Speaker 1: Late Welcome the Late Debate.
Speaker 2: It's great to have your company on the Late Debate.
Speaker 2: I'm James Macpherson with this store and Caleb Bond back
Speaker 2: after a week away.
Speaker 3: You want to every other show, Kalb.
Speaker 1: I know it's terrible to be back with you.
Speaker 4: Lotto was well rather enjoying going home at about seven
Speaker 4: pm instead of eleven.
Speaker 1: But that's okay.
Speaker 4: The things I do to keep our beloved Late Debate
Speaker 4: viewers entertained, I.
Speaker 1: Tell you what.
Speaker 3: We're glad to have your back, Caleb.
Speaker 2: We're a lot to talk about tonight, including coming up
Speaker 2: a little later, a woman tries to snatch a Trump
Speaker 2: supporter's mega hat on the subway, and well, let's just
Speaker 2: say instant karma.
Speaker 3: We'll show you what happened a little later.
Speaker 2: Plus when we look at what's making news tomorrow, of course,
Speaker 2: most of it will be about the federal budget being
Speaker 2: delivered tomorrow night, including a story on tomorrow's front page
Speaker 2: of the Daily Telegraph explaining just how young people are
Speaker 2: the hardest hit by bracket creep, and the Australian newspaper
Speaker 2: reporting tomorrow that it may your green hydrogen project will
Speaker 2: shut down just days after Anthony Albanesi insisted it's all
Speaker 2: part of the made in Australia future that he's been promoting.
Speaker 2: All of that a little later, but first, a Sydney
Speaker 2: council will vote this week to remove anti racism signs
Speaker 2: that they erected just a few years ago.
Speaker 3: The Cumberland Shire.
Speaker 2: In Western Sydney was one of a number of councils
Speaker 2: that spent thousands of dollars putting up fifty racism not
Speaker 2: Welcome signs. This was all done back in twenty twenty
Speaker 2: two over fears that Chinese people would be blamed for
Speaker 2: the COVID virus. Now, just on that. If you're so
Speaker 2: irrational that you think your Chinese neighbor is responsible for
Speaker 2: a virus that originated in Wuhan, you're hardly going to
Speaker 2: be convinced to behave because of a few street signs.
Speaker 2: But Cumberland Shire have decided, having erected about fifty of
Speaker 2: these signs, they're now going to bring them down, which
Speaker 2: begs the question, why are they saying the street signs
Speaker 2: of worked racism has been eradicated, Or maybe they've changed
Speaker 2: their minds and decided racism is welcome after all, or
Speaker 2: just maybe and I think this one is that they've
Speaker 2: decided the signs were always silly and provide no practical
Speaker 2: purpose other than allowing, you know, virtue signaling counselors to
Speaker 2: grandstand the man behind the motion to remove these signs.
Speaker 3: Paul Jared explained.
Speaker 2: Quote, I know there's racism within elements of our community, sadly,
Speaker 2: but having said that, is it an issue that we
Speaker 2: have to put values on telegraph poles. You might put
Speaker 2: them on the front door of your building, but putting
Speaker 2: them on telegraph poles isn't something we should be condoning,
Speaker 2: Which is a really good point caleberin Liz, like, if
Speaker 2: you're going to put signs up saying no racism, how
Speaker 2: many other morality tales should you display?
Speaker 4: This is the thing that Cumberland Council have been telling
Speaker 4: on themselves for so long that they're thoroughly homophobic.
Speaker 1: I mean, where is the homophobia.
Speaker 4: Is not welcome? So clearly is lamophobic? Where's the islamophobia
Speaker 4: is not welcome signed? I mean it is clear that
Speaker 4: they condone all of these things because they refuse to
Speaker 4: put up any signs against it. As I said privately
Speaker 4: to this lot earlier, I mean, clearly the signs are
Speaker 4: now surplus to requirements because they put them up, they
Speaker 4: fix the racism. The racism is gone. Why do you
Speaker 4: need the signs anymore. The fact that anyone thought and
Speaker 4: they're everywhere. They're all over Sydney, I assume there are
Speaker 4: in other parts of the country as.
