Speaker 1: From the Sky News Center. This is Paul Murray Live. Hey,
Speaker 1: good evening, wonderful to be here with you, Philly in
Speaker 1: for the great man Paul Murray. Here on Paul Murray Live.
Speaker 1: We've got a huge show coming up for you this
Speaker 1: Sunday night, midway through the King's Birthday long weekend. Watch
Speaker 1: those Dolda merits. I hope you're having a great time.
Speaker 1: I know I am. So let us have some fun
Speaker 1: with all our friends tonight, including Matt Canavan and Darren Barnett.
Speaker 1: Might be a little bit of fresh in there. And
Speaker 1: a little later actually after that, Toroy, we're gonna have
Speaker 1: Will Kingston. He's gonna pop into the party from London
Speaker 1: to talk about a lot of nutty stuff happening there.
Speaker 1: But first, you know what, I'm gonna get to the
Speaker 1: incredible scenes from the US in just a few minutes,
Speaker 1: you know, all those riots in Los Angeles, and also
Speaker 1: touch on the latest bizarre move by Tony Burke and
Speaker 1: the alban Ezy government, because there is a lot to
Speaker 1: say about both these storesries and what they say about
Speaker 1: the current state of the multicultural agenda and our social
Speaker 1: cohesion here in the West. And spoiler alert, it's not good,
Speaker 1: but you know what, let's deal with some local politics first. Now,
Speaker 1: just because it's a long weekend doesn't mean the business
Speaker 1: of government and opposition takes a break. And probably one
Speaker 1: of the busiest beavers in politics at the moment is
Speaker 1: none other than Senator James Patterson, the Victorian who's just
Speaker 1: picked up the shadow finance portfolio with the Susan Lay
Speaker 1: reshuffle and who is in a way sort of continuing
Speaker 1: the campaign's spokesman role he had during the election now
Speaker 1: going into the fray. This morning, there was Patterson mixing
Speaker 1: it up with David Spears over at the ABC. The
Speaker 1: big elephant in the room, of course, was the US
Speaker 1: and the potential meeting between Prime Minister Anthony Albanizi and
Speaker 1: US President Donald Trump. In the context of Australia's anemic
Speaker 1: defense spending, labors need to get a trade deal and
Speaker 1: the White Houses desire to get more access to our
Speaker 1: markets while just maybe also getting us to up our
Speaker 1: game a little bit when it comes to freedom of
Speaker 1: speech too. So here's a bit of Patterson talking trade
Speaker 1: deals with David Spears.
Speaker 2: The UK has done a deal with Donald Trump and
Speaker 2: that involves granting unprecedented access for American beef to the
Speaker 2: British market.
Speaker 3: Are you saying Australia should do that, No, I'm not
Speaker 3: saying that.
Speaker 2: David is essentially saying he should get the deal that
Speaker 2: Keys Starmer has got without doing what Kistarmer has done
Speaker 2: to get it.
Speaker 3: No, I'm not saying that, David.
Speaker 4: I'm just saying that Key Starmer proves that it is
Speaker 4: possible to get an exemption. It is not an impossible task.
Speaker 4: And what we ask and expect of the Prime Minister
Speaker 4: is that he put our best foot forward, that he
Speaker 4: make those arguments. I have to say, I think that
Speaker 4: would have been much easier if, like Kistarmer, the Prime
Speaker 4: Minister had made the effort to go and meet the
Speaker 4: president earlier than he has.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 4: It's seven months on since the president was elected, and
Speaker 4: other world leaders like Kiirstarmer and Emmanuel mccron have made
Speaker 4: the trip to the United States and I'd met with
Speaker 4: a president multiple times in multiple forums. The Australian Prime
Speaker 4: Minister has not yet done so.
Speaker 1: And you know what he's right about that the Prime
Speaker 1: Minister has not gone to Washington. He's only had a
Speaker 1: couple of phone calls that we know of I suspect
Speaker 1: he's a little bit nervous about the whole thing. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: here on Sky, Trade Minister Don Farrell would not be
Speaker 1: drawn on the question of whether or not Albo would
Speaker 1: even wind up getting that meeting with the President at
Speaker 1: next weekend's G seven sub meeting.
Speaker 5: We'll see what happens this time next next weekend.
Speaker 1: Who knows anyway. Farrell also said that he had met
Speaker 1: with US Trade Representative jameson Greer and that well, things
Speaker 1: went about as well could be expected.
Speaker 5: Look, he certainly made it clear that these are ultimately
Speaker 5: decisions that the President of the United States will make,
Speaker 5: but he Look, it was a friendly it was a
Speaker 5: friendly discussion. It wasn't a difficult discussion in terms of
Speaker 5: the relationship between US.
Speaker 1: Well, he would say that, wouldn't he. But there's still
Speaker 1: a few things that need to be worked out. One,
Speaker 1: of course, is the question of market access for American
Speaker 1: beef producers, which was flagged just a moment ago by
Speaker 1: Senator Patterson. Two, there's a much bigger issue of defense spending.
Speaker 1: Now we know the Trump administration wants us to go
Speaker 1: to three point five percent of GDP. The coalition, I
Speaker 1: think is saying three percent. And we know that this
Speaker 1: is a very big issue with Donald Trump, because if
Speaker 1: there is anything Trump cannot stand, it's a freeloader. And
Speaker 1: looking on Australia and our anemic defense as well, he
Speaker 1: might very well think that charge would stick. And then
Speaker 1: there's another issue though, and this issue doesn't I think
Speaker 1: get enough play here in Australia because maybe we don't
Speaker 1: think it's quite as important as they do in America.
Speaker 1: But let me tell you as an American, they do
Speaker 1: think it's important. And that's the issue of free speech.
Speaker 1: And I really am wondering now if anyone the Trump
Speaker 1: administration has heard about this next story I'm going to
Speaker 1: talk about, because I have a feeling that it is
Speaker 1: the sort of thing that could cause a few issues.
Speaker 1: It has to do with free speech and a lot more. Now,
Speaker 1: last night words started going around and this morning the
Speaker 1: Australian newspaper confirmed it that Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke
Speaker 1: had canceled the visa of this man, Israeli businessman, entrepreneur
Speaker 1: and influencer, Hillel Foold. He's also an American citizen as well.
Speaker 1: Now this is of course the same Home affair as
Speaker 1: minister who canceled this visa, who who also presided over
Speaker 1: bringing in nearly three thousand gozzins that no one I
Speaker 1: know asked for to be brought here, and who the
Speaker 1: government claims were ventted properly, although some people questioned that.
