Speaker 1: Lately, Zan gentle manner, welcome to the Late de Bay. Yes, indeed,
Speaker 1: good evening and welcome to the late Debate. Nice to
Speaker 1: have your company. Thank you for joining us. I'm Kel
Speaker 1: Richards with me on the desk, Sky News contributor Evelyn
Speaker 1: Ray and Will Kingston of the Fire at Will website.
Speaker 1: Nice to have you a company and a lot of
Speaker 1: interesting things for us to talk about tonight. For example,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump keeps talking about tariff's but if there is
Speaker 1: a tariff war, will Australia be hit by the crossfire?
Speaker 1: And what about those ugly anti semitism remarks? Do we
Speaker 1: need to do something like surrender a bit of free
Speaker 1: speech to get rid of those those in a moment?
Speaker 1: But firstly, our future is in the hands of young people,
Speaker 1: young Australians. What will they do with it? Will they
Speaker 1: drag us in a sort of green hard left direction
Speaker 1: or will they do something else? Well, there are some
Speaker 1: figures which are just out now suggesting that young voters
Speaker 1: in fact are not as left, not as green voting
Speaker 1: as they once were. Take a look at this pie
Speaker 1: chart which shows how voters in US aged en to
Speaker 1: thirty four are likely to vote now at the moment
Speaker 1: is showing that Greens getting twenty three percent of their
Speaker 1: vote if you just look down three points, but they
Speaker 1: used to have twenty seven percent of their vote. The
Speaker 1: Greens are slowly losing that young vote. Now that young
Speaker 1: voter is divided at the moment pretty much equally two
Speaker 1: percent going to Labor and two percent of the Coalition.
Speaker 1: But the fact that the Greens are losing that vote
Speaker 1: is quite possibly significant. Will you come used for most
Speaker 1: of the year in London. Is there any sign of
Speaker 1: a movement in the younger generation to change where they
Speaker 1: stand politically?
Speaker 2: Yes, there is, And I think that's interesting you picked
Speaker 2: up on that because it is a global trend. You
Speaker 2: see Nigel Faraj having millions of followers on TikTok, you
Speaker 2: see Trump gaining a huge amount of support with the
Speaker 2: young vote in the last selection in the US. And
Speaker 2: the reason is because the left have become the joyless
Speaker 2: authoritarians in our modern age and the right are suddenly
Speaker 2: countercultural thereby in compari Grrison the cool ones. My question
Speaker 2: for us is are there those types of Farage or
Speaker 2: Trumpian figures in Australia who can actually bring the cool
Speaker 2: factor to the right on the liberal and conservative side
Speaker 2: of politics.
Speaker 1: Do we need figures like that? I mean, Farage actually
Speaker 1: got forty sorry, Trump got forty six percent of the
Speaker 1: youth vote in America, which is not a big figure.
Speaker 1: Now do we need a charismatic figure like that? Or
Speaker 1: will young people just say not happy with the left?
Speaker 1: This is where I'm going.
Speaker 2: That's a good question. I don't think it would hurt,
Speaker 2: would be the thing that I would say. And yeah,
Speaker 2: I don't think it would hurt at all. What would
Speaker 2: you say of them?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I definitely think that regardless of who's sort of
Speaker 3: at the forefront or the face of more right wing politics,
Speaker 3: I still think regardless of that that the young voters
Speaker 3: are going to start voting more right. The pendulum has
Speaker 3: swung politically.
Speaker 2: But I do.
Speaker 3: Think that having somebody that is charismatic, some with the
Speaker 3: essence of Trump or Farage, somebody that can kind of
Speaker 3: pull big crowds, will definitely get that happening a lot
Speaker 3: quicker than if it was say somebody that we've all
Speaker 3: seen for decades before in Australian politics like Dutton. I
Speaker 3: think Dutton will serve a purpose. I think that he's
Speaker 3: definitely probably the best we have so far. But I
Speaker 3: think moving forward long term, I definitely think that we
Speaker 3: need somebody who's going to appeal to the younger crowds.
Speaker 1: Twenty twenty five, we've got either Dutton or Albanesi. That's right,
Speaker 1: that's really quick true. Peter Dutton, ex policeman. Is he
Speaker 1: down to worth enough? Is he realistic enough for young
Speaker 1: people to vote for? Look?
Speaker 3: I think he definitely is somebody a politician who cuts
Speaker 3: the fat straight off the meat, and I think young
Speaker 3: people like that. I think that young people like that
Speaker 3: he's not afraid to give it to the mainstream media
Speaker 3: like you've seen him in interviews. But to be honest, yeah,
Speaker 3: I think that there is still a gap between politicians
Speaker 3: and young graz you're laughing then at you.
Speaker 2: It's TikTok test evil and can we really see a
Speaker 2: little you know, Donald Trump's style dance from Peter Dunton,
Speaker 2: Peter Dutton and who.
Speaker 3: Did that awkward hug on TV the other day that, yeah.
Speaker 1: It's not quite the Trump dance actually became a craze
Speaker 1: it did.
Speaker 2: This is important. This matters in modern politics, in the
Speaker 2: age where people don't watch long debates as much as
Speaker 2: they watch short little bite sized segments. Those things matter.
Speaker 2: But the other thing I would say is is this
Speaker 2: actually time for the left to have a good long
Speaker 2: look in the mirror and actually wonder why they're losing
Speaker 2: support amongst cause.
Speaker 3: To be honest, I think the left do what the
Speaker 3: left do, and the right do what the right do.
Speaker 1: The problem is partly that as far as the left
Speaker 1: just con as far as the right is concerned, the
Speaker 1: left is wrong, They're just mistaken. But as far as
Speaker 1: the left is concerned, the right is evil. You know,
Speaker 1: they are morally superior. It's very hard for them to
Speaker 1: back down from a position like that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't think that's always been the case, though.
Speaker 2: I think that's an inversion in the last twenty years,
Speaker 2: which is accelerated in the last ten and it's now
Speaker 2: unfortunately so ingrained to cross all the institutions that you
Speaker 2: see young people going. We are traditionally anti authoritarian, we're
Speaker 2: traditionally countercultural, and that is now the place of the right.
Speaker 2: One of my favorite quotes comes from Nick Kay, a
Speaker 2: great Australian artist, and he was asked how do you
Speaker 2: be countercultural? In twenty twenty three When he was asked
Speaker 2: and he said, you be a conservative, You go to churches,
Speaker 2: you praise God, you have a family, you do all
Speaker 2: the things that used to be boring and lame, and
Speaker 2: now that's the thing that makes you countercultural in twenty.
Speaker 1: Twenty three, or with the drawing power of those things,
Speaker 1: or is it that the young people are turning away
Speaker 1: from something they no longer like this? There's a famous
Speaker 1: saying it's been around in politics for decades of governments
Speaker 1: oppositions to win elections, governments lose them. So is it
Speaker 1: the case of what we've got is an opposition a
Speaker 1: government that is so unattractive it's losing people, rather than
Speaker 1: having a charismatic opposition that's winning them.
Speaker 3: I think it's I think it's bigger than politicians and government.
Speaker 3: I think it's in terms of it what the government.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I do.
