for another know what we do there