Speaker 1: And of course it's the same Home Affairs minister who
Speaker 1: also famously presided over all of those river these the
Speaker 1: big citizenship factories, I mean citizenship ceremonies in Western Sydney
Speaker 1: seats in the weeks before the last election, where newly
Speaker 1: minted Australians were practically handed labor how to vote cards
Speaker 1: along with their new citizenship certificates and piece of waterle
Speaker 1: But what's the deal with Hillel Fooled? Why wasn't he
Speaker 1: allowed if all these other things could happen. Well, he
Speaker 1: was apparently too much for Burke. His presidence in Australia
Speaker 1: was too much, or perhaps more accurately, it was too
Speaker 1: much for the Palestinian and Muslim pressure groups who organized
Speaker 1: letter writing and pressure campaigns to stop Fooled from being
Speaker 1: allowed to come to Australia. Now I'm sure at this
Speaker 1: point you're asking, well, what is this guy accused of doing?
Speaker 1: What does he said, what's his story? Why are people
Speaker 1: so scared of him? Why does Tony Burke intervening stop
Speaker 1: him from coming in the country. Well, what has he
Speaker 1: done that's gotten the activist into such an absolute flap? Well,
Speaker 1: according to the Australian Home Affairs officials concluded that mister
Speaker 1: Fold had a documented pattern, they said, of sharing provocative content,
Speaker 1: including broad attacks on the Palestine identity, denial of documented
Speaker 1: atrocities in Gaza. Enclaims that large segments of the Buzzim
Speaker 1: population support terrorism. Unquote, well, I don't know, denial of
Speaker 1: documented atrocities. Does that mean that if you don't accept
Speaker 1: the hamas mystery of health, wildly inflated death tolls, you
Speaker 1: were suddenly persona non grata in Australia. And in another
Speaker 1: update reported in the Australian newspaper tonight, now we also
Speaker 1: learned that the Albanza government is now facing pressure from
Speaker 1: Washington after US Ambassador Israel Mike Huckabee made a personal
Speaker 1: appeal to Minister Tony Burke to overturn the visa cancelation.
Speaker 1: That's big. Now, back to what Fuld had to say,
Speaker 1: I don't know about all Muslims, but we do certainly
Speaker 1: know what Gozins think. In the months after the October
Speaker 1: seven autrocities, one respected study found that three in four
Speaker 1: Gozzins supported the attacks. So for this and other reasons,
Speaker 1: Fuld had his visa polled. And now it's become an
Speaker 1: international incident with the Americans, just as we are about
Speaker 1: to go into these crucial trade talks, potentially Mano Almano
Speaker 1: with Albanesi and Donald Trump at the G seven. Great timing,
Speaker 1: Minister Burke, really well done. And of course this cancelation
Speaker 1: of little Foods visa follows two other Israelis, including a
Speaker 1: former government minister, having been barred with attending a conference
Speaker 1: in Australia, a conference that I actually attended at the
Speaker 1: end of last year. Now this is all very relevant,
Speaker 1: I think, not just to our own civil society, because
Speaker 1: the same government that allowed our capital cities to be
Speaker 1: filled with radical pro Palestinian demonstrators every week, with some
Speaker 1: of those people supporting terror groups like Hesblah, Well, this
Speaker 1: same government seems to have a real problem, a much
Speaker 1: bigger problem when it comes to Israelis coming to Australia
Speaker 1: to put their case, their side of the argument on
Speaker 1: our soil. I wonder why that is. And again I
Speaker 1: also wonder if the Trump White House, which has made
Speaker 1: such a big deal about European countries living up to
Speaker 1: the ideals of free speech, might also be casting an
Speaker 1: eye down under a wondering what's going on here where
Speaker 1: not only do we have an e Safety Commissioner and
Speaker 1: all sorts of other regimes, but now they don't even
Speaker 1: want to let this Israeli guy come in and again
Speaker 1: make his side of the Israeli case. Well, it's a
Speaker 1: good question because at the heart of this are questions
Speaker 1: about deeper questions about multiculturalism and whether this whole project
Speaker 1: is really working or whether they're in service of an
Speaker 1: idea that every politician pays lip service to but which
Speaker 1: no one ever actually had a vote on. We are
Speaker 1: now going to see ever more restrictions on our liberties
Speaker 1: in the idea of this wooly concept of social cohesion
Speaker 1: that was ultimately what Fold's cancelation was all about. Now
Speaker 1: New South Wales Premier Chris Mins let the cat out
Speaker 1: of the bag disgracefully, I think on this some months
Speaker 1: ago when he made this comment.
Speaker 6: So stride doesn't have the phrase bach lows that are
Speaker 6: in play in America, and for one very important reason,
Speaker 6: because we have developed a multicultural community where it doesn't
Speaker 6: matter what your faith or your religion is, you must
Speaker 6: leave side by side with your neighbor in peace.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, come again now, Look, I mean a multicultural,
Speaker 1: multi ethnic society is great, and in many ways we
Speaker 1: do it very well in Australia, better than an awful
Speaker 1: lot of countries. But at the same time, do you
Speaker 1: remember ever being asked whether you'd rather trade your right
Speaker 1: to free speech for multiculturalism a multi ethnic society. I
Speaker 1: don't because if we're not careful, well, let me show
Speaker 1: you where we're gonna end up. Have a look at
Speaker 1: this picture. It's really dramatic, really striking, kind of beautiful
Speaker 1: in some sort of way. It was taken in Los
Speaker 1: Angeles just a few hours ago, where protesters have been
Speaker 1: all day long squaring off against police and Homeland Security
Speaker 1: and ICE officials and the Trump administration's immigration raids seeking
Speaker 1: to deport illegal migrants back to their home countries in
Speaker 1: accordance with the law. The left doesn't like that very much.
Speaker 1: But what do you note about this picture here? Now,
Speaker 1: our friend, our amigo here is carrying a Mexican flag
Speaker 1: to protest the deportation of illegal aliens in the United
Speaker 1: States or from the United States. He's not carrying an
Speaker 1: American flag. He's not carrying the flag of the country
Speaker 1: whose promise and dream he wants to be a part of,
Speaker 1: who these migrants who are going to be deported want
Speaker 1: to be a part of. No, he's carrying the flag
Speaker 1: of the country that he is protesting against people, possibly
Speaker 1: including himself, being sent back to I don't think it
Speaker 1: makes a lot of logical sense to you. But there's
Speaker 1: something more wrong with this too, because what that really represents,
Speaker 1: I think is separatism. That's the end point of multiculturalism.
Speaker 1: You may be in America, but your identity is Mexican
Speaker 1: or Peruvian, or Japanese or Chinese or whatever, not American first.