Speaker 3: I really believe that progressivism has absolutely you know, killed
Speaker 3: the left, the moderate left, the centrists. And I think
Speaker 3: because progressivism has been shoved so down people's throats, this
Speaker 3: is an inevitable result. People are going to rebel against that.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 3: I think one of the greatest things that I saw
Speaker 3: come out of COVID was what it did to the
Speaker 3: young kids and I remember seeing a scene in Victoria
Speaker 3: where there was a skate park that was cordoned off
Speaker 3: by crime scene tape, and you saw these young kids
Speaker 3: out there ripping it down and fanging around with their skateboards,
Speaker 3: and I remember thinking, yes, there is hope for the
Speaker 3: future because it is tyrannical governments and arbitrary laws that
Speaker 3: young kids are even smart enough to recognize five year
Speaker 3: olds can go that doesn't make logical sense. And that's
Speaker 3: exactly what happened. And you will radicalize a group of
Speaker 3: people when you cut off information to them and you
Speaker 3: say you can't do ABC or D and it makes
Speaker 3: no sense.
Speaker 1: And that's what the young voters are going to do.
Speaker 1: But the good news is we older voters, in fact,
Speaker 1: are a vast majority of the public, and we are
Speaker 1: swinging towards the Coalition in much larger numbers according to
Speaker 1: the most recent surveys. There are still things, however, in
Speaker 1: our society that worries, and one of them is ugly
Speaker 1: anti Semitism. There's an academic at Macquarie University, Runda Abdulphatar,
Speaker 1: and she has posted that for this coming year, for
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five, she wants it to be the year
Speaker 1: which is the end of Israel as a nation and
Speaker 1: the end of what she calls the death cult of Zionism.
Speaker 1: May twenty twenty five be the end of Israel, she
Speaker 1: wrote on Instagram. May be the end of the US
Speaker 1: Israeli imperial scourge on humanity. May we see the abolition
Speaker 1: of the death cult of Zionism and the end of
Speaker 1: US Empire and finally a world where the slaughter, annihilation,
Speaker 1: and torture of Palestinians is no longer daily routine. And
Speaker 1: to achieve this is to snowball collective liberation, because the
Speaker 1: tedacles of Western imperialism oppressed and dehumanize as all. Now,
Speaker 1: you know, there is a degree of delusion about what
Speaker 1: is actually going on there, but she clearly that is
Speaker 1: a very ugly sort of anti Semitism. And we've seen
Speaker 1: so much of this will what is driving it.
Speaker 2: Two things. Number one, it is the world's oldest prejudice
Speaker 2: that has taken on a new form. And the second
Speaker 2: is that, unfortunately the modern left now just has this
Speaker 2: very basic view of the world, which is an oppressor
Speaker 2: oppressed paradigm.
Speaker 1: And it's the Marxist view. Mark said, there are only
Speaker 1: two groups of people in society, the oppressed and the oppressors.
Speaker 1: And if you're not, if you're not in the oppressed,
Speaker 1: you must be one of the If you're not in
Speaker 1: the oppress, you're want of the oppressed. But it's just
Speaker 1: it's very simplistic role analysis.
Speaker 2: But also, the Jews have been the most historically oppressed
Speaker 2: group of people in history. But just because they are
Speaker 2: now well sure debatable, but they've been oppressed throughout history
Speaker 2: and now just because Israel is a successful, thriving state,
Speaker 2: they are now seen to be the bad guys. And
Speaker 2: that is the basic reality for the modern left. Now.
Speaker 1: Part of the problem with this particular woman run to
Speaker 1: abdul Fatar is she's on the staff of Macquarie University.
Speaker 1: She's paid there as an academic, and she is in
Speaker 1: receipt of an eight hundred thousand dollars grant research grant
Speaker 1: from this Roadian Research Council. So she's getting a lot
Speaker 1: of taxpayer dollars there at the university and in this
Speaker 1: research grant. What is going on? Why are we paying
Speaker 1: someone who's anti Semitic. Rents are pretty horrible? Why are
Speaker 1: we paying her that much money?
Speaker 3: It's very, very very simple answer to this multiculturalism. We
Speaker 3: are a nation who prides ourselves on being multicultural. We
Speaker 3: always have been, that is apart from our first foundations.
Speaker 3: But this is an inevitable consequence of the multicultural dream
Speaker 3: or dystopian nightmare, to be honest, because that.
Speaker 1: Follows if someone is making what a clearly aggress anti
Speaker 1: Jewish comments, and they're fairly horrifying comments and some of
Speaker 1: the things that you This is the same woman who
Speaker 1: brought a group of children along to an anti Semitic
Speaker 1: demonstration at Sydney University and had little kids chanting for
Speaker 1: tar and andie Israelis statements. Now, if she's doing that
Speaker 1: sort of thing, why should she get taxed by a dollars?
Speaker 3: There's no because our country has said that she's allowed to.
Speaker 3: I'm happy to elaborate because you know, she's Palestinian. So
Speaker 3: what did we expect. We have somebody of Palestinian descent
Speaker 3: and ethnicity here in Australia, and we've told we have
Speaker 3: literally told pretty much our politicians have told every Australian
Speaker 3: that we're a very pluralistic nation, being that every culture,
Speaker 3: every religion, every ideology is equal. It all comes under equality.
Speaker 3: Everybody gets this, and until we address the elephant in
Speaker 3: the room, which is first and foremost, not all cultures
Speaker 3: are equal, and not our ideas are equal or should
Speaker 3: be good. Until we address that, this is going to
Speaker 3: happen everywhere where we allow this type of culture dream
Speaker 3: to take over.
Speaker 2: I think there are two issues here. I think there
Speaker 2: is multiculturalism and cultural relativism. I don't think this is
Speaker 2: necessarily a byproduct of multiculturalism, but well, because there are
Speaker 2: a lot of white Anglo Saxon academics who think and
Speaker 2: are saying the exact same thing. This is an ideology,
Speaker 2: and I think the point is this is about cultural relativism,
Speaker 2: which says that all cultures are somehow equal, and to.
Speaker 3: That our politicians have boon fedter.
Speaker 2: And on that point I absolutely agree with you. I
Speaker 2: think that ideology is absolutely wrong. But I think the
Speaker 2: other point which we need to make is what is
Speaker 2: the response here to this? And I think there's a
Speaker 2: right response and a wrong response. The wrong response is
Speaker 2: to limit speech further, and unfortunately that's been the instinct
Speaker 2: on the left for some time, I think is actually
Speaker 2: the instinct on the right increasingly. The real answer here
Speaker 2: is how do we reform our education sector, which has
Speaker 2: been so corroded by this type of ideology.
Speaker 1: Well, let's take a look at that. Because the coalition's
Speaker 1: spokesman on education is Senator Sarah Henderson. This is what
Speaker 1: she had to say about how we should respond.
Speaker 2: This is frankly a disgrace, and even worse is that
Speaker 2: the other and easy government is doing nothing to stamp
Speaker 2: out this sort of anti semitism.
Speaker 1: So the question is should Macuarie University Sacker as an academic.
Speaker 1: Is she entitled to be there is this part of
Speaker 1: academic freedom or has she stepped across the line.
Speaker 2: No, they shouldn't sack her because I don't think this
Speaker 2: meant the threshold of incitement to violence. But what they
Speaker 2: should be thinking about, which is what I didn't here there,
Speaker 2: is how do we reform the education sector. How do
Speaker 2: we get more conservatives in as academics, How do we
Speaker 2: get institutions that actually support liberal Western civilization as opposed
Speaker 2: to whatever that is? How do we build new institutions.
Speaker 2: They're the conversations on the right that we should be having,
Speaker 2: not just these boiler plate kind of answers that we
Speaker 2: heard from Henderson.
