Speaker 1: From the Skyinging Center. This is Paul Murray Life. Hello mate,
Speaker 1: Let's have a big Thursday night together. Thank you very
Speaker 1: much for watching us. So your rights, you would think
Speaker 1: that there was a right to free speech, a right
Speaker 1: to relate all of these things, but of course in
Speaker 1: Australia we don't have a bill of rights. Now. One
Speaker 1: of the problems with writing a bill of rights is,
Speaker 1: as we see in places of the United States, what
Speaker 1: might be okay a couple hundred years ago, like a
Speaker 1: right to own a gun, when a gun wasn't a
Speaker 1: machine gun becomes a machine gun. So the people who
Speaker 1: put Ustradia together never believed that we should have a
Speaker 1: bill of rights. But we assume that we have things
Speaker 1: like that right to free speech. Where the reality is
Speaker 1: is that there's no piece of paper anywhere that actually
Speaker 1: gives us that legal protection. It is assumed. It has
Speaker 1: been sort of fiddled with by courts over the years.
Speaker 1: But as we saw during COVID, if a government wants
Speaker 1: to turn around and start to change what you can say,
Speaker 1: there's no thing in the constitution that fights back against
Speaker 1: it like it would be in the United States. So
Speaker 1: in many ways, our freedom of speech is in the
Speaker 1: hands of the people that we elect. And today there
Speaker 1: was a group of people who wanted to make a
Speaker 1: whole bunch of changes to the laws and Australia in
Speaker 1: and around human rights. Now, interestingly, this was a cross
Speaker 1: party that mainly lefties group of people who got together
Speaker 1: and among other things, have demanded all sorts of things
Speaker 1: like right to education and right to housing. And that
Speaker 1: was written up in all the lefty press today that
Speaker 1: the inquiry had asked for rights like a right to privacy,
Speaker 1: a right to health, environment, a right to social and
Speaker 1: economic rights like adequate housing, a right to education, a
Speaker 1: right to hold an express one's religion. Now, we can
Speaker 1: have a very long chat all night about how much,
Speaker 1: what and where, but at least there is an acknowledgment
Speaker 1: here that there are people who believe that laws need
Speaker 1: to be changed to tighten up what are your rights
Speaker 1: to make them clearer now, particularly things like the environment
Speaker 1: is something that's a collection of school kids have been
Speaker 1: trying to take to courts, and courts have often ruled well,
Speaker 1: there's nothing in the law that says that there is
Speaker 1: part of the duty of care of a government when
Speaker 1: it's looking at something like a coal mine is its
Speaker 1: effect on the environment when it pretends to future generations.
Speaker 1: So they're coming at this from a very lefty perspective.
Speaker 1: But here is what Josh Burns, who is the chair
Speaker 1: of the committee, the Labour Party representative, a bloke who's
Speaker 1: apparently on his way to the ministry, should they ever
Speaker 1: do a reshuffle sometime soon about the ideas behind more
Speaker 1: rights for Australians or seen royal commissions where frankly, human
Speaker 1: rights have been disregarded and the human rights are vulnerable
Speaker 1: as aliens have been disregarded by decision makers in this country.
Speaker 1: We need better protections for.
Speaker 2: That, we need better training, and we need to ensure
Speaker 2: that we are monitoring human rights as well.
Speaker 1: Now, in amongst all of those other things that they
Speaker 1: want to include into laws, forcing governments to take those
Speaker 1: rules into consideration as they make other decisions, let's get
Speaker 1: back to where we started free speech. Now. Interestingly, in
Speaker 1: the pages and pages and pages of the report and
Speaker 1: the pages and pages and pages of recommendations, there's nothing
Speaker 1: about a want to strengthen the right to free speech
Speaker 1: and expression. As Josh Burns just said there that over
Speaker 1: the past recent years, many people's rights have been infringed
Speaker 1: upon Well, is there no greater example of that than
Speaker 1: the lady who was arrested for posting something on the
Speaker 1: internet that was not violent, that was not racist, it
Speaker 1: just was not to the government's liking when it came
Speaker 1: to protest against the decisions of the government. Nothing in
Speaker 1: this Instead, the closest you can see is in and
Speaker 1: around protests, because the left believe that, particularly in places
Speaker 1: like New South Wales, the rules against protest like you
Speaker 1: have to ask for permission first, and if you break
Speaker 1: the agreement that you have with the police then they
Speaker 1: can therefore shut down the protest. All of that is
Speaker 1: an infringing of rights. Of course, nobody cared when it
Speaker 1: was the COVID rights. But what we are seeing here
Speaker 1: is a very interesting conversation that normally the center and
Speaker 1: the center right should be in favor of anything that
Speaker 1: strengthens your rights. But interestingly, it is the center left
Speaker 1: and far left that of course are in control of
Speaker 1: the Federal Parliament at the moment, and will have even
Speaker 1: greater control after the next election if most likely the
Speaker 1: government goes into minority, and they don't see freedom of
Speaker 1: speech as something that needs to be strengthened now this
Speaker 1: will not be on the front page of the paper tomorrow.
Speaker 1: It didn't lead the six pm Yews tonight. But right
Speaker 1: now we're in the middle of conversations about censoring the Internet,
Speaker 1: about what the government declares to be misinformation. That is
Speaker 1: a very big step from a country that has freedom
Speaker 1: of speech. Now. Again, while I am somebody who is
Speaker 1: a little more on the libertarian side of freedom of
Speaker 1: speech and generally speaking, you know, I'm not quite the
Speaker 1: full absolutist, I do think there are plenty of times
Speaker 1: when people's people who go too far should feel a
Speaker 1: sanction for it. And generally speaking, I think that when
Speaker 1: you say something well, you can't expect there will be
Speaker 1: no reaction to it, and people reacting to it and debating.
Speaker 1: That's a good and open society. Do I think that
Speaker 1: hate preachers should be able to say the horrific things
Speaker 1: that they do without any national security implications, No, of
Speaker 1: course not. Do I think that people should be able
Speaker 1: to abuse Jews in Australia because of the decisions of
Speaker 1: a government is of course not right. So there are limits.
Speaker 1: And I understand what defamation means, and I understand what
Speaker 1: discrimination means, and I understand all of those necessary things
Speaker 1: that yes, probably do hem us in a little bit
Speaker 1: more than the right to free speech in the United States.