Speaker 1: And it is the end result of years here of
Speaker 1: undermining American borders and the American ideal by the left end,
Speaker 1: particularly the Biden administration, which over four years imported millions
Speaker 1: of people from developing nations around the world. Personally, I
Speaker 1: believe to help them secure a long term, permanent advantage
Speaker 1: for the Democrat Party. Now other scenes have been even
Speaker 1: more dramatic in La and Donald Trump is now threatening
Speaker 1: to not only mobilize marines and the National Guard, but
Speaker 1: also he is talking about cutting federal funds from California.
Speaker 1: Let's have a look at some of these protests, which
Speaker 1: look far from spontaneous. Journalist Anthony Cabasa has been doing
Speaker 1: some wonderful work on the ground, and here he's captured
Speaker 1: footage of protesters who are emptying out buckets full of
Speaker 1: rocks and empty glass and beer bottles and putting some
Speaker 1: kind of liquid or gas into them. Gosh, God knows
Speaker 1: what's going on there. It doesn't look good and it
Speaker 1: also again doesn't look spontaneous. These are not organic protests,
Speaker 1: I don't think. Cabasa said he was not sure what
Speaker 1: the plan was for the bottles, but the rocks were
Speaker 1: used shortly after to be thrown at the police. And
Speaker 1: he also captured this extraordinary footage too, of rioters trying
Speaker 1: to burn down buildings in La Let's have just a
Speaker 1: little look. Yes, very nice there, and here's protesters firing
Speaker 1: large rocks at the cops. Again, well we know where
Speaker 1: this is going. Of course, eventually non lethal munitions were authorized.
Speaker 1: Here's a protester being carried away from the front Line. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: someone else captured this footage of demonstrators posing in front
Speaker 1: of a burning automobile holding again, Mexican flags. How's your
Speaker 1: melting pot going there, California. I mean, that doesn't look
Speaker 1: very much like a nicely integrated society to me. No,
Speaker 1: those are the sort of scenes that you know, it's
Speaker 1: pretty hard to avoid this word, but you know, it
Speaker 1: looks like the scenes from an invasion. And amazingly, the
Speaker 1: Los Angeles Police Department has issued a statement about today's
Speaker 1: and I'm not kidding. Yes, this is what they said
Speaker 1: in the thing peaceful protests. That's right, they did the
Speaker 1: CNN thing. Anyway, this is where it all leads what
Speaker 1: you're seeing in California. If a nation doesn't stand up
Speaker 1: for the idea of itself, you have loss of freedoms,
Speaker 1: well like we do here, and that leads to division, separatism,
Speaker 1: and of course these sorts of scenes fixing the problem,
Speaker 1: shutting off the illegal immigrations, bigot, and undoing the damage
Speaker 1: of the Biden administration. Now you can see this is
Speaker 1: clearly Donald Trump's number one domestic policy goals. He knows,
Speaker 1: he understands that this represents an existential crisis. Left unchecked
Speaker 1: for America and the Americans who voted him into office, Well,
Speaker 1: you know what they agree. Look at this. This was
Speaker 1: a poll that was taken just before last year's election.
Speaker 1: It found that eighty six percent of Republicans and fifty
Speaker 1: eight percent of independence said yes, mass deportations the sort
Speaker 1: of thing that these people are protesting against in California,
Speaker 1: these mass deportations. That's what we're here for, that's what
Speaker 1: we're voting for. That's what we want. And it's that
Speaker 1: majority of Democrats on the other side, seventy five percent
Speaker 1: of that we've disagreed with the idea, who now seem
Speaker 1: intent on stopping not only the deportations, but the democratic
Speaker 1: will of the people from being enacted. And as I
Speaker 1: have been warning on this program and others for months now,
Speaker 1: they are promising another return to the twenty twenty style
Speaker 1: Black Lives Matter, Summer of Love riots in response. And
Speaker 1: you know what I told you so, because it looks
Speaker 1: like it's already arrived. Hey. Now joining me now from
Speaker 1: the UK is Will Kingston, host of The Spectator Australia's
Speaker 1: Fire at Will podcast. Will great to have you here.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for joining me. Tonight here. I've
Speaker 1: just been speaking here about the social cohesion problems that
Speaker 1: we have in the US and in Australia and different
Speaker 1: sort of ways that's manifesting themselves. But I wanted to
Speaker 1: talk to you about this other story which I found
Speaker 1: really disturbing out of the UK, where Prevent, which is
Speaker 1: an anti terror government body, has decided now that people
Speaker 1: who are conservatively minded on the right and who believe
Speaker 1: things that are of the sort of thing that a
Speaker 1: lot of people who are watching the show probably thinks
Speaker 1: sounds perfectly sensible, like Western culture is under threat for
Speaker 1: mass migration and lack of integration, Well that people like
Speaker 1: this are somehow threats, bigger threats and should somehow be
Speaker 1: re educated. Will tell me about this and what's going
Speaker 1: on here in Britain, because didn't the Prime mister Kiir
Speaker 1: Starmra see something very similar to this the other day
Speaker 1: when he said the nation was becoming an island of strangers.
Speaker 7: Yes, he did, in one of the most cynical plays
Speaker 7: that I can recall from a politician, given that he's
Speaker 7: been an open borders multiculturalism advocate for his entire career. James,
Speaker 7: it is interesting and it gets me thinking about this
Speaker 7: have we reached the end of work conversation. I'm speaking
Speaker 7: to Andrew Doyle tomorrow. He's saying that we have reached
Speaker 7: the end of work. Pars Morgan's got a book out
Speaker 7: saying pretty much the same thing. My argument would be,
Speaker 7: I don't think we are because you look at potties
Speaker 7: like this, these sorts of quangos, these semi governmental organizations.
Speaker 7: Even if the politicians like kiss Darma start saying the
Speaker 7: bleeding obvious that multiculturalism has failed, in fact hasn't worked
Speaker 7: wherever it's been tried, and I include Australia in that
Speaker 7: you still have this layer of the bureaucracy in dark
Speaker 7: corners of Westminster or in Canberra that will conte he
Speaker 7: knew to push this sort of ideology often outside of
Speaker 7: the view of the politicians. And this is why I think,
Speaker 7: you know, particularly as we look to the future, we've
Speaker 7: got to start thinking about that sort of administrative layer
Speaker 7: that sits in Camera, that sits in the US, that
Speaker 7: sits in the UK, that will keep pushing this sort
Speaker 7: of divisive stuff because they're still committed to it, even
Speaker 7: if the politicians are now realizing, particularly in the UK,
Speaker 7: that this multicultural ideology is electrically toxic.
Speaker 1: Well, and you know it's really funny, Will, because this
Speaker 1: sort of thing, that sort of thinking manifests itself in
Speaker 1: so many ways. I mean, Sunday nights, we should have
Speaker 1: a little bit of lightheartedness here, at least Sunday night here.