Speaker 1: There. We have had the problem for a while in city,
Speaker 1: and in fact there were some really ugly things happen
Speaker 1: in the eastern suburbs. For example, there were really dreadful
Speaker 1: slogans painted up on walls that we saw which were
Speaker 1: anti Jewish. They would kill Israel. Those kinds of slogans
Speaker 1: you remember those, you saw them on the news. These
Speaker 1: kinds of things. Now, when that happened, the New South
Speaker 1: Wales Premier Chris Mens obviously was under a lot of
Speaker 1: pressure to react. You can't let that happen. You can't
Speaker 1: have the cars burn and such horrible kill Israel signs
Speaker 1: being painted up. So what should we do, well, Chris
Speaker 1: Mins said, we need to toughen our laws and we
Speaker 1: need to restrict what people can say and do when
Speaker 1: it comes to expressing these kinds of opinions. Here's Chris Mins.
Speaker 2: If we need to change laws in the state when
Speaker 2: it comes to hate speech, that's what we will do.
Speaker 1: And I don't do that lightly. It is impinging on
Speaker 1: people's rights, Is he right? Is that an appropriate way
Speaker 1: to go?
Speaker 3: One of the worst things that Australians do is and
Speaker 3: every single time something bad happens, they look to Daddy
Speaker 3: government to make them feel safe. Again. And unfortunately with that,
Speaker 3: it's such a double edged because we are constantly looking
Speaker 3: for these short term comforts and short term security, we're
Speaker 3: missing out on these long term freedoms which are going to.
Speaker 1: Keep us with antisemitism. Government should do nothing.
Speaker 3: There's already laws in place. Kel. This is the thing.
Speaker 3: I'm happy to read you, the laws that we have
Speaker 3: on incitement. There are countless laws that we have in
Speaker 3: the Crimes Acts that we have under all different acts
Speaker 3: of terrorism and everything you can imagine. We have so
Speaker 3: many arbitrary, useless laws at our fingertips. We do not
Speaker 3: need anymore. We have laws for incitement, we have laws
Speaker 3: for harassment, we have laws for threatening violence, we have
Speaker 3: laws for arson, we have laws for graffiti. We do
Speaker 3: not need to add any of the only time you
Speaker 3: should ever add laws to or enact laws into your
Speaker 3: nation is if something is lacking, if there is a
Speaker 3: whole that needs to be plugged. It doesn't we have
Speaker 3: laws for actual crimes. What we're doing here is we're
Speaker 3: trying to police speech, and we're trying to that whole
Speaker 3: leftist way of saying words equal harm, and that's a
Speaker 3: very very dangerous slippery slope. And we don't need to go.
Speaker 1: But in the case of anti Semitism, it's a little
Speaker 1: bit more than being rude or taking offense, because centuries
Speaker 1: of anti Semitism led to the murder of six million Jews,
Speaker 1: So there is something more behind anti Semitism.
Speaker 3: Communism has also led to millions of people being like,
Speaker 3: we could.
Speaker 1: Like that doesn't That doesn't really tell us anything about
Speaker 1: the Holocaust. The Holocaust happened. We have to be a weird, isn't.
Speaker 3: That's the kind of place there are here to deal
Speaker 3: with crimes, actual crimes.
Speaker 1: So so what's happening is the government is simply not
Speaker 1: acting on the laws. It's good.
Speaker 3: I'm not a police officer investigating it, but I guarantee
Speaker 3: you if they found the person who put the graffiti
Speaker 3: on the cars or the glass, one hundred percent they'd
Speaker 3: be taken a court and tried.
Speaker 2: This is very simple, and this is something which the
Speaker 2: right has forgotten in this country, and that there is
Speaker 2: a different between something being morally reprehensible and legally wrong.
Speaker 2: And for over two thousand years now, Western civilization has
Speaker 2: come to a conclusion that it is better to have
Speaker 2: morally reprehensible views out in the public domain so you
Speaker 2: can discuss them, so you can debate them as opposed
Speaker 2: to putting them into the shadows, because that's where you
Speaker 2: start to get this sort of toxic behavior for men
Speaker 2: in a way which eventually leads to Nazism. And beyond that,
Speaker 2: as you well know, we know, it gets to a
Speaker 2: point where there is a subjective lens where people say
Speaker 2: that something is good and something is bad. We can't
Speaker 2: afford to have that. I hate it. How Chris Men's
Speaker 2: just blanketly says, oh, well, we don't have American style
Speaker 2: free speech in this country.
Speaker 1: Why not.
Speaker 3: It's a threat as well, because what he was basically
Speaker 3: saying is I know it.
Speaker 1: Something is complex as that in five minutes, So you
Speaker 1: keep thinking about it because there's more for us to discuss.
Speaker 1: Our Australian economy is worth discussing because our Australian economy
Speaker 1: is a bit sluggish, in fact, it's very sluggish, and
Speaker 1: our productivity is extremely poor. Hence, if there was a
Speaker 1: global trade war, we may well be collateral damage. And
Speaker 1: former Prime Minister John Howard and former Treasurer of Peter
Speaker 1: Costello have both challenged Anthony Albanesi on Donald Trump's possible
Speaker 1: illegal tariffs. They're saying the tariffs that Donald Trump keeps
Speaker 1: talking about ten to twenty percent, which he says he
Speaker 1: will apply to everyone regardless, including perhaps allies such as Australia,
Speaker 1: would be illegal under the two thousand and four a
Speaker 1: free trade agreement which John Howard negotiated with the Americans.
Speaker 1: It's been in place for twenty years. We have a
Speaker 1: free trade agreement in place. Would that be violated if
Speaker 1: tariffs are introduced by Donald Trump in the way that
Speaker 1: he's saying you will. Is that something we need to
Speaker 1: be worried about.
Speaker 2: No, I don't think so. I'm very hesitant to call
Speaker 2: out the goat on national television, and Johnny is, of
Speaker 2: course the goat.
Speaker 1: But I think that can I just explain for old
Speaker 1: viewers he's using goat the way young people do to
Speaker 1: mean greatest of all time. Yeah, so he's using it
Speaker 1: very politely. It's a nice thing to say about John Howard.
Speaker 1: Great God. I thought I should make that thank you,
Speaker 1: not not the animals that mountains.
Speaker 2: But when I think he has misread this slightly and
Speaker 2: that this is not really an economic policy from Trump
Speaker 2: as much as is a bargaining chip, I don't think
Speaker 2: he will ever put tariffs on Australia. My question is
Speaker 2: why aren't our politicians bargaining in the same way that
Speaker 2: someone like Trump does. We have bargaining chips that we
Speaker 2: can throw at America. We're the most geopolitically strategically important
Speaker 2: position in the fight against China, which will become more
Speaker 2: and more explosive, I would argue in the next five years.
Speaker 2: That's something the US needs. My question is why and
Speaker 2: our politicians arguing for us in the same way Trump
Speaker 2: is obviously arguing for America's interests.
Speaker 3: Because we don't have a Trump. That's why I think
Speaker 3: for too long we haven't put Australia first. Like Trump's
Speaker 3: entire election promise was America for the Americans, you know,
Speaker 3: in America first, And this is exactly that and that
Speaker 3: sort of spine and that sort of passion, and that's
Speaker 3: sort of I don't care what the rest of the
Speaker 3: world thinks. If this is best for my country, this
Speaker 3: is what I'm going to do. That's the sort of
Speaker 3: you know, card that our Australian politicians should be reading from.
Speaker 3: And I think, you know, I think that when it
Speaker 3: comes to tariffs and it comes to this, if he
Speaker 3: has to do that to make his country first. Good
Speaker 3: on him, and I think we should be doing that.
Speaker 3: And sure it might suck for us, but like you said,
Speaker 3: well like why aren't our politicians doing the same for us?