Speaker 1: That means you can say whatever you want at any time,
Speaker 1: generally speaking, and it'll be protected by the law. But
Speaker 1: all of this effort, all of this study, all of
Speaker 1: this discussion, all of this power, and none of it
Speaker 1: includes your rights to speech, your rights to express your
Speaker 1: own opinion that may well be contrary to what the
Speaker 1: government believes is the truth of the day. We're seeing
Speaker 1: on multiple fronts, from the misinformation to this scenario, through
Speaker 1: to crackdowns on violent content put up by social media.
Speaker 1: But slowly but surely, there are lots of attacks coming
Speaker 1: towards your ability to say what the government doesn't want
Speaker 1: you to say. Every now and then, someone needs to
Speaker 1: point out what is happening, because the reality is that
Speaker 1: the Parliament as it is constituted right now, and the
Speaker 1: assumption of the people who are in our parliament right now,
Speaker 1: we don't matter. You don't matter because their coalition of
Speaker 1: the left and far left gives them passage through the
Speaker 1: lower House and passage through the Upper House. Yet you
Speaker 1: should know what's going on. You should contact your local
Speaker 1: politician to see if they understand what's going on, and
Speaker 1: the people who were in part behind this report should
Speaker 1: come onto a program like this and explain to us
Speaker 1: why speech wasn't one of the things that they thought
Speaker 1: had been eroded over the past few years. Now, what
Speaker 1: are coincidents? I mean, just a few little coincidences happen,
Speaker 1: And of course you know, nobody believes in conspiracy theories here,
Speaker 1: but you know, amazing what happens just at the same
Speaker 1: time right now. Of course, a few weeks ago, Channel
Speaker 1: Line breaks the story about the Australian chopper that was
Speaker 1: interfered with by China. If it was not for the pilot,
Speaker 1: potentially they could have crashed into the ocean and died.
Speaker 1: The reporting at the time from Channel nine was pretty
Speaker 1: clear that Australia had responded to this. Richard Marles says
Speaker 1: Australia has formally registered its deep concern about the incident,
Speaker 1: telling Beijing it's completely unacceptable and the Prime Minister said
Speaker 1: this That clearly left the impression with the Australian people
Speaker 1: that everything had been done to voice displeasure at a
Speaker 1: potentially deadly incident. Not the first, by the way, we have.
Speaker 3: Made very strong representations at every level to China about
Speaker 3: this incident, which we regard as unprofessional and unacceptable.
Speaker 1: At every level we we, of course includes he that
Speaker 1: being the Prime Minister. But whatever, that's details because as
Speaker 1: we told you last night, Senate estimates and god love
Speaker 1: sen it estimates for being able to get into some
Speaker 1: details here, they showed that officials admitted no phone call
Speaker 1: between the Prime Minister and the President, the Prime Minister
Speaker 1: and the Premier, the Defense Minister and the Defense Minister,
Speaker 1: no phone callse whatsoever. Instead, some of the things that
Speaker 1: we said, including press conferences at Beefweek, were counted as
Speaker 1: voicing displeasure with China. Well, as we told you that
Speaker 1: story last night, it started to build a little bit
Speaker 1: of attention. I got plenty of messages from people in
Speaker 1: the media going really, okay, can you send me this
Speaker 1: and that details? Right? And generally speaking, that's the beginning
Speaker 1: of something becoming an issue tomorrow. But guess what magically
Speaker 1: happened today a biggest story for the media that they
Speaker 1: decided to of course report from the government's perspective, which
Speaker 1: was a win for the Albenezy government because of its
Speaker 1: new relationship with China. The tara On beef are to
Speaker 1: be removed in the next little while, made it all
Speaker 1: the way to CNN. But just isn't that convenient that
Speaker 1: less than twenty four hours after Australia lying about confronting China,
Speaker 1: China turns around and does a favor for the Australian government,
Speaker 1: who of course did a favor for China, but not
Speaker 1: really blowing up at all about a scenario involving our
Speaker 1: defense force that could have killed the people on that helicopter.
Speaker 1: I mean, what is nothing to see here? Oh yeah. Also,
Speaker 1: it was a story that covered over something that happened
Speaker 1: this week which does have serious implications for the electoral
Speaker 1: fortunes of the Abernese government. Not in New Town, not
Speaker 1: in Marrickville, nowhere in the Yarra Council, but it does
Speaker 1: in Western Australia the live sheep exporting industry. Remember the
Speaker 1: government a few weeks ago said that they were going
Speaker 1: to start to come up with the system to turn
Speaker 1: it off by twenty twenty eight. Well, the laws have
Speaker 1: now shown their face in a beginning the process of
Speaker 1: going through the Parliament. Now, of course they will make
Speaker 1: it through because the center left are in charge of downstairs,
Speaker 1: and then we start to go quite to the left,
Speaker 1: including the Greens and Door Matt Pocock and Lambee and
Speaker 1: Thorpe and all of them will of course sail this
Speaker 1: thing through. So it is going to probably end up
Speaker 1: becoming law. But good on the people of Western Australia
Speaker 1: and the sheep farmers of Western Australia who are starting
Speaker 1: to fire up. Now. Remember in Western Australia, the Labour
Speaker 1: Party won four seats. If they lost just two of
Speaker 1: those seats, the government would be making its way towards
Speaker 1: minority government. Which is why it's important to see here
Speaker 1: that while the government defends the live sheep exports via
Speaker 1: their announcements that they have made this week in Western Australia,
Speaker 1: they're fighting back. Keep the sheep dot com dot au,
Speaker 1: Keep the sheep dot com dot au. You might see
Speaker 1: this truck in and around Well and many others in
Speaker 1: and around Western Australia. If you want to support it,
Speaker 1: if you want to keep the trade alive, if you
Speaker 1: want to get the government to pay a price for
Speaker 1: what they're about to do to hundreds of families destroying
Speaker 1: their livelihoods to make people feel better in the woke
Speaker 1: bits of the city. Keep the Sheep dot com dot Au.
Speaker 1: Now again Senate Estimates, Thank you gives us a little
Speaker 1: bit more detail. And as this show has grown over
Speaker 1: the years, we are even more focused on data and
Speaker 1: we try to show you things firsthand because so easily
Speaker 1: the people who would like us off the air would
Speaker 1: like to pretend that we are the Peanut Gallery or
Speaker 1: the morons or the people who don't follow the details.