Speaker 3: Well as a national campaign.
Speaker 4: The fact that anyone thought, yes, I know what we
Speaker 4: can do to solve racism, will put a sign up
Speaker 4: on a Telegraph poll and that'll finally change everyone's mind.
Speaker 4: You don't change people's minds with street signs. You change
Speaker 4: people's minds by actually talking to them and convincing them
Speaker 4: of things.
Speaker 1: And I think this is a.
Speaker 4: Major problem with a lot of the campaigning on the
Speaker 4: left is that they don't understand if you actually want
Speaker 4: to change someone's mind, you've got to challenge them.
Speaker 1: A street sign is not challenging any one.
Speaker 4: It's a slogan, and so often that's all they care about.
Speaker 4: It's the symbolism, the virtue signaling to say that, well,
Speaker 4: this is what I think. I mean, I think racism
Speaker 4: is bad, so I must be a good person. But
Speaker 4: you've not made any attempt to actually change a racist
Speaker 4: person's mind. You've done nothing to better the world. You've
Speaker 4: just made yourself feel better. It's why they talk about, oh,
Speaker 4: we've got to change the date of Australia Day. You
Speaker 4: know how many Indigenous lives that would help in this country,
Speaker 4: big fat zero. But it doesn't matter because I feel
Speaker 4: better because I think I'm doing something better for the world.
Speaker 4: That's what these signs were all about. I'm glad someone
Speaker 4: has worken up to the fact that they mean nothing.
Speaker 5: Well, there's always been people on the Cumberland Council that
Speaker 5: have known this was ridiculous. So they voted in February
Speaker 5: of twenty twenty two to put these signs up. But
Speaker 5: the previous year the mayor at the time, Steve christ two,
Speaker 5: which you'd be familiar with is an absolute legend, had
Speaker 5: used a tie breaker vote to vote them down. These
Speaker 5: signs aren't going up in our electorate. This is ridiculous.
Speaker 5: Why are you inferring that our council is racist to
Speaker 5: begin with? That's the unspoken inference if you're going to
Speaker 5: put up such signs. So the following year, Steve christu
Speaker 5: is no longer the mayor, and in February the council
Speaker 5: went to vote again back in twenty twenty two.
Speaker 6: And this time it got up.
Speaker 5: So you can imagine that Steve Christu who is still
Speaker 5: on council, he is just not mayor.
Speaker 6: And this fellow Paul Gerard, who's.
Speaker 5: Been a counselor for fifty years as of September last year, congratsmate,
Speaker 5: talk about a lifetime of service.
Speaker 6: That's incredible to put it up with all of that.
Speaker 5: These guys, goodness knows how many numbers they've otherwise gotten
Speaker 5: on council. But smart counselors, no, there's no use me
Speaker 5: putting this to a vote if I don't have a
Speaker 5: chance of winning. These guys are part of the original
Speaker 5: contingent who votes to know in the first place. And
Speaker 5: it's funny to note that in February twenty twenty two,
Speaker 5: as Cumberland Council, I keep going to say, Choir Cumberland Choir,
Speaker 5: Cumberland Council was voting to put these up. Walara Council
Speaker 5: were voting to take theirs down. Of course that vote
Speaker 5: didn't get up, it was lost by a vast majority.
Speaker 5: But those councilors in Wallara were doing exactly the same thing, saying,
Speaker 5: why are you insinuating that people who live.
Speaker 6: In Wallara are racist.
Speaker 5: We've had so many people complain to us and be like,
Speaker 5: why are these signs popping up all over Wallara? We
Speaker 5: don't where's the data to support this? Where's the racism outbreak?
Speaker 5: Is their violence? Is their name calling that we're unaware of,
Speaker 5: to which, of course, the councilors couldn't support their decision
Speaker 5: at all because as usual, it is, like you say, Caleb,
Speaker 5: just a virtue signaling exercise.
Speaker 3: It is a problem in the Inner West where you
Speaker 3: are from and.
Speaker 4: They I'm not sorry there, I'm not from where when
Speaker 4: you moved in there.