Speaker 3: I think that you know, charity and goodwill and things
Speaker 3: come as a result of prosperity. And if your country
Speaker 3: isn't prosperous and your country is, you know, going through
Speaker 3: really hard times, if you have to do this to
Speaker 3: get yourself out of there for your nation, then good
Speaker 3: for you.
Speaker 1: But at the same time, if he brings them in,
Speaker 1: he brings them in, and we need to work out
Speaker 1: whether they go to hurt Australia. The good news is
Speaker 1: that economists due to Sloan had a piece in The
Speaker 1: Australian this morning which was excellent on this topic, and
Speaker 1: basically her argument was don't panic, don't panic too soon.
Speaker 1: Part of what she had to say was this, She said,
Speaker 1: tariffs are only one instrument of industry protection. Many countries
Speaker 1: engage in supporting local industries through direct and indirect subsidies
Speaker 1: as well as through regulation. In other words, don't worry
Speaker 1: too much about tariffs. Everyone's fiddling the book, everyone's playing
Speaker 1: this game and if they are protecting their industries, we
Speaker 1: can protect our industries. We can find a way to
Speaker 1: do it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that's I think that's right. And look,
Speaker 2: Judith is the best on this sort of analysis. I
Speaker 2: think it's just an interesting broader look at the old
Speaker 2: kind of pre Trumpy in view on the right, which
Speaker 2: is hard and costello and probably, to be honest, it's
Speaker 2: more of a view that I would hold, and the
Speaker 2: new right which is emerging under Trump, which is protectionist,
Speaker 2: which is very much not the type of free market
Speaker 2: economics that we as I grew up with under the
Speaker 2: Howard era. My question, which I think is interesting, is
Speaker 2: will the right revert back in a post Trump age
Speaker 2: to what we saw or is the right now basically
Speaker 2: defined by isolationism, by protectionism, by closed markets.
Speaker 3: Well it's nations.
Speaker 1: Well that's the.
Speaker 3: Going back to nations instead of this idea of globalistic,
Speaker 3: harmonious dwelling, which is an impossible dream to.
Speaker 1: Well, no, we had it for a long time. That's
Speaker 1: John Howard's point. It was things like the free trade
Speaker 1: agreen which produced prosperous nations, that kind of open trade.
Speaker 1: We've had that for twenty years with America and both
Speaker 1: countries prosperous and the result of it.
Speaker 3: But we're not living in those times anymore. We are
Speaker 3: living in hard times. It's like that whole you know,
Speaker 3: hard times create good men. Good men create hard times,
Speaker 3: that pendulum that constantly swings. We are in hard times
Speaker 3: and this is when we are forging good men who
Speaker 3: will hopefully get us out of here. But I think,
Speaker 3: you know, Trump hopefully is the first foot in the
Speaker 3: door to make that happen. And I think that back
Speaker 3: you know, twenty years ago and Howard was doing, is
Speaker 3: we could afford to do that because we weren't as
Speaker 3: much in debt. We weren't in a position where we
Speaker 3: couldn't you know, our own citizens couldn't even afford electricity bills,
Speaker 3: and you had governments telling you to stock up on
Speaker 3: firewood for winter. Like we are living in hard times
Speaker 3: and as a result, you need to make hard decisions.
Speaker 3: And you know he's done this to Canada as well. Trump,
Speaker 3: He's put in some hard things. If you do this,
Speaker 3: and that I'm going to be putting on similar things
Speaker 3: to what he's suggested.
Speaker 1: But as it will says a lot of what he's
Speaker 1: doing is part of his bargaining. He's negotiating. He's saying
Speaker 1: to Canada, look, if you unless you stop the flood
Speaker 1: of illegal immigrants coming across the border and the flood
Speaker 1: of fenderdeel, then I'll put on good on it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we do.
Speaker 1: I won't put it on yeah. So in other words,
Speaker 1: it's a bargaining chip, isn't.
Speaker 2: It It is? And to be clear, howd and Costello
Speaker 2: are right. It would be bad for the Australian economy,
Speaker 2: There's no two ways about that. But that isn't a
Speaker 2: reason for us to kind of put our hands up
Speaker 2: in the air and go whoa is us? That's the
Speaker 2: reason to say, right, how do we actually go to
Speaker 2: in front of the negotiating table with Trump, say what
Speaker 2: are our strategic advantages? How do we put those against
Speaker 2: the US? And then how do we come to a
Speaker 2: conclusion where we don't have this happen to us? Well,
Speaker 2: that is a response.
Speaker 3: How I'm sort of living my life now post COVID,
Speaker 3: like I've sort of had to reevaluate life and go
Speaker 3: how can I be as most self sufficient as possible?
Speaker 3: So the government ever decides me to lock me in
Speaker 3: my home and forces me to get injected with something
Speaker 3: I don't want to do. How am I going to
Speaker 3: survive this? I want to be as self sufficient as
Speaker 3: I can. And I think Australia is a nation it
Speaker 3: needs to take that mentality on. We haven't been manufacturing.
Speaker 3: How we should. We have an amazing country with amazing resources.
Speaker 3: We could be doing so much here, We could be
Speaker 3: giving so much oointment to our own citizens. There is
Speaker 3: so much we could do, and I think Pauline Hanson
Speaker 3: and One Nation have done a really good job of
Speaker 3: basically trying to say, let's bring things back.
Speaker 1: Because we're about you, Evelyn. You're an idealist. Do you
Speaker 1: have this idealist's view of where Australia could end up?
Speaker 3: And why not?
Speaker 1: Days? We might get there, who knows. But in the
Speaker 1: meantime we have to deal with Donald Trump. Because Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: in twenty days from now will be inaugurated as the
Speaker 1: forty seventh president of the United States. He actually gets
Speaker 1: two numbers. He was the forty fifth, he becomes the
Speaker 1: forty seventh as well. But already the Democrats in the
Speaker 1: United States are working very hard to try to break
Speaker 1: up the Trump machine, and they're big push at the
Speaker 1: moment appears to be an attempt to drive a wedge
Speaker 1: between Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Clearly they are the
Speaker 1: two big brains inside the Trump machine. If they can
Speaker 1: drive a wedge between them, they think that would be
Speaker 1: a good thing. We saw it happening when they started saying, oh, well,
Speaker 1: Musk is really calling all the shots and making jokes
Speaker 1: about calling him president muk Musk. Do you think will
Speaker 1: that will? I mean, will Trump fall for that sort
Speaker 1: of thing? Has he got an ego that's vulnerable? There?
Speaker 2: Very possibly? Look, this is smart. We know Trump has
Speaker 2: the world's biggest ego. We know that this would needle him.
Speaker 2: We saw it in that debate with Kamala Harris where
Speaker 2: you could just see she was just baiting him and
Speaker 2: baiting him, and we knew she would bait him.
Speaker 1: And bait him, and he took the bait.
Speaker 2: Now, I think it's the question is has Trump evolved
Speaker 2: as a politician where he can spot this, And I
Speaker 2: think there is his history which would suggest no. But
Speaker 2: the one piece of evidence I would say on the
Speaker 2: contrary is the way that he's managed jade Evance. Jadevans
Speaker 2: had every opportunity and was the star in my opinion
Speaker 2: of that campaign, and it feels like Trump has actually
Speaker 2: utilized him and put him in a position where he's
Speaker 2: comfortable working alongside him. So just perhaps maybe the Donald
Speaker 2: now is wisening up to these sorts of Democrat tactics.
Speaker 1: It actually strikes me that that's the case. I think
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump we're seeing is a more of a statesman,
Speaker 1: more presidential than we've ever seen it. In fact, I
Speaker 1: think the turning point, the actual turning point, was the shooting.