Speaker 1: We're just making it up as we go along and
Speaker 1: thankfully showing you things like reports that I try to
Speaker 1: show you every night, data that I try to show
Speaker 1: every night, and the people in their own words every
Speaker 1: night helps tell the stories that we then go off
Speaker 1: and have the opinions about. But again in Senate Estimates,
Speaker 1: a shocking amount of detail came out about a potential
Speaker 1: major security hole in Australia that looks like it could
Speaker 1: be exploited by unfriendly nations like China. Now, yes, the
Speaker 1: prime ministers all get along, and the premiers all get along,
Speaker 1: and the upper diplomats get along, but of course China
Speaker 1: spies on Australia. It tries to interfere in our universities,
Speaker 1: it tries to intimidate those students by threatening their families
Speaker 1: back home. It has stolen the plans to the AZO building,
Speaker 1: and of course in the past has been accused of
Speaker 1: hacking the infrastructure of Parliament House and many of the
Speaker 1: political parties which make up the people who represent us
Speaker 1: in Canberra. Well, fascinating statement here about some problems that
Speaker 1: are seemingly showing the head of the moment, about the
Speaker 1: number of people who work for the politicians who we
Speaker 1: are not doing enough security checks on, and as has
Speaker 1: been the case in other states, the pressure is put
Speaker 1: onto the staffers as a way of eventually putting pressure
Speaker 1: onto ptitians. As says, it's potentially all sides of politics,
Speaker 1: so let's view it in that way. Well, the head
Speaker 1: of the National Intelligence Agency is told Senate Estimates hearing
Speaker 1: on Wednesday that Australia faces a serious and sustained threat
Speaker 1: from foreign spies in response to claims that there were
Speaker 1: twelve hundred operatives already in Australia. Direct quote from a
Speaker 1: bloke called doctor William Stoltz is from the Australian National
Speaker 1: University's a national security expert. Political staff are essentially hired
Speaker 1: and fired at the discretion of the member of parliament.
Speaker 1: They do not have to undergo basic police checks, but
Speaker 1: there is no security clearance process. How does that work now?
Speaker 1: It may well be when it comes to a minister
Speaker 1: or a particular level of government, but somebodyho's a staffer
Speaker 1: for a backbench senator or a backbench member of parliament,
Speaker 1: where's a security check? It's highly concerning for a country
Speaker 1: of Australia's sophistication, and given the seriousness of MPs and
Speaker 1: senators being targeted, it is no longer we're appropriate. The
Speaker 1: political staff are not better vetted and security cleared. Again,
Speaker 1: this will not be the front page of the paper tomorrow,
Speaker 1: but when something terrible happens, you can remember that you
Speaker 1: were told about what the threat may be. It means
Speaker 1: every now and then when we come up with the
Speaker 1: random question of people in power, such as should there
Speaker 1: be better security checks for MPs? That's why we're asking
Speaker 1: the question, same as we're asking the question about okay, cool,
Speaker 1: and you go right to a house and all of
Speaker 1: these things. But again, where is the greater legal framework
Speaker 1: around your right to free speech? Because again, right now
Speaker 1: and then, this happens every single day. Remember that you
Speaker 1: wake up thinking that we've got to have a discussion
Speaker 1: or a debate or push back against something that we
Speaker 1: just took for granted the day before. For example, that
Speaker 1: every single person working around every single MP at the
Speaker 1: state and federal level is on the up. How can
Speaker 1: there not be greater security clearance in and around those people.
Speaker 1: Now we learned something today as well from the Treasury
Speaker 1: Boss bracket creep is good. Now you are living the
Speaker 1: cost of living crisis. We as a country are in
Speaker 1: the multiple quarters of a per capita recession. Put simply,
Speaker 1: the Australian economy the real world is in recession, but
Speaker 1: the government economy it's just ticking alive, which means you're
Speaker 1: struggling to pay your bills at the moment, no matter
Speaker 1: what kind. And where as I talk about almost every
Speaker 1: night about your insurance bills on top of your petrol
Speaker 1: and your power and all of those other things. Well,
Speaker 1: a blow by the name of Stephen Kennedy is the
Speaker 1: Treasury Secretary and he's also on the Reserve Bank, so
Speaker 1: he is one of the decision makers about whether we
Speaker 1: go up or down when it comes to interest rates.
Speaker 1: But he's also the bloke who's helping put the budget
Speaker 1: together and well under the herald for picking this up.
Speaker 1: Not like it, but back bracket creep gee whizho for
Speaker 1: todd Anyway, bracket creep is aiding the inflation fight. So
Speaker 1: that of course means when you pay more tax, it's
Speaker 1: better because you have less money to spend in the economy,
Speaker 1: because if you spent your money then it would push
Speaker 1: up inflation. He said that in Australia over the past
Speaker 1: three years, bracket creep had helped reduce inflationary pressures which
Speaker 1: otherwise would have amplified if tax thresholds had been pushed up. Quote,
Speaker 1: bracket creep has been a helpful stabilizing force over the
Speaker 1: past three years, contributing significantly to the automatic stabilizing influence
Speaker 1: of the tax system. Now, let me again put that
Speaker 1: into normal people speak. If they take more of your money,
Speaker 1: you have less money to spend. Now, despite the fact
Speaker 1: that if you had more of your money you might
Speaker 1: save it or yes, put it on bills, or yes,
Speaker 1: put it into renovations, because you know, you're allowed to
Speaker 1: live a life. But instead the government turns around and says,
Speaker 1: give us a gold star because we're keeping more of
Speaker 1: your money.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: This is despite the fact that they'll turn around and say, oh,
Speaker 1: there's some average tax cuts thirty six bucks, but they're
Speaker 1: so small that they get replaced by the people who
Speaker 1: end up earning more money and being pushed into a
Speaker 1: new tax bracket. And if you think the government is poor,
Speaker 1: how a look at this. The Australian Bureau Statistics, you
Speaker 1: know that far right wing think tank. They put out
Speaker 1: a list this week of just how much taxation money
Speaker 1: including the GSD, the federal government has made over the
Speaker 1: past few years. Just before the pandemic was four hundred
Speaker 1: and forty seven billion. During the pandemic it was four
Speaker 1: hundred and eighty one billion, and then five hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty billion first year out of the pandemic, and upon
Speaker 1: a change of government, six hundred and eighteen bo billion dollars.
Speaker 1: So they can talk about the tax cuts as much
Speaker 1: as they like. They're getting more revenue than ever before,
Speaker 1: so they're not even robbing Peter to pay per. They're
Speaker 1: taking some cream, but then expecting you to earn a
Speaker 1: little bit more money, which means you start adding to
Speaker 1: the cake of how much money that comes through. In fact,
Speaker 1: Samantha Maiden one of her stories, she was trying to
Speaker 1: get up, and she wrote a few days about it,
Speaker 1: but not too many people picked up on it. Was
Speaker 1: the amount of people that are going to be affected
Speaker 1: by bracket creep into the next few years shows that
Speaker 1: on this hand we're giving, but on the other hand,
Speaker 1: we're taking, and we're going to take a fair amount.