Speaker 1: But there was a story that just shows how the
Speaker 1: sort of the rat of all of this sort of thing,
Speaker 1: this sort of thinking goes, and how deep it goes.
Speaker 1: It touches everything. You know, the Michelin Guides, the restaurant
Speaker 1: guide that gives you a stars star ratings, you know,
Speaker 1: and all the chefs want of everyone's going to the
Speaker 1: Michelin starts. Well, now they're being urged to decolonize and
Speaker 1: being told that they're racist. And I also thought this
Speaker 1: was pretty funny for you know, an organization that rates
Speaker 1: restaurants that generally costs like five hundred one thousand bucks
Speaker 1: ahead to go to they're being accused of being a leanist.
Speaker 1: I mean, tell me about this.
Speaker 7: Yeah, welcome to another edition of What's Racist This Week?
Speaker 7: And these is the stories they pop up every week. Now,
Speaker 7: you know, diets are racist, or punctuality is racist, or
Speaker 7: climate change is racist, And whenever these stories pop up,
Speaker 7: I do think, how can someone's psychology bring them to
Speaker 7: such a silly argument? And the best answer I can
Speaker 7: come to is for radical identity politics leftists, race and
Speaker 7: identity politics more generally is the only prism through which
Speaker 7: they see the world, so they naturally assume that other
Speaker 7: people must only see the world through that lens. It's
Speaker 7: an entire monocusal way of looking at things, and we
Speaker 7: don't live in a monocusal world. There is a completely
Speaker 7: obvious alternative explanation here, and that is the Michelin Guide
Speaker 7: doesn't operate in places like Africa or India, or in Australia,
Speaker 7: I might add, because those tourism boards haven't forked out
Speaker 7: the money in order for Michelin to establish themselves there.
Speaker 7: But the left doesn't see it that way. It has
Speaker 7: to be racism, it can't be an alternative. So whenever
Speaker 7: I have this conversation with one of these fruit loops,
Speaker 7: the first thing is you will just ask are there
Speaker 7: any other alternative explanations for why this is happening as
Speaker 7: opposed to racism? And look, they probably won't change their views,
Speaker 7: but at least you've tried to do everything you possibly
Speaker 7: can to try and get them to think in a
Speaker 7: more logical way.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, there's a great illargicality at the heart
Speaker 1: of this will because one of the words that the
Speaker 1: critics of the Michelin Guide use is that word decolonize,
Speaker 1: and we hear this word all the time, but of
Speaker 1: course it's got this sort of sinister sort of implication
Speaker 1: because it also kind of says that, well, people are
Speaker 1: connected to terrory is And you know, on the one hand,
Speaker 1: the left seems to want this sort of free movement
Speaker 1: of people, everybody, you know, all around the world, and
Speaker 1: at the same time they also believe that everybody has
Speaker 1: this kind of like patch of earth that is theirs,
Speaker 1: and nobody can cook like people do on that patch
Speaker 1: of earth, and nobody has a right to live there
Speaker 1: and settle there. And it seems to me that when
Speaker 1: you start talking about decolonization, whether it's Israel and you know,
Speaker 1: all of the horror, horrible violence has been done in
Speaker 1: the name of decolonizing you know, that part of the world,
Speaker 1: or just in something silly like a restaurant guide, there's
Speaker 1: a real fundamental problem because it doesn't make sense these
Speaker 1: two competing ideas.
Speaker 7: Well, James, if you're looking for logical, coherent leftist argument,
Speaker 7: I think you're probably right in an idea place now, yeah,
Speaker 7: and I think there is there is probably in fairness
Speaker 7: an argument that we need to just keep in mind
Speaker 7: here for places like the Telegraph, this is where I
Speaker 7: saw that story and other center right news organizations, which is,
Speaker 7: it isn't hard to find one looney academy meek in
Speaker 7: a university somewhere who's promoting this nonsense. And I think
Speaker 7: you can then actually start to give it more credence
Speaker 7: than it actually deserves. This is still not a mainstream
Speaker 7: view and despite the fact, and on what I think
Speaker 7: it probably speaks to more is the ideological corruption of
Speaker 7: our universities across the West.
Speaker 1: Exactly right. And I mean, I'm glad you mentioned the universities.
Speaker 1: We've seen Donald Trump taking on the university and I
Speaker 1: think he's had right to do so for that. But
Speaker 1: you know, just back to Britain. Let's stick on Britain,
Speaker 1: because that's where you are right now. I have been
Speaker 1: absolutely shocked that Britain, which was such the leader of
Speaker 1: the Enlightenment around free speech and ending the idea of
Speaker 1: blasphemy laws and ending that sort of interference in private conscience.
Speaker 1: They've prosecuted a man for burning a Kuran, which may
Speaker 1: be an ugly act, but they've prosecuted him in such
Speaker 1: a way that now people are saying, well, this is
Speaker 1: tantamount now to a an Islamic blasphemy law, because you're defaming,
Speaker 1: you're burning their holy book. Therefore that's blasphemous to them.
Speaker 1: So you're imposing a religious law on the British civil
Speaker 1: common law. Tell us about this because what I've read
Speaker 1: here seems very disturbing. Am I right to be disturbed? Will? Yeah?
Speaker 7: Of course you are, So this is blasphemy laws by
Speaker 7: the back door. I was shocked, actually to learn that
Speaker 7: blasphemy laws are only decriminalized in the United Kingdom in
Speaker 7: two thousand and eight. But that followed centuries and centuries
Speaker 7: of classical liberals making the argument that on balance, it's
Speaker 7: better for people to be allowed to do and say
Speaker 7: potentially distasteful things, because on balance, that is better than
Speaker 7: having a government tell you what you can and cannot say.
Speaker 7: The uncomfortable truth here, James, is that the share of
Speaker 7: the Islamic population in the United Kingdom has risen overwhelmingly
Speaker 7: in a very short space of time, and that trend
Speaker 7: is due to continue. And as a result of that,
Speaker 7: you have politicians on both sides of the political spectrum
Speaker 7: who are now abrogating the traditional principles of Western liberal democracies,
Speaker 7: number one of which is free speech in favor of
Speaker 7: appealing a Muslim vote. There are several politicians in the
Speaker 7: United Kingdom today who are at risk of losing their
Speaker 7: seats to Islamic candidates and as a result of that,
Speaker 7: that's why you're starting to see this sort of appeasement
Speaker 7: take place. It's incredibly disturbing. I personally don't think that
Speaker 7: Islam in aggregate is compatible with a Western liberal democracy,
Speaker 7: and you're seeing more and more examples of that in
Speaker 7: the United Kingdom today. And unfortunately, there aren't enough politicians
Speaker 7: who have either the intellect or the courage to be
Speaker 7: able to stand up and offer an alternative vision. And
Speaker 7: that vision is of Western liberal democracy, which the United Kingdom,
Speaker 7: I would argue, has done more than any other country
Speaker 7: to promote in recent times. This is a very very
Speaker 7: sad state of affairs.