Speaker 1: When he was shot in Butler in Penncil. He was
Speaker 1: I think this is just kel. I think he was
Speaker 1: different afterwards. I think he's been calmer, he's more confident.
Speaker 1: He's a man who knows what he's doing, and I
Speaker 1: don't think he can be shaken. Do you think they
Speaker 1: might get away with driving a wedge in there somewhere evilent?
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 3: I think they will try. But I think Trump's been
Speaker 3: through absolutely everything to helen back and he's come out
Speaker 3: on top better than his enemies. So I think he's okay.
Speaker 3: And I think what you said will is true. I
Speaker 3: think his first term, when he was inaugurated in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 3: I don't think he had his good men around him.
Speaker 3: I think the difference now is that he has good
Speaker 3: men around him that hopefully have a lot of wisdom,
Speaker 3: a lot of discernment, and give him good advice. I
Speaker 3: think JD. Vans is an incredible vice president pick. I
Speaker 3: think he's even more that's stricking good.
Speaker 1: But with his dealings with Elon Musk, the issue came
Speaker 1: up of skilled immigration. They've got a special rule for
Speaker 1: skilled immigration in America. The big tech company such as
Speaker 1: Elon Musk's company want that to happen. A lot of
Speaker 1: the MAGA group, the heart of the Republican Party, said no,
Speaker 1: there shouldn't be a skilled immigration program, and Trump came
Speaker 1: down on Musk's side. Does that make sense to you.
Speaker 3: No, it doesn't. Perhaps there's something behind the scenes I'm
Speaker 3: not aware of, but from the research that I've done,
Speaker 3: you know, there's been reports that there are over one
Speaker 3: hundred and fifty thousand people in tech who were laid
Speaker 3: off from all kinds of places, Tesla, Microsoft, you name it.
Speaker 3: And so I think that you know, those those particular
Speaker 3: visas for skilled workers. Perhaps there's a really niche need
Speaker 3: for it. But I actually would disagree with the statements
Speaker 3: that Vivec and Musk have made about it the way
Speaker 3: that they're throwing it around, that you know, white people
Speaker 3: are lazy, apathetic, useless, basically, and that because of that
Speaker 3: we need to bring in people from other nations, other ethnicities,
Speaker 3: not Americans to fix the job. I think that's a
Speaker 3: really big red flag, and I actually think that Musk
Speaker 3: and vivec are wrong on this. And I can see
Speaker 3: why there are such a large group of Republicans who
Speaker 3: were upset by these comments.
Speaker 1: Not just Republicans, because MSNBC got on board with this one,
Speaker 1: and basically the line they took was if you're white,
Speaker 1: then Elon Musk is coming for your job. Take a
Speaker 1: look at this.
Speaker 4: America is a land of a free home and brave
Speaker 4: all I did stuff that Elon Mussel was tweeting about. However,
Speaker 4: please don't come for Americans. And I just I would like,
Speaker 4: let's be very clad like white Americans and stand up.
Speaker 3: This is your colling card.
Speaker 1: Where's your manner?
Speaker 2: They coming for you?
Speaker 3: They said, y'all white and lazy.
Speaker 2: That's crazy, Well, y'all would be.
Speaker 1: Coming for me. That's the point.
Speaker 4: What you have happening here is the very thing that
Speaker 4: white folks have said about black people. I'm sorry I
Speaker 4: just want to know if Vick was born in the
Speaker 4: US for generations. The Veka is now saying about white
Speaker 4: people and they don't like it for some reason.
Speaker 1: Yet another MSNBC pedal which is taking race I think
Speaker 1: far too seriously. But is there a problem with skilled immigration?
Speaker 1: And is Trump playing the wrong game? So I think
Speaker 1: to win on Musk Yes, it's a good idea.
Speaker 2: Every country always needs very small, particular amounts of skilled immigration.
Speaker 2: I think the issue, and I think everyone was getting
Speaker 2: to this is this is the messaging. And I think
Speaker 2: it demonstrated the tech bros, which have been awkwardly part
Speaker 2: of this marga movement, didn't understand that immigration is the
Speaker 2: fundamental concern of the market base, is the fundamental concern
Speaker 2: of the right in the UK, it is the fundamental
Speaker 2: concern of the right in Australia. Increasingly, it will be
Speaker 2: the defining issue of politics over the next decade. And
Speaker 2: I think they kind of thought, well, we're smarter than
Speaker 2: everyone else. And what they didn't understand is they didn't
Speaker 2: fundamentally understand the other part of their coalition.
Speaker 3: Can I just say what Trump said in twenty eighteen,
Speaker 3: Trump actually spoke about immigration in Europe, and he said,
Speaker 3: and I quote, immigration has changed the culture in Europe.
Speaker 3: It's a shame, he said. It's changed the fabric of Europe,
Speaker 3: and not in a positive way. So I find it
Speaker 3: interesting because there is mass immigration in.
Speaker 2: Europe, and that's I don't think immigration is a yes
Speaker 2: or no question. It is about how much, where from,
Speaker 2: and how quickly. And I think it's not helpful for
Speaker 2: us to say oh, yes or no to immigration. The
Speaker 2: problem with places like Europe is it's been too quick,
Speaker 2: and they've been importing people from the wrong areas and
Speaker 2: they haven't been able to adjust to it well.
Speaker 1: And they also haven't screened them carefully enough because they've
Speaker 1: accepted them as flooding in as refugees. Therefore, we do
Speaker 1: know screening, and therefore suddenly we end up we discover
Speaker 1: we've got terrorists in our midst and people of that sort.
Speaker 2: There are plenty of controlled mass migration is a huge problem,
Speaker 2: but I don't necessarily limit that means no migrations.
Speaker 3: So Vivek and Musk have said they're going to take
Speaker 3: the best and brightest from these countries, right. I actually
Speaker 3: think that's a real disservice to these impoverished countries. If
Speaker 3: you take the best and brightest from these countries, you're
Speaker 3: basically determining their downfall. Why would you like, how can
Speaker 3: you say?
Speaker 2: How can you say America first before and they should
Speaker 2: do everything they can in their own interests, and then say, oh,
Speaker 2: suddenly that should be caring about skill worth.
Speaker 3: I don't believe that the best is not within America anyway.
Speaker 1: The best and brightest are the people who are supposed
Speaker 1: to be covered by skilled immigration programs. We have a
Speaker 1: skilled immigration program in Australia, and the point is we
Speaker 1: are bringing in people we don't have here. Every nation
Speaker 1: is like that, and on this one it seems as
Speaker 1: though the margabase has lost and Elon Musk and Donald
Speaker 1: Trump have won. After the break tomorrow or midnights at
Speaker 1: nine few hours from now, is the start of a
Speaker 1: brand new year. What will change in the new year?
Speaker 1: How will it affect you? And what will it cost you?
Speaker 1: Watch the new year coming at midnight? And you know
Speaker 1: what happened? Nothing? It was exactly the same as the
Speaker 1: whole year. As a very small boy, I was deeply
Speaker 1: disappointed that nothing changed. But some things do change. Because
Speaker 1: at the stroke of midnight, laws that have been passed
Speaker 1: in the last year become effective in the new year.
Speaker 1: There's a whole bunch of areas where there are laws.
Speaker 1: There's quite a long list of them. But let me
Speaker 1: put up on the screen just a few of the
Speaker 1: things that will change. For example, settling payments will change.
Speaker 1: Senttling payments including youth allowance and OS study and care allowance.