Speaker 1: In fact, Jim Charmers, big, bigger, better tax cuts also
Speaker 1: increase personal income tax receipts by twenty eight billion dollars.
Speaker 1: Why because people move up a tax bracket. When they
Speaker 1: redefine the tax bracket, you go up the tax bracket,
Speaker 1: you end up paying more tax, which apparently is great
Speaker 1: to fight inflation. Meantime, on the overall issues, the only
Speaker 1: issue that people care about in Australia, of course, that
Speaker 1: being certainly in terms of the economy, the cost of living, inflation.
Speaker 1: It's flow on when it comes to paying off your
Speaker 1: house and the deserve bank rates, which are clear there now.
Speaker 1: Last night I told you that hotter than expected figures
Speaker 1: when it came to inflation. I went through those for
Speaker 1: you saw that people were now starting to suggest that
Speaker 1: the first time that there's going to be any sort
Speaker 1: of easy give interest rates is not going to be
Speaker 1: until November twenty twenty five. Repeat November twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1: That's where we are right now. Of course, at the
Speaker 1: first of July is when the tax cut scenario starts
Speaker 1: to kick in, the power rebate for mansions kicks in,
Speaker 1: and a whole bunch of other brand new government spending. Well.
Speaker 1: The suggestion there is that that, of course will also
Speaker 1: add to inflation. Financial review they put this about why
Speaker 1: we are now looking at interest rates going up before
Speaker 1: they start to go down. The suggestion they don't go
Speaker 1: down until November twenty five. Now, I won't bore you
Speaker 1: with all of the details there, but put simply their
Speaker 1: suggestion now is we have gone from twenty percent chance
Speaker 1: of a rise to a twenty seven percent chance of
Speaker 1: a rise now, and that to happen by September this year.
Speaker 1: So already you are being squeezed by interest rates. There's
Speaker 1: a chance the squeeze will get worse, then gets slightly better,
Speaker 1: and I mean slightly better, but you are still choking.
Speaker 1: And that's the scenario that the government thinks they will
Speaker 1: get re elected for now. Of course, when they came
Speaker 1: to office, one interest rate rise, so yeah, bit of
Speaker 1: pressure for some, but twelve interest rate rises, potentially thirteen
Speaker 1: interest rate rises. And remember the Reserve Bank has said
Speaker 1: that even best case scenario, you will be paying seventy
Speaker 1: five percent of the increases that you have on interest
Speaker 1: rates by twenty twenty six. So it feels like it
Speaker 1: may get worse before it gets better. But does that
Speaker 1: surprise you under a Labor government now, to speculate was
Speaker 1: and we sat here on budget night thinking my, hang on,
Speaker 1: are they starting to put something together that looks like
Speaker 1: they could get towards an early election. I also remember
Speaker 1: saying in and around that time that the real giveaway
Speaker 1: about when they will give the tools to the Prime
Speaker 1: Minister to go for an election will be when they
Speaker 1: start to change the numbers in the Senate. Now, the
Speaker 1: way this works was that the Labor Party had a
Speaker 1: review into the last election. It came up with things
Speaker 1: like banning the amount of money the Teals could raise
Speaker 1: and that the Teals could spend, and that every single
Speaker 1: party would be capped in every single seat. And as
Speaker 1: I told you, that also is advantaging the Labor Party
Speaker 1: because unions are completely independent from the Labor Party, despite
Speaker 1: the fact that they are half of the Labor Party's constitution.
Speaker 1: The other thing was that they wanted to add extra
Speaker 1: senators to the Parliament. They wanted to add an extra
Speaker 1: two senators to the Northern Territory and to the Act
Speaker 1: because currently they only have two each. So Don Farrell
Speaker 1: was the man who was trying to put this new
Speaker 1: system in place, and he's had a bit to say
Speaker 1: in the past couple of days, including that he's been
Speaker 1: trying to engineer a deal between the major parties for
Speaker 1: it to double the number of senators in each territory
Speaker 1: from two to four and bring the total number of
Speaker 1: the Upper House to eighty. Now, based on the current population,
Speaker 1: the Northern Territory has two senators fore hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: thousand people. The Act has two two senators for three
Speaker 1: hundred and fifteen thousand people. Tasmani has twelve because it's
Speaker 1: a state for four hundred and two thousand. So territories
Speaker 1: have smaller numbers because they aren't states. But of course,
Speaker 1: as I have said to you before, the real reason
Speaker 1: they want to do this is not about improving the
Speaker 1: representation of people in the Parliament from the Act or
Speaker 1: the Northern Territory. It is to permanently change the way
Speaker 1: the Senate works that if not at this election, maybe
Speaker 1: the next election, maybe the next election after that, maybe
Speaker 1: the election who knows. But at some point in time
Speaker 1: when the Labor Party loses government, they have to the
Speaker 1: coalition would have to deal with a hostile Senate. Now,
Speaker 1: remember when Tony Abbott won in two thousand and seven,
Speaker 1: the very clear sorry twenty thirteen, the very clear direction
Speaker 1: was stop the boats, kill the carbon tax. Well, the
Speaker 1: carbon tax was of course not killed until the following
Speaker 1: July when a more favorable Senate was put in place.
Speaker 1: So immediately conservative governments will be blocked by more left
Speaker 1: wing senates. And if you actually have a look at
Speaker 1: the way that the Northern Territory has voted, there is
Speaker 1: a good chance that it would end up that there
Speaker 1: would end up being two Alp senators, one Country Liberal
Speaker 1: Senator and maybe one Green Senator. So it would of
Speaker 1: course improve the overall standing of the center left in
Speaker 1: the ACTI. Where currently it is a Labor Senator or
Speaker 1: a Teal Senator, you would probably end up with a
Speaker 1: Green Senator and a second Teal Senator maybe maybe maybe
Speaker 1: on the outfring of Liberal senator. But all of that
Speaker 1: means the numbers in the Parliament would blow out. Let
Speaker 1: me explain right now, thirty one members of the Senate
Speaker 1: are from the coalition, twenty six are from the Labor Party.
Speaker 1: You need thirty nine votes in the current parliament to
Speaker 1: actually pass anything. Now. To do that, you need all
Speaker 1: of Labor, all of Green's. That gets you to thirty seven.
Speaker 1: Then you need two more to get you to thirty nine.