Speaker 1: I know, when you think about mill and Lock and
Speaker 1: all of the philosophers who came through and granted us this,
Speaker 1: this great inheritance, and we're torturing it at a rate
Speaker 1: of Nazi. Well, before I let you go, a little
Speaker 1: funny things happening here in Australia. We are in the
Speaker 1: middle of the King's Birthday long week and I don't
Speaker 1: actually think it is the King's Birthday tomorrow, but we
Speaker 1: get this holiday. And I understand that you guys over
Speaker 1: in the UK don't what's happening here. Are we subjects
Speaker 1: here in Australia actually greater monarchists than the all in
Speaker 1: the UK.
Speaker 7: I actually didn't know that we didn't get the King's
Speaker 7: Birthday holiday in the UK. That's something which is a
Speaker 7: bit frustrating for me. But look, I think the monarchy
Speaker 7: is actually in pretty rude health in the United Kingdom
Speaker 7: at the moment. I think if you put Andrew, Meghan
Speaker 7: and Harry to one side, I think the monarchy is strong.
Speaker 7: I think that the one thing that I would say
Speaker 7: is is that they need to be cognizant, and particularly
Speaker 7: Charles needs to be cognizant of politicizing the role. And
Speaker 7: you are hearing a few murmurs that he's sort of,
Speaker 7: you know, woke, eco friendly ideology is maybe starting to
Speaker 7: infiltrate the way that he governs and the sentiment that
Speaker 7: he puts forth to the nation. Also out his way
Speaker 7: that he's appears to be sympathizing to Islamic members of
Speaker 7: the country in a way that he is not doing
Speaker 7: as the defender of the faith of the Christian population.
Speaker 7: So it'll be interesting to see what happens there. But
Speaker 7: on balance, I still think the monarch's relatively safe in
Speaker 7: the UK for now. Well, Charles the first situation at.
Speaker 1: Least that's good to hear, and the king is also,
Speaker 1: i would say, probably one of the best dress monarchs
Speaker 1: we've had in a very long time. Well, we're gonna
Speaker 1: have to leave it there, thanks so much. We'll enjoy
Speaker 1: our long weekend down here, and don't go away because
Speaker 1: after the break we've got Matt Canavan and Darren Barnett.
Speaker 1: We're gonna have a little bit of biff after the break. Hey, everybody,
Speaker 1: welcome back to the program. James Morrow sitting in here
Speaker 1: tonight for Paul Murray Live now. Thrilled to be joined
Speaker 1: here by our all star panel. On my right, ironically,
Speaker 1: if he should be on the left is former Labor
Speaker 1: Advisor Darren Barnett, and we've also got National Senator Matt Canneman. Gentlemen,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining me this evening here
Speaker 1: in the middle of this King's Birthday weekend. Now, I
Speaker 1: want to talk you know, a little bit serious stuff.
Speaker 1: I've got a lot of fun stuff to talk about,
Speaker 1: but you know, we do have to talk a bit
Speaker 1: about policy where things are going to wind up landing
Speaker 1: out of the whole election, which we were just talking
Speaker 1: about off here. One story that has been catching my
Speaker 1: eye here is this talk about tax reform, because we've
Speaker 1: heard an awful lot about what's going to happen with
Speaker 1: this super tax. Now James Patterson today, who I mentioned
Speaker 1: earlier in the program, he was also talking about tax
Speaker 1: reform and what might get the coalition to come to
Speaker 1: the table. Have a look at this.
Speaker 4: If the Albanezi government and the Treasurer Jim Chalmers were
Speaker 4: talking about genuine tax reform, holistic tax reform across the
Speaker 4: board that for example, reduced the collection of taxes in
Speaker 4: inefficient areas and collected that rev you in less distortionary ways,
Speaker 4: we'd be up for that conversation. We'd be happy to
Speaker 4: sit down and have that, but that's not what this is.
Speaker 1: Matt Canavan. I want to throw to you first on
Speaker 1: this one here. I mean, I think it's good to
Speaker 1: see that the Coalition is starting to get its act
Speaker 1: together in terms of policy. We won't have the discussion
Speaker 1: about where those policies were before the election just now,
Speaker 1: but you know, just to take this principle further, Matt,
Speaker 1: what are your thoughts on this idea that well, the
Speaker 1: Coalition can actually work with the government on tax reform
Speaker 1: if there's something positive to come out of it. Because
Speaker 1: we know they've been a lot of tax reviews and
Speaker 1: recommendations by the Head Review of the Productivity Commission over years,
Speaker 1: but we've never been able to get it. Is there
Speaker 1: a sense that maybe possibly you can get some tax
Speaker 1: reform eventually in this country? Again, well, I.
Speaker 8: Perhaps wouldn't be holding my breath just yet, James. It's
Speaker 8: been a long time since we've done really fundamental tax
Speaker 8: reform in this country. We have done it before, of course,
Speaker 8: and the GST was introduced in the nineteen nineties. That
Speaker 8: stood the test of time, and Tony Abbat did launch
Speaker 8: a tax white paper, but unfortunately that was ended early
Speaker 8: when Malcolm Turnbull became Prime Minister, and there hasn't really
Speaker 8: been a serious attempt it since. I suppose you could
Speaker 8: say that mining tax was an example, but that was
Speaker 8: a tax increase, and I would draw that distinction. I
Speaker 8: don't believe tax reform amounts to tax increases. That's what
Speaker 8: this supertax does. It's an increase in tax to people.
Speaker 8: Some people like to then co op the word reform
Speaker 8: to hide the fact that it's actually a tax increase.
Speaker 8: But what we'd be serious about looking at is a
Speaker 8: more efficient tax system, not a higher burden on the
Speaker 8: Australian people tax system. And if I could just float
Speaker 8: one idea that I've been paying on for some time,
Speaker 8: I do think our tax system should be made more
Speaker 8: family friendly. Too often we do focus on tax reform
Speaker 8: just about the economy and GDP and productivity and all
Speaker 8: those things are important, but the most important thing in
Speaker 8: your life or my life, and I think most people's
Speaker 8: lives are the children. And we don't have a tax
Speaker 8: system that really encourages people to spend more time with
Speaker 8: their children, especially in the way we punish single income
Speaker 8: families who want to look after especially young children in
Speaker 8: their in their early years, which is so important for
Speaker 8: their formation.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, Matt, I think you're talking about income
Speaker 1: splitting or something sort of along those lines, but something
Speaker 1: like that, something like that, Yeah, I mean, and a
Speaker 1: lot of countries do that. The United States, you can
Speaker 1: do that. And you know, Darren, let me throw this
Speaker 1: to you. You know, from the labor perspective, the thing
Speaker 1: that has found I've found really strange about this whole
Speaker 1: super tax debate, which keeps going on and on, is again,
Speaker 1: you know, there's a long labor history of tax reform
Speaker 1: making the system more efficient. Paul Keating was great at that.