Speaker 1: They increase. That happens. Medicare Safety Net threshold increases, not
Speaker 1: by much, five hundred sixty dollars to five hundred and
Speaker 1: seventy six dollars, so it's a sixteen dollars increase. The
Speaker 1: Victorian land tax is also going to leap in out
Speaker 1: all over the place. It'll apply to properties that have
Speaker 1: been empty for more than six months in a calendar year.
Speaker 1: If you're in Victoria, you're just going to apply a
Speaker 1: lot more tax. There's also more payment for aged care workers.
Speaker 1: But the one that really leapt out of me was
Speaker 1: mandatory climate reporting. Every large company from midnight to night
Speaker 1: will have to make reports on climate related information in
Speaker 1: their annual financial reports for the financial year beginning on
Speaker 1: the first of January. Now it seems to me this
Speaker 1: is just evilyent. Another impost on companies that are all
Speaker 1: readily vastly overregulated.
Speaker 3: We are one, like our country is one of the
Speaker 3: most nanny states like I've ever come across, to be honest,
Speaker 3: and there is red tape everywhere. There are so many
Speaker 3: hoops to jump through. It's horrible, and I honestly don't
Speaker 3: think that any first world nation should have to live
Speaker 3: under conditions. But it's interesting if you look at other
Speaker 3: countries in the world, you can kind of foresee our
Speaker 3: future if we as the people don't put a stop
Speaker 3: to this sort of I guess trajectory. And one of
Speaker 3: those things is Sweden, for example, Sweden, Ireland and a
Speaker 3: few of those other countries. They've started to do CO
Speaker 3: two checks on grocery bills, so you get a score,
Speaker 3: you go to the grocery, you pay for things, and
Speaker 3: it gives you a carbon emission score at the end.
Speaker 3: Apparently in some countries they say that it's lessened red
Speaker 3: meat purchasing for some because that's obviously seen as the devil.
Speaker 3: Oh my goodness, don't let cows go anywherey of the world.
Speaker 3: They're the you know, the crux of this problem. And
Speaker 3: you also have other companies who are putting like labels
Speaker 3: on their food with a rating, so you get like,
Speaker 3: you know, you have those five star energy ratings. It's
Speaker 3: like that on your food. But with climate rating you
Speaker 3: also have them collecting data so that they data so
Speaker 3: that can assess situations about things. We've all read George
Speaker 3: Orwell's nineteen eighty four. We all know where this is headed.
Speaker 3: And I know it seems like you know, I'm pulling
Speaker 3: it straws here, but like I think, we have to
Speaker 3: come to the harsh reality. If we don't put in
Speaker 3: check this climate cult it will grow and turn and
Speaker 3: here in Australia we will start to have our grocery
Speaker 3: receipts having to be checked. And also in some countries
Speaker 3: they're also making foods that are deemed higher for carbon
Speaker 3: emissions more expensive, so unless you eat the crickets, you
Speaker 3: basically have to take out a mortgage on the answer.
Speaker 1: Look, the answer comes from Jeremy Clarkson. Jeremy Carson had
Speaker 1: the perfect answer. He said, I don't have a carbon footprint.
Speaker 1: I drive everywhere. That is the answer. But this idea
Speaker 1: of big companies will coming in with a mandatory climate reporting.
Speaker 1: I just can't see how every big company, regardless of
Speaker 1: what business it's in, should be involved in doing this
Speaker 1: kind of reporting back to the government.
Speaker 2: No, well they may, but if their investors want them
Speaker 2: to do that. This is the problem I have. This
Speaker 2: is a government that either doesn't understand how a market works,
Speaker 2: or even worse, willfully disagrees with the concept of a
Speaker 2: market itself. And this is how market works. If their
Speaker 2: investors wanted them to put that little section into their
Speaker 2: investor report about climate, they would ask them to do so.
Speaker 2: And if they felt that strongly about it and the
Speaker 2: company didn't do it, they would then divest from that company.
Speaker 1: Could I tell you about a problem we have in
Speaker 1: Australia because the biggest investor in a lot of these
Speaker 1: companies are in superannuation companies, and the superannuation funds are
Speaker 1: owned and run by unions, and in fact they do
Speaker 1: want these kinds of climate correct policies to be imposed
Speaker 1: on companies, even if it reduces their profitability.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and that's fine. Look, if they want to then
Speaker 2: go directly to those companies and say do this and
Speaker 2: do that, I don't have a problem with that. The
Speaker 2: problem is when the government comes in and says you
Speaker 2: have to do this and you have to do that.
Speaker 2: And unfortunately we've completely forgotten the concept of our market
Speaker 2: economy should work.
Speaker 1: And one of the things that's happening all the time
Speaker 1: now we're all aware of this, is how much government
Speaker 1: spending is increasing. All of this becomes a cost on
Speaker 1: the government because the government has to process all of
Speaker 1: this stuff. In fact, I remember Tony Abbat telling me
Speaker 1: once that when he was the Prime Minister, if anyone
Speaker 1: wanted to bring in a new regulation, they had to
Speaker 1: take out two for every new regulation that they put in.
Speaker 1: Now New South Wales taxpayers are going to have to
Speaker 1: pay for people who are called commissioners. I find this
Speaker 1: quite interesting. There are commissioners being imported, appointed to specific roles.
Speaker 1: We have someone who's appointed as a twenty four hour
Speaker 1: economy commissioner, sometimes called a nighttime commissioner. He's on a
Speaker 1: salary of six hundred, three hundred and sixty to five
Speaker 1: hundred thousand dollars. There's a small business commissioner also collecting
Speaker 1: the same huge salary. There's a rental commissioner. Now the
Speaker 1: rental commissioner is a lady named Trina Jones. I'm sure
Speaker 1: she's a very nice lady. But if your renting, I
Speaker 1: don't know if she's doing anything for you. That is Trina,
Speaker 1: that's Trino Joe. She is the rental commissioner. If you're
Speaker 1: a renter, have you had any interaction with her? She's
Speaker 1: on a three hundred thousand dollars aralery. There are three
Speaker 1: Treaty Commissioners to do some sort of preparation meeting with
Speaker 1: indigenous groups for some sort of treaty which might happen
Speaker 1: at some point in the future. Do we really need
Speaker 1: all of these commissioners.
Speaker 2: No, of course we don't. I think my favorite clip
Speaker 2: from this year was the Argentinian president have a millet
Speaker 2: in his bombastic type of way up with a whiteboard
Speaker 2: of every department in the Argentinian administration and just ripping
Speaker 2: them away, saying I don't need this. I don't need that,
Speaker 2: DEI the Department for Women, the Department for this, for that,
Speaker 2: I don't need it. We've just forgotten, basically that there
Speaker 2: is some basic essentials government to provide and then most
Speaker 2: of the stuff is not needed. Like I'll tell you
Speaker 2: a little anecdote from the other day. I had an
Speaker 2: interview with SBS which is in it and itself quite
Speaker 2: extraordinary and I probably won't get another one after telling
Speaker 2: the story they've worked.
Speaker 1: At Who you are now?
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, But the size of the SBS studio was
Speaker 2: about five times the size of this Sky studio, and
Speaker 2: I think the rating for SCO would probably be five
Speaker 2: times the size of SBS. But this is what happens
Speaker 2: when you've got a publicly funded department which is not
Speaker 2: accountable to anyone. This is what happens when people forget
Speaker 2: that it is other people's money that they are spending,
Speaker 2: and this is just another example of that.
Speaker 1: One of the odd things is this business of appointing commissioners.
Speaker 1: I'm not even sure I can work out what a
Speaker 1: commissioner does. I think a commissioner is meant to take
Speaker 1: responsibility for a particular area and make it work well.
Speaker 1: But it's a very odd title. Do we really need
Speaker 1: the commissioners.