Speaker 1: And that is an option where Lamby will say yes,
Speaker 1: or Pocock will say yes, or Thorpe will say yes,
Speaker 1: or Yrrall will say yes. Get two of them together. Bang,
Speaker 1: you get the piece of legislation through. If you have
Speaker 1: two extra Labor senators, an extra Teal senator, a couple
Speaker 1: of extra Green senators that it's an almost permanent block
Speaker 1: that sits on the center left. I'm being polite to
Speaker 1: the far left, and they all would be able to
Speaker 1: kill dead anything that a coalition government would like to
Speaker 1: potentially do into the future. In a couple of hours time,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump will make his way back to court where
Speaker 1: again the jury is currently deliberating his future. That's a
Speaker 1: live shot right now. What's happening in New York City.
Speaker 1: I think it's only about seven thirty in the morning
Speaker 1: right now about nine point thirty. When he turns up
Speaker 1: at about ten o'clock in the morning, which is around
Speaker 1: midnight Australian time, is when Judge Mershon, who is the
Speaker 1: judge in this case, of course, brings everyone back in
Speaker 1: and for a second day they start to deliberate. Now
Speaker 1: they have thirty four separate charges in front of them.
Speaker 1: They don't just take one vote, They've got to take
Speaker 1: thirty four separate votes. They have not made a decision
Speaker 1: within a couple of hours. So either they are going
Speaker 1: through every single one very slowly in debating all of it,
Speaker 1: or somebody's holding out, or who knows what's happening. But
Speaker 1: Donald Trump was a little different this time, talking outside
Speaker 1: the court when the jury had been sent away after
Speaker 1: hearing how the judge had framed the case for the jury.
Speaker 1: This sounded like a guy who knew what's coming and
Speaker 1: listening to the judges.
Speaker 4: From the judges, as you know, very conflicted and corrupt.
Speaker 4: Because of the confliction, very very corrupt. Mother Theresa could
Speaker 4: not be these judges. These judges are rigged. The whole
Speaker 4: thing is rigged.
Speaker 5: The whole country is of mass between the borders and
Speaker 5: fake elections, and you have a trial like this where
Speaker 5: the judges so conflicted he can't breathe.
Speaker 1: Now, this is because at the end, when the defense
Speaker 1: opposite defense, the prosecution doubles down on its case, it
Speaker 1: is all down to the judge. So then turn to
Speaker 1: the jury and say, okay, his basically the ruler under
Speaker 1: which you have to have a look at these charges
Speaker 1: to decide whether somebody is guilty or not. And there
Speaker 1: were plenty of people on Fox last night who were
Speaker 1: saying that the options that he put on the table
Speaker 1: for the jury was so low that how could they
Speaker 1: not find guilty?
Speaker 6: Listening to the jury charges was concerning, To be honest,
Speaker 6: I think that they were, and it's been widely reported
Speaker 6: since we came out of the jury charges that there
Speaker 6: is clearly any of the four underlying crimes that he
Speaker 6: could have done. They don't care what it was. The
Speaker 6: judge said, basically, all you have to do is figure
Speaker 6: out whether there was intent or not, and there has
Speaker 6: been no proof of that. But the judge gave a
Speaker 6: very very generous bandwidth to the prosecution, and I think
Speaker 6: that's why the president's comments and sentiments are exactly accurate.
Speaker 1: Now, of course, that is a Trump attorney who is
Speaker 1: not part of this case but clearly is speaking on
Speaker 1: behalf of the team. And I think that these things
Speaker 1: like they always have, but they get quite specific. I'm
Speaker 1: trying to bore you the specifics. But then over on
Speaker 1: left wing television they are just sliding off the chairs
Speaker 1: with excitement because the bar is being put so low.
Speaker 1: The case from the prosecution has have been allowed to
Speaker 1: wander wherever it wants, and any defense at times that
Speaker 1: the Trump people have put up has been objected and
Speaker 1: sustained constantly, constantly, constantly, so their legal analysts think just
Speaker 1: a countdown to guilty.
Speaker 7: As you've noted with respect to Judge Mushan, I mean,
Speaker 7: I am, I am like now you know, I have
Speaker 7: like a man.
Speaker 1: Crashed on him.
Speaker 7: He is such a great judge that it's hard to
Speaker 7: see that the jurors wouldn't have the same impression. And
Speaker 7: he is just you just keep on thinking. If you
Speaker 7: looked in a dictionary for judicial temperament, that's what you get.
Speaker 1: Creepy, really creepy. All right, quick break back with more
Speaker 1: we'll find it. Who's the winner and loser of the week,
Speaker 1: And looking forward to no soooks no lefties. Thanks for
Speaker 1: watching on a Thursday. Thank you very much for watching.
Speaker 1: We are no sicks, no lefties tonight. How good is that?
Speaker 1: And because I know what's a night for the hard course,
Speaker 1: None other than two wonderful hardcore, big brain people joining
Speaker 1: us now from Melbourne, but they're fair enough away. Social
Speaker 1: distancing relax. Everyone. None other than Christy McSweeney is here,
Speaker 1: along with the wonderful Michael Kroger. Now, Michael, I'm going
Speaker 1: to start with you, and yes we're going to talk
Speaker 1: about Andrew Giles, but can we come at this from
Speaker 1: a slightly different way than everyone else's conversation about Andrew Giles.
Speaker 1: His incompetence is obvious, his failures are obvious, The responsibility
Speaker 1: of the Prime Minister is obvious. But it seems that
Speaker 1: Albanese is trying to do the Daniel Andrews and Anastasia
Speaker 1: Paliche play, which is be absolutely shameless, never admit to
Speaker 1: a fault, ignore all criticism and just push through. Will
Speaker 1: it work for Albow the way that it worked for Alberanizi?
Speaker 1: Or is federal politics different?
Speaker 8: You're one hundred percent correct, that's exactly what he's trying
Speaker 8: to do. It's not going to quite work for him,
Speaker 8: because there's a much more media Federally. I mean, a
Speaker 8: state minister could get away with in confidence and no
Speaker 8: one would notice. Federally, there's so much concentration on what
Speaker 8: this guy has done. Everyone knows he's a dud. But
Speaker 8: here's the thing that no one's yet worked out, mate,
Speaker 8: No one's yet worked this out. There are about one
Speaker 8: hundred and four members of the federal over caucus. There
Speaker 8: are about forty two cabinet ministers, ministers and assistant ministers,
Speaker 8: meaning there's over sixty backbenches. Sixty backbenches, so mate, knowing
Speaker 8: how the wheels of Canberra works, you've got sixty two.
Speaker 8: I think it is exactly to be exact, sixty two
Speaker 8: backbenches sitting there thinking why am I not being promoted?