Speaker 1: This tax seems to be, you know, as Matt says,
Speaker 1: just about raising more tax and more revenue. But also
Speaker 1: it's so small, it's so nugatory, and it to be
Speaker 1: sort of like the minerals resource red tax, I'm sure,
Speaker 1: which barely raised a thing before it was asked, why
Speaker 1: is it so important? Why does this become the die
Speaker 1: in the day, which issue, particularly for Jim Chalmers.
Speaker 9: I'm not sure that it was ever intended to be,
Speaker 9: and the evidence of that is that it wasn't a
Speaker 9: big issue in the election campaign. It's become a big
Speaker 9: issue now because there's not a lot else to talk about.
Speaker 1: But they tried to get this tax through in the
Speaker 1: last parliament and then there was a lot of conferency
Speaker 1: around it, and then they left it sort of to
Speaker 1: fall by the way side.
Speaker 9: But they didn't take it off the table. And I'm
Speaker 9: really surprised, genuinely surprised. This was not something that the
Speaker 9: Coalition campaigned on heavily during the election campaign. They got
Speaker 9: stuck on other things. This should have been This is
Speaker 9: a debate that we should have been having during the
Speaker 9: five weeks before people voted, not now, and I'm really
Speaker 9: surprised that we didn't.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, Matt, what do you say to that?
Speaker 1: I mean, why didn't there Why wasn't there more talk
Speaker 1: about this during the campaign?
Speaker 8: What's a bit like now, isn't it. I think Garen's
Speaker 8: advice is is going, but I can't do much with it.
Speaker 8: It's done now, so I think. Look, I think what
Speaker 8: happened was Darren did mention. It was put forward in
Speaker 8: the last parliament and it was fairly resoundingly dismissed by
Speaker 8: the cross bench, the Senate cross bench. I don't think
Speaker 8: any of the cross benches ended up supporting it. For
Speaker 8: a memory, the Grand the Greens had a tougher plan
Speaker 8: that they did, so they didn't support the govern either.
Speaker 8: And I think because it got defeated so resoundingly, it
Speaker 8: sort of went off the agenda like this is not
Speaker 8: going to happen. Potentially, no one perhaps was forecasting that
Speaker 8: the Senate would change so much as it has at
Speaker 8: the election, given our lackluster result, the coalition's lackluster results.
Speaker 8: So now that the government has the numbers with the Greens,
Speaker 8: as I said, which was not an expected outcome, the
Speaker 8: threats of this super tax has grown since the election.
Speaker 8: I think that explains why it's come back into the
Speaker 8: debate so strongly.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I think that's right. I also just think
Speaker 1: there's a general principle in there the people who are
Speaker 1: just generally scared about because once you do this, god
Speaker 1: knows what comes next. Hey matter, I'm not all right, fear.
Speaker 9: We know you Look at the twenty nineteen campaign, the
Speaker 9: attacking franking credit changes that Bill Shorten was proposing. It's
Speaker 9: a very successful way to campaign and in negative campaigns work.
Speaker 9: Whether we think that's a.
Speaker 1: Good well, I mean, Labor certainly was no stranger to
Speaker 1: the negative campaign of course this time around.
Speaker 9: But it just didn't the negative campaign that we saw
Speaker 9: in the five weeks leading up to the election. It
Speaker 9: just was the wrong kind of It just didn't quite work.
Speaker 1: But I do agree with what right.
Speaker 9: I don't agree with what Matt says about the lineup
Speaker 9: of the Senate. No one was anticipating. There's two avenues
Speaker 9: now it's the Coalition for some things, Greens for other things,
Speaker 9: the cross Bench itself. They're going to struggle for relevance
Speaker 9: I think in the next three years, which we will
Speaker 9: say what that means in the long way.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that's an interesting I think that's an
Speaker 1: interesting point. And MATTER want to stick with you too,
Speaker 1: because you were talking about numbers. There's another number here
Speaker 1: which is oddly very important. Twenty six and twenty six
Speaker 1: is the number of votes that are left in it
Speaker 1: between Giselle cap Terran, who was hoping to get back
Speaker 1: that get that liberal seat of Bradfield, and Nicolette b Well,
Speaker 1: the Teal candidate. Now there is now talk about legal options.
Speaker 1: There's now talk about going to the Court of Disputed
Speaker 1: Returns here, Matt Canevan, I mean I know that this
Speaker 1: is being discussed behind the scenes within the coalition. But
Speaker 1: what can you tell us where is this going to land?
Speaker 1: Is this seat now gone or will the coalition? Do
Speaker 1: you think the Liberals will or should try and take
Speaker 1: this further or perhaps E would have I don't know
Speaker 1: a redo with the election.
Speaker 8: Look, it will come down to the specifics of the
Speaker 8: ballots that we're in dispute, which I don't have that information.
Speaker 8: There is a precedent for a challenger in the circumstances
Speaker 8: the Labor Party challenge the Liberal Parties win in McEwen
Speaker 8: in two thousand and seven. The Liberal Party had won
Speaker 8: that seat by thirty one votes, so a little bit
Speaker 8: a little bit more, not much more, but a little
Speaker 8: bit more than this margin says a prison for that challenger.
Speaker 8: Although unfortunately for the Liberal Party thinking of challenging this,
Speaker 8: the Labor Party lost that challenge when the court looked
Speaker 8: at all the ballots and actually the margin grew during
Speaker 8: the case.
Speaker 3: So look, it does show though that the court.
Speaker 8: Will look at the disputes and will potentially rein interrogate.
Speaker 8: Like in any scrutineering process, is always going to be
Speaker 8: a set of ballots where there's a dispute about whether
Speaker 8: that's formal or not, whether the voter has clearly given
Speaker 8: their intention to vote consistent with the law. So so look,
Speaker 8: it will come down on whether there's enough of those
Speaker 8: ballots in dispute to overturn that margin of victory or
Speaker 8: defeat in the case of the Liberals. But as I said,
Speaker 8: there's a prison there for it. I've just got to
Speaker 8: look at whether they think they're going to win or not.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, just plea a little bit. What Tim Wilson,
Speaker 1: who did take his own seat of Goldstein back from
Speaker 1: the tills, how quickly would he had say.