Speaker 3: I'm not sure the Australian government even know why they're
Speaker 3: employing these people, to be honest, other than to blow
Speaker 3: taxpayer dollars. You hit the nail on the head well
Speaker 3: in that you know, when you're spending somebody else's money.
Speaker 3: It's very easy to do that, and I think our
Speaker 3: taxation in our country is pure theft. These days, we
Speaker 3: literally work half the year for free, and not only that,
Speaker 3: on top of that then have to pay our local government,
Speaker 3: our council rates. It's absolutely insane the amount of tax
Speaker 3: as a nation that we have to pay and we
Speaker 3: get no thing in return for that.
Speaker 2: But also how divorced from reality of the people who
Speaker 2: are actually setting these wages, Like I'm looking at this
Speaker 2: three hundred and sixty five hundred K three in a
Speaker 2: sixty five hundre k three hundred k plus. Do these
Speaker 2: people understand in the private sector they are seriously big salaries.
Speaker 1: In fact, that's quite the weird thing, is I remember
Speaker 1: when I was a lot younger and my father worked
Speaker 1: for the New South Wales Railways as an engineer, and
Speaker 1: he was explaining to me, now, if you work in
Speaker 1: the public sector, the salaries are always smaller, but the
Speaker 1: security of employment. If you want higher salaries you work
Speaker 1: in the public In the private sector, that doesn't sound
Speaker 1: base anymore. Now they get both.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, it's extraordinary. But again there is just no
Speaker 2: accountability for a very.
Speaker 3: Socialist nation and this is just like a socialism light
Speaker 3: in that you know, the government delegates everything to everybody
Speaker 3: instead of people having personal responsibility.
Speaker 1: For well, socialism not quite light enough is quite possible.
Speaker 1: What it is there? You might have noticed and aroma
Speaker 1: in the air. It's a very topical aroma. It's a
Speaker 1: popular cologne which is called the scent of deration, and
Speaker 1: it turns up in an election year when you find
Speaker 1: governments talking about a medi scare, when they start telling
Speaker 1: you the Coalitioners are about to destroy Medicare. They did
Speaker 1: it in twenty sixteen when Bill Shorten was running against
Speaker 1: Scott Morrison, and in fact it took away votes. Well.
Speaker 1: Labor is set to revive the medi Scare campaign in
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty five election. Jim Chalmers, the Treasurer, has
Speaker 1: paved the way for a new medi Scare campaign, declaring
Speaker 1: Peter Dutton would undermine the National Health Insurance Scheme. Will
Speaker 1: he do that?
Speaker 2: Well, God, I hope, so, you know what, I hope
Speaker 2: instead of maybe not leave Medicare alone, I think that's
Speaker 2: one thing. But in terms of the NDS, this has
Speaker 2: become a monster. The amount of money we are spending
Speaker 2: on it is outrageous. I really hope Dutton comes back
Speaker 2: and says something along the lines of you know what.
Speaker 1: We should be afraid.
Speaker 2: We should be absolutely terrified of how big this scheme
Speaker 2: has got, and we need to actually address spending here.
Speaker 2: We need to run it back. If he has the
Speaker 2: courage and if he has the political skills to be
Speaker 2: able to make that argument, this is almains to be seen.
Speaker 1: This is a political battle because everyone cares about Medicare,
Speaker 1: and if the threat is we're going to take away Medicare,
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't think people are going to believe
Speaker 1: it anymore. It's like the Boy who Cried Wolf. They
Speaker 1: shout this at every election and no one believes them anymore.
Speaker 1: But if people did believe it, it might frighten them.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think people are getting a lot more clue
Speaker 3: to fearmongering and things like this. Dates back to two
Speaker 3: thousand and one with Howard. It days back to two
Speaker 3: thousand and four. Again with Howard, it dates back to
Speaker 3: Tony Abbott. It's the same sort of thing. But you know,
Speaker 3: I kind of, you know, agree with you to a degree,
Speaker 3: will in that. You know, I think Medicare is a
Speaker 3: whole thing. We probably need to address the problem that
Speaker 3: we have in our country is that we have one
Speaker 3: foot in the private health sector and one foot in
Speaker 3: the public health sector. We say that we have public health,
Speaker 3: but everybody I think sitting at home in their living
Speaker 3: rooms right now, it knows even if you pay public health,
Speaker 3: if you need to get some medical assistance, like, for example,
Speaker 3: like a day surgery or something, you still are paying
Speaker 3: thousands upon thousands of dollars out of pocket. So it's like,
Speaker 3: what are we private or are we public? And I
Speaker 3: think until we have that discussion.
Speaker 2: What should we be. So this is where I actually
Speaker 2: maybe disagree with Tad and that in the last five years,
Speaker 2: I've lived in the US, which is mainly private, and
Speaker 2: I've lived in the UK, which is largely public, and
Speaker 2: they're both. I was about to swear there on set camera.
Speaker 1: They're very very awful systems.
Speaker 2: And I think actually the one foot in both camps
Speaker 2: isn't a bad result for Medicare. I don't think we
Speaker 2: do it too badly. What I would argue is we
Speaker 2: need to separate the Medicare conversation with the ndis conversation
Speaker 2: with das without conversation get load more than it is.
Speaker 1: But we will have that conversation one day. Let's keep
Speaker 1: talking about health and let's talk about how vigorous the
Speaker 1: mental health of Australians is at the moment. There are
Speaker 1: some indications that in certain sectors, certain places, certain professions,
Speaker 1: there are difficulties with mental health. For example, there are
Speaker 1: supposedly spiraling mental health problems among police officers in Victoria.
Speaker 1: They've had to drop out of so many shifts. Two
Speaker 1: hundred thousand lost shifts have resulted from trauma hits from
Speaker 1: the mental health. Now, Evelyn, you've been a police officer.
Speaker 1: Is it mentally straining?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 3: Absolutely, you know, I don't think it's natural for human
Speaker 3: beings to have to deal with that level of evil
Speaker 3: on a daily basis, you know. And as much as
Speaker 3: I criticize the police, particularly over the last you know,
Speaker 3: four or five years, and rightfully so, they do get
Speaker 3: it really hard. Like the things that I've seen, like
Speaker 3: would give anybody nightmares. It's you know, I have to
Speaker 3: live with that for the rest of my life and
Speaker 3: carry that in my everyday life, which does affect me.
Speaker 3: And the sad part about it is, to be honest,
Speaker 3: the police do a really bad job of helping people.
Speaker 1: That's my question. Is it to do with the structure
Speaker 1: of the police force, and the support that's offered to officers.
Speaker 3: I think as a combination of things. I think there
Speaker 3: are legitimate cases of severe PTSD depression and things like that.
Speaker 3: And I mean, I serve nearly twelve years in the police.
Speaker 3: I worked in child sex crime, some horrific things, and
Speaker 3: after I left, I didn't I haven't heard to this
Speaker 3: de boot from any single person in the hierarchy that
Speaker 3: I work for. I think that's pretty appalling considering the
Speaker 3: years of service and things. And I'm like, no one
Speaker 3: compared to the thousands upon thousands of cops who would
Speaker 3: have to deal with this and who are still working
Speaker 3: in the job and not getting help. But I will
Speaker 3: say I think one of the biggest things is the
Speaker 3: relationship with cops and civilian. I think that over hundreds
Speaker 3: of years, you know, police have enforced good and moral
Speaker 3: Christian laws throughout the West. That's what based and formulated
Speaker 3: the West. And I think that there was a sense
Speaker 3: of heroism and a good relationship that was built between
Speaker 3: police and civilian that's been squandered, and I think the
Speaker 3: relationship between civilian and law enforcement is totally different. So
Speaker 3: they go to work, they get harassed a lot more
Speaker 3: and probably rightfully so, because of these arbitrary laws. But
Speaker 3: on top of that, there's more evil in the world.