Speaker 8: I'm not being promoted because this Prime Minister is sticking
Speaker 8: to this dud. And so in Canberra you always need
Speaker 8: a turnover of ministers because otherwise the backbench don't see
Speaker 8: any future, no hope. And then of course they're local
Speaker 8: branch members say, oh, friend's never been promoted. You know,
Speaker 8: Friend's obviously not as good as Andrew Giles, otherwise he'd
Speaker 8: be promoted and so when you have no movement like this,
Speaker 8: when a prime minister sticks to a minister that everyone
Speaker 8: in the country knows should have been sacked last year,
Speaker 8: it actually does enormous damage. Internally. There will be sixty
Speaker 8: two backbenches, There'll be out of ministers and assistant ministers
Speaker 8: who are all throwing darts at Albanizi day, blaming him
Speaker 8: for them not being promoted and blaming him to sticking
Speaker 8: to a bloke who should have been sacked.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Christy, it feels like the Prime Minister is trying
Speaker 1: to play horse whispery here where he thinks he can
Speaker 1: turn the bucking bronco of responsibility into the placid little
Speaker 1: horse that does nothing but what the order from the
Speaker 1: boss comes from. Do you think it's going to work?
Speaker 1: I mean we've just been realistic. It's a Thursday night
Speaker 1: conversation where, let's be honest, any other government, any other minister,
Speaker 1: the level of pressure by this point in time and
Speaker 1: the proven amount of problems would result in them going.
Speaker 1: So I think there's something magical. Does let's be you know,
Speaker 1: I'm a hard marker, but does he have some special
Speaker 1: superpower in his four D tittery winks that I'm not seeing.
Speaker 9: Well.
Speaker 2: What everybody's says to ignore here is that there's a
Speaker 2: ministerial code of conduct which surely has been breached again
Speaker 2: and again and again by Andrew Jarles. And if we
Speaker 2: compare it to Howard, Howard sacked eleven ministers in his term,
Speaker 2: starting all the way back from when he came into
Speaker 2: government in nineteen ninety six, he sacked two of his
Speaker 2: best mates in his first year. We know that Andrew
Speaker 2: Giles and Albanezi are very closely aligned. The other minister
Speaker 2: in Bold, Clara O'Neil, is from the right faction, and
Speaker 2: everybody is forgetting This begins at the supply chain, beginning
Speaker 2: with the Attorney General, Mark Dreyfus, who either didn't ask for,
Speaker 2: didn't read, probably didn't think warranted further investigations, the advice
Speaker 2: from the Australian Government solicitor.
Speaker 9: Around the High Court, that's his job.
Speaker 2: He wasn't doing that because creating legislation for a referendum
Speaker 2: that was never going to come to pass was his
Speaker 2: main priority at that time.
Speaker 9: So there's actually three.
Speaker 2: Ministers in this mess, not just Andrew Giles, but of
Speaker 2: course in politics, you know you pick on the weakest Lincoln.
Speaker 9: He has so far proved himself to be just that.
Speaker 1: Speaking of in an interview with our dear friend Kieran
Speaker 1: Gilbert today, the minister proved himself to be not up
Speaker 1: to it. But what about this line, Trust me to
Speaker 1: fix the mess that I made.
Speaker 10: Have a look, there's a lot of political arguments out
Speaker 10: there that always happens in this building.
Speaker 1: I've got a job to do.
Speaker 9: I'm relentlessly focused on that job.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about Laura Tingle for a moment of two
Speaker 1: his time, because of course they're all out there to
Speaker 1: defend her, because she's a high Priestess of the ABC
Speaker 1: and she's beyond commentary, beyond ridicule. Her statement yesterday was
Speaker 1: that any sort of criticist of her calling the country
Speaker 1: racist or more importantly, in my view, this fantasy that
Speaker 1: in the suburbs, evil white people are going to turn
Speaker 1: on people who look different, whatever that means when they're
Speaker 1: bidding at auctions because of Peter Dutton and his cuts
Speaker 1: to immigration, which are racist, but Albo's cuts to immigration
Speaker 1: completely fine, makes sense, right. Peter Dutton understandably responded in
Speaker 1: the way that he should have with Ray Hadley this
Speaker 1: morning onto Jubet.
Speaker 11: Laura Tingles outed herself now as somebody who is a
Speaker 11: part of san She's a green slash labor supporter. She
Speaker 11: is political in nature, and therefore her credibility as a
Speaker 11: journalist really is shot.
Speaker 1: And surprise, surprise, her boss is giving her a cuddle
Speaker 1: because she did nothing wrong. Well, she did nothing wrong.
Speaker 10: A mature nation, regardless of political views, should be able
Speaker 10: to discuss such issues in a respectful and intelligent way.
Speaker 10: The ABC's role and the work of our journalists, it's
Speaker 10: like Miss Tingle, is to help facilitate those debates on
Speaker 10: our platforms. Finally, Miss Tingle does not deserve the ferocity
Speaker 10: and frankly vicious attacks that we've seen this week.
Speaker 1: Okay, Michael later incident estimates, which has been happening tonight.
Speaker 1: It's a news court pile on all of that garbage, right,
Speaker 1: despite the fact that it's been covered by every media outlet.
Speaker 1: But whatever, Right, we know it's everything that's wrong with
Speaker 1: the institution. But again, it's another example about how the
Speaker 1: institutions of the left who are happy to criticize and
Speaker 1: tear apart anyone else to be the serious umpire and
Speaker 1: the comedic gestures about the people that they don't like
Speaker 1: at times. But if you dare push back on them, oh,
Speaker 1: it's not helpful to me. It's not helpful to the
Speaker 1: national debate. As my boss often says to me, if
Speaker 1: you lead with your chin, somebody is going to have
Speaker 1: a swing at it. Right, so she leads with her chin,
Speaker 1: the same thing is going to take place. So you
Speaker 1: either say bugging you or yep, fair cop. That's that's
Speaker 1: the two options. Not you know I'm the victim here.
Speaker 8: Well, firstly, mate, David Anderson, as we've said on this
Speaker 8: show before, he's he's just a number eleven batsman. He's
Speaker 8: a night watchman. He's gone in the couple of there's
Speaker 8: a couple down, it's five to six. You just send
Speaker 8: David in with a few lines. He never troubles a scorer.
Speaker 8: He bats everything, He bats everything away. He's nothing. David's
Speaker 8: not running that show. He's a cork in the ocean.
Speaker 1: David.