Speaker 10: Today it's a quite unusual thing to occur, had a
Speaker 10: account and then a partial recount in Goldstein and had
Speaker 10: delivered the same ultimate results, slightly different numbers, but the
Speaker 10: same ultimate result. So I think they're studying it very closely,
Speaker 10: and really it's a decision for her because it's a
Speaker 10: big decision obviously, not just to go through that process
Speaker 10: in a legal context, but then depending on what the
Speaker 10: court decides, potentially also a by election as well.
Speaker 1: Darren Barnett, your thoughts.
Speaker 9: My understanding is that there were a lot of a
Speaker 9: lot of the moderate part of the Liberal Party in
Speaker 9: New South Wales they really focused on that seat. That
Speaker 9: was their kind of their line in the sand. And
Speaker 9: immediately after the election there were a lot of scrutiniers'
Speaker 9: experienced scrutinies on the liberal side, not so much on
Speaker 9: the Teal side. And so it wasn't that surprising that
Speaker 9: the result turned because I think quite a few ballots
Speaker 9: that were ruled out of order when the Teals had
Speaker 9: better scrutinieres the second time around, and when there was.
Speaker 1: A more it shifted back the other way back.
Speaker 9: That's my understanding on why that's occur.
Speaker 1: It's fascinating to me because you know so much about
Speaker 1: this these elections. When they come down to it, it
Speaker 1: really is people looking at the pieces of paper and
Speaker 1: if you remember the year two thousand, the hanging chads
Speaker 1: in Florida.
Speaker 9: Or it's yeahs bits of piper and is.
Speaker 1: That a one? Is that a two? Who knows you
Speaker 1: well out of the let's take a little break here,
Speaker 1: We're going to be back after the break. I want
Speaker 1: to talk about do South Wales the Tomago aluminum smelter
Speaker 1: and what net zero is going to do to our
Speaker 1: economy with Matt Canavan Darren Barnett. After the break stick around. Hey,
Speaker 1: welcome back to the program. James Borrow here sitting in
Speaker 1: for Paul Murray Live. Now let's get into a story. Matt.
Speaker 1: We've been keeping it around because I want to talk
Speaker 1: about this story with you all day. In factors as
Speaker 1: I read about it, the Tomago aluminum smelter aluminium. Sorry,
Speaker 1: that's my American accent getting me again. Apparently there is
Speaker 1: now a huge issue and who didn't see this com Well,
Speaker 1: they are now in talks with the owners, are now
Speaker 1: and talks with federal and state governments about a multi
Speaker 1: billion that's billion with a b dollar bailout to keep
Speaker 1: the operation going. The AFR has talked to people said
Speaker 1: that they're apparently they're looking to get the smelters lubmit contract,
Speaker 1: the electricity contract from twenty six to twenty nine sorted
Speaker 1: out with big subsidies to keep it going. Of course,
Speaker 1: smelting aluminium is a hugely expensive process when it comes
Speaker 1: to the electricity and power and reliable power that you need,
Speaker 1: Matt Canavan, this takes up ten percent of the New
Speaker 1: South Wales grid. Keeping this going, you can't stop it
Speaker 1: otherwise the whole thing seizes up and it's a disaster.
Speaker 1: This is just another casualty, and in fact, the taxpayer's
Speaker 1: pocketbook is going to be another casualty of this push
Speaker 1: to net zero, isn't it.
Speaker 8: Well, yes it is, James, and it's also exhibit A
Speaker 8: for why the government's renewables on energy approach is not
Speaker 8: going to work. I mean, we will, promised by Rio Tinto,
Speaker 8: who's the majority owner there are the Tomogo aluminium smelter.
Speaker 8: They promised us, as did the government, that by investing
Speaker 8: in renewables, that's what I wanted to do. Investing in
Speaker 8: renewable energy to replace the coal fired power that has
Speaker 8: powered successfully the Tomogo oliminum smelter for decades would be cheaper.
Speaker 8: It would be cheaper, it'd be better, and it would
Speaker 8: continue to run and make sure that the thousands of
Speaker 8: jobs that rely on that smelter continuing would would have
Speaker 8: a future life.
Speaker 3: Well, now we've got to this point.
Speaker 8: Rio Tinto has been spending the last few years running
Speaker 8: tenders to try and get this mythical green energy online.
Speaker 8: They've obviously been unsuccessful, and it's now going to be
Speaker 8: up apparently to all of your viewers, your hard working
Speaker 8: viewers and their taxes to bail out one of the
Speaker 8: biggest companies in the world, Rio Tinto, to the tune
Speaker 8: of a billion dollars. I mean, has there ever been
Speaker 8: a bigger fiasco, a bigger policy fiasco in this country
Speaker 8: than net zero and the ridiculous pursuit of renewable energy.
Speaker 8: It is costing this country a fortune. We are losing
Speaker 8: our industry, we're losing our wealth, We're losing our birthright
Speaker 8: to have low power prices in the country with the
Speaker 8: most energy resources per person anywhere in the world, all
Speaker 8: thanks to this ridiculous insanity. So why aren't we just
Speaker 8: instead of paying Rio Tinto, of all companies, remember the
Speaker 8: Labor Party one of the tax Rea Tinto back in
Speaker 8: the day. Now they want to give them potentially a
Speaker 8: billion dollars. Instead of giving them a billion dollars, why
Speaker 8: don't we just build a qualified POWERstation and they can
Speaker 8: continue to run Tomago Eluminium snotet like they used to,
Speaker 8: and pay us money for the privilege of doing it,
Speaker 8: and keep employing those high paying jobs and pay taxes
Speaker 8: to fund their public services. That seems like a whole
Speaker 8: lot more sense than this money go round where we
Speaker 8: tax hard working people to subsidize industries that previously could
Speaker 8: stand on their own at two feet.
Speaker 1: Well, Darren Barnette, that makes an awful lot of good
Speaker 1: points there, But I want to pick up on one
Speaker 1: of them, which is, you know, why not actually call
Speaker 1: We dig Call out of the ground. We sell it
Speaker 1: to China, We sell it to China in greater amounts,
Speaker 1: we sell it to Indonesia, we sell it around the world.
Speaker 1: If it's good enough for these other countries, why can't
Speaker 1: we use it here?
Speaker 9: I think we should have. And this is the first
Speaker 9: time that I've dealt with Matt Canavan was about the
Speaker 9: pr RT in about twenty fifteen that led to the
Speaker 9: Callahan Review that was done by Scott Morwson. But I
Speaker 9: think we get that side of the equation wrong as well.