Speaker 3: You only have to turn on your TV to see
Speaker 3: the depraved things that are out there.
Speaker 1: But I think if it's particularly bad for police officers,
Speaker 1: and I'm sure what everything you say is absolutely right,
Speaker 1: is there at the same time a general rise in
Speaker 1: a level of tension, stress, depression in our society mentally.
Speaker 1: By the way, if you're someone who struggles with those
Speaker 1: sort of things, remember you can always talk to Lifelie.
Speaker 1: They're happy to do that. Their telephone numbers thirteen eleven fourteen.
Speaker 1: Call them on thirteen eleven fourteen. If you or someone
Speaker 1: struggling with that sort of thing, do you think will
Speaker 1: there is a risk that in this soft twenty first century,
Speaker 1: the level of mental health generally is deterior reading.
Speaker 2: No, I think the way we think about mental health
Speaker 2: is changing.
Speaker 1: In two categories and conversation.
Speaker 2: I think our category so look, I think two things
Speaker 2: can be true at the same time. I think everything
Speaker 2: that Evelyn said is right. I think it is a
Speaker 2: very hard job. But I think more broadly, I think
Speaker 2: the mental health card is real. I think the way
Speaker 2: that we think about mental health has been expanded to
Speaker 2: just bad life situations, and I think we now need
Speaker 2: to get better as a society. What is real mental
Speaker 2: health issues and what are instances of just people not
Speaker 2: having the tenacity to deal with the struggles of life.
Speaker 2: And I think we're not as good from early childhood
Speaker 2: onwards at actually making people more resilient. How do we
Speaker 2: actually separate mental health from dealing with the difficulties of life.
Speaker 3: Probably looking at all these kids who are saying, oh
Speaker 3: my I got a paper cut at school and now
Speaker 3: I have trauma, cops are probably looking at that and going, wow,
Speaker 3: look at the system I actually have seen trauma. Perhaps
Speaker 3: I can now use that. Maybe they're more confident. There
Speaker 3: is an overdiagnosed.
Speaker 1: Earlier generations, even to police officers, may have been tougher.
Speaker 1: I mean, we can feel really bad about something which
Speaker 1: our parents and grandparents sort of said, oh, well, that's life.
Speaker 1: You just got to get on with it and keep going.
Speaker 1: Have we lost something?
Speaker 3: I think we definitely have. There definitely is an over diagnosis.
Speaker 3: I think that there's two extremes, and I think two
Speaker 3: things can be true at once. I think once upon
Speaker 3: a time, coming post World War one, post World War two,
Speaker 3: there was a lack of understanding of mental health issues
Speaker 3: and we saw a lot of unfortunate suicides of soldiers
Speaker 3: coming back from the war. But you know, you fast
Speaker 3: tracked to now and there's just a way over diagnosis.
Speaker 3: So we need to find that sweet spot in the middle.
Speaker 1: I think Oka and don't forget about Lifeline. If you
Speaker 1: need to have a chat to someone, they will talk
Speaker 1: to you whatever the problem is. Thirteen eleven fourteen, after
Speaker 1: the break? How should chess players dress cardigan's old tweeds?
Speaker 1: Is that what you think? No, no, no, it's all
Speaker 1: changed after the break And as twenty twenty four comes
Speaker 1: to an end, cast your mind back very quickly over
Speaker 1: the big news headlines of the last twelve months. What
Speaker 1: for you was the highlight? What was the low light?
Speaker 1: Think about that for a moment. We'll come back with
Speaker 1: our answers in just to tick. But chess players are
Speaker 1: they downy old people dressed in tweeds and cardigans or well.
Speaker 1: Magnus Carlson is a world champion chess player and there's
Speaker 1: a current championship for the Rapid Chess Championships being held
Speaker 1: in New York and he was kicked out he turned
Speaker 1: up wearing jeans, blue jeans, and they told him that
Speaker 1: he violated the There is in his genes and he
Speaker 1: doesn't look all that bad in his cheats. Quite frankly,
Speaker 1: they told him he violated the dress code to play chess,
Speaker 1: and so he was told to he said, I'm pulling
Speaker 1: out entirely. I won't take part because he is such
Speaker 1: a big champion in a sectual draw cut in the
Speaker 1: chess competition. Suddenly they discovered they were a bit flexible
Speaker 1: about the dress code and if he's wearing smart dreens
Speaker 1: and they match his top, well it's okay. He can
Speaker 1: take part. And he's back on deck now that Magnus
Speaker 1: Culton is playing again. So we maybe have to change
Speaker 1: the mental image we have of chess. The chess players
Speaker 1: are not as downy as they want work. I've got
Speaker 1: to tell you, if you've ever seen it, rapid chess
Speaker 1: is breathtaking and terrifying. So he might be very smart
Speaker 1: and very clever and also very sharply dressed. Now, the
Speaker 1: highlights of the year and the low lights. What were
Speaker 1: the headlines which were the best? What the headlines that
Speaker 1: were the worst? Ever? Let's start with you your highlight
Speaker 1: and your low light for the year.
Speaker 3: I'll start with the lowlight. I feel I get that
Speaker 3: over and done with and then move on to happier things.
Speaker 3: But I think the low part is not one single headline,
Speaker 3: but just the cost of living and just seeing the
Speaker 3: crisis that everyday Australians are suffering right now. And yeah,
Speaker 3: how I honestly don't believe where a first word nation anymore.
Speaker 3: So that would be the lowlight. But moving on to
Speaker 3: the highlight, it would be Moi Redeming and how she
Speaker 3: won her lawsuit and how she was put back in
Speaker 3: the Liberal Party. I think it's so significant she was vindicated,
Speaker 3: and not only that, I think what that stands for
Speaker 3: for women, it's huge.
Speaker 1: It's good. Okay. My highlight very quickly has got to
Speaker 1: be the fact that Peter Dutton has said yes to
Speaker 1: nuclear big tick for that. That's a highlight. The lowlight
Speaker 1: for me was our Prime Minister Anthony Albanezi deciding that
Speaker 1: he wanted to take care of the convicted criminals and
Speaker 1: bring them back to Australia, the Balley nine drug smugglers
Speaker 1: and Julian Assan and people. That was a low light
Speaker 1: for me. Will a highlight on a low light.
Speaker 2: The low light is the election of Kiss Dharma, I
Speaker 2: think the most dangerous leader of the West has seen
Speaker 2: in a long time.
Speaker 1: The highlights government is close to collapsing very quickly.
Speaker 2: Hopefully the quicker the better. The highlight the rise of
Speaker 2: Jade Vance. He started the year being effectively called a
Speaker 2: weirdo by the mainstream media. He will end it as
Speaker 2: I think one of the great modern political talents and
Speaker 2: now has the inside running for the Republican nomination for
Speaker 2: president in the next cycle.
Speaker 1: And every time we see jd. Vance on television, we're
Speaker 1: really impressed. We think he's fabulous. And if you haven't
Speaker 1: read Hillbilly Eenergy you should, Well there you are. That
Speaker 1: is the last late debate for twenty twenty four. We
Speaker 1: thank you for your company on behalf of all of
Speaker 1: the people who are not here tonight. We enjoy your
Speaker 1: company right throughout the year and look forward to your
Speaker 1: company again in twenty twenty five. Thanks for tonight. We'll
Speaker 1: see you tomorrow night