Speaker 8: David would go home to his family and say, listen,
Speaker 8: there's nothing I do at the ABC. I had to
Speaker 8: front up of the Senate thing today and I just
Speaker 8: battered them away with a few a few words. The
Speaker 8: staff for running the Aavy. So the happy years they
Speaker 8: have when I was on the board, I think what's
Speaker 8: happened here is this Laura has, for once and for all,
Speaker 8: for anyone who was an in doubt, proved herself to
Speaker 8: be a member of the left. She's her politics are
Speaker 8: probably between the left of the party in the Greens,
Speaker 8: and people look at her now on the seventh Thiry
Speaker 8: report and think, you're not impartial. You're just part of
Speaker 8: the hard left at the ABC. It's one of the
Speaker 8: reasons why no one you know who watches politics seriously
Speaker 8: thinks of the ABC as anything like impartial or independent.
Speaker 8: Of course, they've got their cheer squad, the Friends of
Speaker 8: the ABC, et cetera, and they coterie around them with
Speaker 8: the hard left that always want to defend the ABC.
Speaker 8: But the bottom line is mate, the ABC not impartial.
Speaker 8: Everybody knows that. It's one of the reasons their ratings
Speaker 8: have gone down successively, that disastrous Q and A program,
Speaker 8: ABC News and Current Affairs ABC Radio. It's all deteriorating
Speaker 8: because people don't trust the ABC's independence and impartiality. And
Speaker 8: Laura just proved that, and David Anderson proved just once
Speaker 8: again in the Senate whilst he's not up to the
Speaker 8: job of being managing director.
Speaker 1: Because I completely agree with what Peter Dunnin said today.
Speaker 1: I completely agree with that Michael just said about David Anderson.
Speaker 1: But if you need to win Teal seats back, don't
Speaker 1: tell voters listen to the ABC, and the Liberal Party
Speaker 1: has to be careful about how it goes after criticism
Speaker 1: of the high processes of the ABC. I just say
Speaker 1: that as if you are planning on getting anywhere in
Speaker 1: your seventy six seats. There are some that are watching
Speaker 1: the institutions that are as corrupted intellectually as that one.
Speaker 2: Well, that's true, and there's a debate. Paul and I
Speaker 2: often have this discussion.
Speaker 9: There's true schools of thought the Liberal Party.
Speaker 2: One is, let's forsake the till vote and will win
Speaker 2: seats in Western Sydney and we'll win Mike Ewan here
Speaker 2: in Melbourne, will win other out of metropolitan and regional
Speaker 2: seats that we don't already hold.
Speaker 9: There's another school of thought, the moderate.
Speaker 2: View, which is there's no path to government unless we
Speaker 2: win back the Teal seats, and that is the nexus
Speaker 2: of how far the coalition's discourse can go in attacking institutions,
Speaker 2: which wholeheartedly. If you've got journalists masquerading and spokespeople for
Speaker 2: their own views, everybody knows the caveat took places.
Speaker 9: These are my personal views.
Speaker 2: Likewise, if you want to transition out of being a
Speaker 2: journalist and out of adhering to the journalistic code of ethics,
Speaker 2: become a commentator and you're more than free to express
Speaker 2: your own views in that role.
Speaker 9: So there are a number of.
Speaker 2: Avenues here for the journalists in question.
Speaker 9: There's a number of avenues for the ABC.
Speaker 2: But of course, yes, you are entirely correct in your
Speaker 2: assessment that there is a deep faction in the coalition
Speaker 2: saying let's not go too hard, let's not be too aggressive,
Speaker 2: let's not speak aggressively it alienates women. And then there
Speaker 2: are others that say, let's go for Broke, will win
Speaker 2: Western Sydney. They all voted know for the voice who
Speaker 2: knows where the answer is somewhere in the middle.
Speaker 1: I think, yeah, I think Michael. The middle in all
Speaker 1: of this is that you should always appear in as
Speaker 1: many places as possible. Right. One of the reasons why
Speaker 1: politicians love FM radio is because that's compulsory vod Land, right.
Speaker 1: I love the people of the left who will engage
Speaker 1: with Sky News. It's important, as Bill Maher talks about
Speaker 1: in the United States about going on Fox News. Right. Conversely,
Speaker 1: it's important that people of the center right go on
Speaker 1: Radio National and go and Okay, they might be beaten
Speaker 1: up and all the rest of it, but you've got
Speaker 1: to say, I'm not here for the host, I'm here
Speaker 1: for the audience. Right. So I think I think that, Okay,
Speaker 1: Peter Duton should always continue to engage with the ABC,
Speaker 1: But if he wants to give them a little smack
Speaker 1: every now and then, we're saying, well, obviously you'll ask
Speaker 1: me that question. Well, well, we all know what your
Speaker 1: view is. If he says something like that, then that's okay.
Speaker 1: But I wouldn't be I wouldn't be in the band.
Speaker 1: Never go on, never take their calls, don't go on
Speaker 1: their air waves kind of camp.
Speaker 2: Well, I just add that's a Daniel Andrews trick here
Speaker 2: in Victoria. I doub does implement bands labor leaders important?
Speaker 1: How did that?
Speaker 8: How did that work? By the way, How did that work?
Speaker 8: By the way, not a great point, How did that work?
Speaker 1: By the way, we did win a few, yes, well left, yeah, but.
Speaker 8: Well Landers might have won a few more. The bottom
Speaker 8: line is, you're right, you shouldn't you shouldn't ignore or
Speaker 8: boycott any ABC program except Q and A. There's no
Speaker 8: point going on Q and A. Long story, but there's
Speaker 8: absolutely there's no point, right, there's no point. But but
Speaker 8: you know, Laura has damaged yourself. Why by the way,
Speaker 8: the ABC lets its presenters go to these far left
Speaker 8: what's the point? Right side gigs don't go to no more,
Speaker 8: no more, no more going to these hard left, these
Speaker 8: extreme left writers' festivals, which is just which is just
Speaker 8: sort of our old you know, Vietnam brigade, all dressed
Speaker 8: up with scarves and in their seventies and eighties, all
Speaker 8: howard hats, all the phil about as, all the people
Speaker 8: that used to buy Jim Knn's books. It's the same
Speaker 8: old mob that's been going to these hard left writers'
Speaker 8: festivals for decades. Time for the see people to stop
Speaker 8: attending them.
Speaker 9: It's a gray hair.
Speaker 1: Q and I, all right, quick break, let's taken take
Speaker 1: one and then we'll get back with who is the
Speaker 1: winner and loser of the week. We'll talk a little
Speaker 1: bit of the Trump trial we'll talk a whole bunch
Speaker 1: of other things. Just stand by. We're almost done for
Speaker 1: the week, but plenty more to debate between now and then.