Speaker 9: I really don't understand why Labor hasn't made some alterations
Speaker 9: to the p RRT to better capture taxation revenue from
Speaker 9: the l sector. But to answer your question, I think
Speaker 9: politically labor must find a way, and I don't know
Speaker 9: what we find a way. If they've backed in future
Speaker 9: made in Australia, if they want these seats in the Hunter,
Speaker 9: the Illawara, they don't hold Gladston. But you know they
Speaker 9: have that very at the certainly too as at seven
Speaker 9: they held Flynn. Labour needs to find a way to
Speaker 9: deliver on its future made in Australia and keeping those
Speaker 9: smelters open. We only have four of them left. Keeping
Speaker 9: those smelters open and the unionized jobs is a mixture
Speaker 9: of AWU and AMWU. There is big incitive for labor
Speaker 9: to deliver for those communities and deliver on their promises.
Speaker 9: So we have to wait and see what they're going
Speaker 9: to come up.
Speaker 1: Well, I would add the missing piece that I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: Matty you want I've just said, matt though, just before
Speaker 1: you go.
Speaker 3: That's so great, but let's just do it.
Speaker 8: Let's just build a coali If those jobs are so important,
Speaker 8: If those are I agree with you, they're good.
Speaker 3: Can't paying at union jobs in those smelters.
Speaker 8: And if you care about workers and you care about
Speaker 8: the trade unions in this country, white, an't you allow
Speaker 8: us to use our own coal instead of those same
Speaker 8: ed Gladston there and in the Hunters two tom agoes
Speaker 8: not too far from the port, those workers can see
Speaker 8: the Australian coal getting shipped out overseas to power their
Speaker 8: aluminium smelters in China. What an insult to those workers
Speaker 8: that their jobs are getting it literally shipped off offshore
Speaker 8: at the moment through this ridiculous policy where we empower
Speaker 8: our economic competitors with our own energy resources and deny
Speaker 8: energy resources to ourselves.
Speaker 3: And it makes absolutely no sense.
Speaker 8: Is impoverishing this country and we need to end at zero.
Speaker 1: And not only that, I would just add before we
Speaker 1: wan to the next topic here that this also is
Speaker 1: a national security issue. If we cannot make things, if
Speaker 1: we cannot make steel, if we cannot make the base
Speaker 1: products aluminium of an industrial society, that we are very
Speaker 1: very weak in a very competitive and dangerous world. Hey,
Speaker 1: just before we move on, I wanted to talk about,
Speaker 1: you know, another story here though which I don't even
Speaker 1: know what to make of this. Greta Tundberg has switched
Speaker 1: herself from environmentalists out there protesting all of mat Canavan's
Speaker 1: coal plants to protesting, obviously for the Palestinian cause. She's
Speaker 1: now on a sixty foot yacht apparently bound for Gaza. Now,
Speaker 1: Israel is kind of in a bit of a diliver here.
Speaker 1: They don't know what to do, They don't want to Land.
Speaker 1: But if they start for it's going to be just
Speaker 1: a huge international, is it. Matt? What do you make
Speaker 1: of Greta Tunberg's switch from green to green, white, red
Speaker 1: and black?
Speaker 8: Look, James, which you've got to understand about the activist
Speaker 8: movement is it's a business. Well, the professionals in the game,
Speaker 8: and I would probably class Greta as one of those.
Speaker 3: The professionals.
Speaker 8: They don't particularly care about the individual environmental or other
Speaker 8: political issue they're campaigning on. What they do is they
Speaker 8: pick issues which are topical, which generate heat and more
Speaker 8: importantly for themselves, which make sure people contribute donations to
Speaker 8: their business. And you see it time and time again
Speaker 8: with the green and as you said, green, white and black, green,
Speaker 8: was it black and red movement where they'll just pick
Speaker 8: a new topic as soon as one topic dies, in
Speaker 8: this case, climate Chang's gone off. Their general big gone off,
Speaker 8: the boil bang, they move onto another one.
Speaker 1: We gotta move on, Darren, Yes or no? Should Israel
Speaker 1: letter Land? Yes or no? Question? No, absolutely not. Okay,
Speaker 1: we got to go to a break here. I'm back
Speaker 1: in a moment. Thank you so much, Matt Canavan and
Speaker 1: Darren Barnett stick around more Paul Murray Live after the break.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to the program. James Borrow here sitting in
Speaker 1: for Paul Murray Live, and a reminder the great Man
Speaker 1: is back here in the man Cave tomorrow night, so
Speaker 1: you're not going to want to miss him. But before
Speaker 1: I go, I wanted to talk to you a little
Speaker 1: bit about Elon Musk, who's of course massive meltdown and
Speaker 1: tantrum this week made headlines around the world, but I
Speaker 1: think people are missing some of the deeper meaning of
Speaker 1: this because, of course Elon Musk has his own tech
Speaker 1: bro libertarian philosophy that is at odds with Donald Trump's
Speaker 1: bag of nationalism. And this piece of news has just
Speaker 1: crossed my desk, which I think is very interesting and
Speaker 1: goes a little bit to this point, as well as
Speaker 1: Frank also being absolutely hilarious. Yes, listen to this. It
Speaker 1: seems that Elon Musk, who was until five seconds ago
Speaker 1: considered a z Hiling fascist by the left, which was
Speaker 1: making all sorts of excuses for their demonstrators and activists
Speaker 1: to go out and torch cars and key cars and
Speaker 1: burn down his dealerships, well it looks like now suddenly
Speaker 1: because he's had this huge fight with Donald Trump, some
Speaker 1: of the left now to think, hey, hey, hey, hey,
Speaker 1: why do we turn it around and make Elon into
Speaker 1: a Democrat? Now I love this Here, California Democrat Congressman
Speaker 1: Roe Quhana is on the case, saying of Musk, we
Speaker 1: should ultimately be trying to convince him that the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party has more of the values that he agrees with,
Speaker 1: a commitment to science funding, a commit i've been too
Speaker 1: clean technology, a commitment to seeing international students like him.
Speaker 1: Oh bless Look, this is absolutely hilarious because Democrats like
Speaker 1: Alexandria O Casio Cortes have for the last year been
Speaker 1: doing things like calling Elon a Nazi ever since he
Speaker 1: teamed up with Donald Trump. Now, frankly, I don't think
Speaker 1: he will flip Democrat, But if Elon Musk does, this
Speaker 1: is going to be the fastest denotification program we've seen
Speaker 1: since Operation paper Clip, which, ironically, if you're familiar with that,
Speaker 1: also involved rocket scientists. Now stick around, Paul's going to
Speaker 1: be back tomorrow. But now it's over to Caroline Russo
Speaker 1: and the Royal Report by I