Speaker 1: We'll get to a winner and loser of the week
Speaker 1: in a moment or two time. We're here with Nosook
Speaker 1: snow Left is the Way You Like It? On a Thursday,
Speaker 1: and another than Michael Kroger, and here of course with
Speaker 1: Christy McSweeney. Michael, what about this University of Sydney professor
Speaker 1: who says that the accounts of the sexual assault on
Speaker 1: October the seventh fake news? How is this person still
Speaker 1: in a classroom? And whose opportunity is it to say, Okay,
Speaker 1: that's it, You're gone, mate.
Speaker 8: I read that article tonight and I honestly couldn't believe it.
Speaker 1: It is.
Speaker 8: It is horrific, It's horrendous. It's disgusting that a lecturer
Speaker 8: at Sydney University can hold those views. What a profoundly
Speaker 8: ignorant individual she is. What a grotesquely ignorant person you know?
Speaker 8: As you know, mate, I've seen the video right of
Speaker 8: the forty seven minutes which are taken from cameras, right
Speaker 8: from dead her mass fighters, right, So it's the body
Speaker 8: camera of them going into these kibutzeem and you can
Speaker 8: see them shooting people.
Speaker 1: I can't.
Speaker 8: I don't want to describe what I've seen of what
Speaker 8: happened to the women and the girls there. It's so horrific.
Speaker 8: But I am disgusted by this woman. You are a
Speaker 8: disgrace to your university. And as I've said, mate, and
Speaker 8: as others have said, where is Mark Scott? Where is
Speaker 8: is it Belinda Hutchinson the chancellor of Sydney University and
Speaker 8: David thirty who's about to be chancellor? Where are you people?
Speaker 8: Where are you people? You know, in moments of great
Speaker 8: crisis you look for leadersh what we see at three people?
Speaker 8: You couldn't You couldn't, You can't see them for the dust?
Speaker 1: Mate?
Speaker 8: What hopeless leadership? And I suppose, finally, mate, the credibility
Speaker 8: of Sydney University is in tatters, not only the home
Speaker 8: of Jewish hate speech, of Jewish hatred, of these extremists
Speaker 8: running rampant, making the safe on campus for Jews. Now
Speaker 8: you've got these extreme lecturers and nothing so far from
Speaker 8: Sydney Versity. So on the world rankings of universities, you
Speaker 8: expect Sydney University to Plummet because it is not a
Speaker 8: place you would want to send any of your kids.
Speaker 11: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Again, the officer has got the story. It's up there
Speaker 1: right now. There's also versions of it. It's got news
Speaker 1: dot com dot au. Christy, no doubt you feel the same.
Speaker 1: So let me ask you about the Senate changes, which
Speaker 1: look like they're on their way. If they can punch
Speaker 1: this through by December, it helps give the government well
Speaker 1: the rules by which they will fight the next election,
Speaker 1: which is all of the money stuff relating to the
Speaker 1: Teals and that expenditure it's put off for this election.
Speaker 1: That goes one election into the future, and we increase
Speaker 1: the number of center left or hard left people in
Speaker 1: the Senate so that eventually, if there is ever not
Speaker 1: a Labor government, they will only ever be able to
Speaker 1: pay a past cent legislation.
Speaker 2: And of course this follows the pattern of almost gerrymandering
Speaker 2: the Upper House. Roger Cook has just done it in
Speaker 2: Western Australia too by almost eliminating the representational voting of
Speaker 2: regional electorates which are traditionally conservative. The Labor Party is
Speaker 2: now doing it in federal Parliament. I don't know, Paul,
Speaker 2: but it all smells like an election to me. Everyone's
Speaker 2: rallying their bases. I think we've got a second surplus
Speaker 2: and a mountain of debt that comes after. We're being
Speaker 2: very risk averse on every single issue that's presented itself.
Speaker 2: We're refusing to sack Andrew Giles, and here we are
Speaker 2: making sure that we can do our best continue on
Speaker 2: as the party of government in the Senate. If we
Speaker 2: get to close to a minority government, it's an installation
Speaker 2: policy for Labor as they look down the barrel of
Speaker 2: minority government or if not a loss, where they're going.
Speaker 2: But I think minority is more likely, and should that
Speaker 2: minority position.
Speaker 9: Continue, this is their way of helping themselves well.
Speaker 1: And I've certainly seen the Greens. And if the Greens
Speaker 1: are in charge upstairs and there are downstairs, then we
Speaker 1: know what the consequences of that's going to be. And
Speaker 1: you know, we can a bitch and mon when it happens,
Speaker 1: or you can tell your mates that it's going on
Speaker 1: right now. All right, Winners and Losers the Week Michael Krager,
Speaker 1: who gets the up or down from you.
Speaker 8: Losers of the Week to Ovius Ones, Tingle and Giles.
Speaker 8: So let's go someone a bit more sophisticated than that, you,
Speaker 8: siner Ad, because it's all her fault, as we now know,
Speaker 8: of the week, when of the week it has to
Speaker 8: be kea Starmer, mates, a Kia Starmer is just wandering
Speaker 8: along Piccadilly, walking there. He's probably up to the Ritz
Speaker 8: by now, he's probably bumped into here Grand on his
Speaker 8: way into the Ritz. He's just walking towards number ten
Speaker 8: Downing Street. No one's there to stop him. He's having
Speaker 8: a wonderful time and it'll be the easiest win the
Speaker 8: British Labor Party he's ever had. So he continues to
Speaker 8: be the winner of the week.
Speaker 1: In nice Sgarbo of the Ritz. By the way, now
Speaker 1: let's say, Christy, you're a winner and loser of the week.
Speaker 2: I'm going to start with a loser of the week.
Speaker 2: I'm going to get back on my hobby horse against
Speaker 2: the Andrews government. This is the story that deserves a
Speaker 2: front page and an absolute investigative expose.
Speaker 9: Eight was buried deep into the age.
Speaker 2: By a junior court reporter who has brought to light
Speaker 2: that in the Supreme Court of Victoria at the moment,
Speaker 2: Robbie Williams and his event organizer organizers her Robbie was
Speaker 2: supposed to play on the eve of the Grand Prix,
Speaker 2: which was very quickly and swiftly shut down, leaving organizers
Speaker 2: ticket holders in the lurch. They are sue them for
Speaker 2: millions and millions and millions. Now somebody with real money
Speaker 2: who isn't scared of the labor party in Victoria has
Speaker 2: taken them to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 9: And I'm going to be watching this.
Speaker 1: So closely, me too, my producers screaming in my years.
Speaker 1: So thank you very much to appreciate it. Have a
Speaker 1: great weekend everyone, Go Tigers, Go Yankee season