Speaker 2: But they had to explain when they put these signs
Speaker 2: up in different streets, because I mean, it's fifty signs, right,
Speaker 2: so it's not every street, it's selected streets.
Speaker 3: So they had to explain them.
Speaker 2: When they put up a racism not welcome sign in
Speaker 2: a particular street, they weren't inferring people in that street
Speaker 2: had a particular problem with racism. But then what do
Speaker 2: you say to people of other ethnicities in streets where
Speaker 2: signs were not directed the council saying they don't care
Speaker 2: about protecting those particular people, which shows just how ridiculous
Speaker 2: this virtue signaling becomes.
Speaker 4: I can't wait for the onslaught of racist people who
Speaker 4: now move into Cumberland Council because they've realized, they will
Speaker 4: realize fairly ap it's OK to go.
Speaker 6: Yet it hasn't yet.
Speaker 1: Been no no, I know.
Speaker 2: And then hopefully Wednesday night.
Speaker 4: Wednesday, hopefully we can bring you some good news.
Speaker 1: You know. It's just that the force of those.
Speaker 4: Signs has kept the racist people out of Cumberland for so.
Speaker 1: Long, and that's going to be dagging away.
Speaker 4: While we're talking about councils, and you'll remember back during
Speaker 4: the Voice referendum, there are a number of councils around
Speaker 4: the country that openly campaigned for the Yes side. I'm
Speaker 4: not aware of any council that's openly campaigned for the
Speaker 4: No side of the Voice referendum, probably because they figured
Speaker 4: that would be not a great use of taxpayers or
Speaker 4: rate payers money. But of course when you've got to
Speaker 4: left wing social issues to push well, rate pays money
Speaker 4: is always on the table. And we have discovered some
Speaker 4: years later that one of the councils that was doing
Speaker 4: this the City of Melbourne. Of course, our mate Nicholas
Speaker 4: Reese is the Lord mayor there now they spend one
Speaker 4: hundred and forty thousand dollars campaigning for the Yes campaign.
Speaker 4: I mean, imagine what you could do with one hundred
Speaker 4: and forty thousand dollars. I was going to suggest you
Speaker 4: could employ someone in the town hall, but perhaps we
Speaker 4: don't want them to do that.
Speaker 1: They've probably got enough of them already.
Speaker 4: But you could instead to employ probably two people to
Speaker 4: go out and look after the parks and the playgrounds
Speaker 4: and whatever in Melbourne bike lanes. You go, well, we
Speaker 4: need definitely need more of them in Melbourne. Who could
Speaker 4: spend one hundred and forty k on helping to rip
Speaker 4: them out, starting to rip them out, I think, But
Speaker 4: this is what they are doing with your money, Because
Speaker 4: of course you can't make your mind up on your own.
Speaker 4: We need the council to take your rates from you
Speaker 4: so they can tell you how to think. A spokeswoman
Speaker 4: for the council said that the council spent one hundred
Speaker 4: and forty grand on the campaign and this is how
Speaker 4: they justify it, with the majority of funding spent on
Speaker 4: educational information targeted those most likely to be uninformed about
Speaker 4: the referendum process, including non English speaking communities and older voters.
Speaker 4: So in other words, they saw some vulnerable people and
Speaker 4: they thought they'd take advantage of them and shove it
Speaker 4: down their throats that they should go and vote yes.
Speaker 4: I mean, I thought we had the Australian Electoral Commission
Speaker 4: to inform people that there was a referendum on. If
Speaker 4: you weren't aware there was a referendum on and how
Speaker 4: you could vote in one, you probably were living under
Speaker 4: a rock. You didn't need the City of Melbourne to
Speaker 4: spend one hundred and forty k to tell you that
Speaker 4: it was on, let alone how they wanted you to
Speaker 4: vote well.
Speaker 2: And they spent this one hundred and forty k when
Speaker 2: they were promoting a fifteen million dollar deficit, So they
Speaker 2: spent money they didn't have pushing opinions they had no
Speaker 2: right to push on an issue they.
Speaker 3: Weren't elected to address.
Speaker 2: The Local Government Act governs how councils behave and I
Speaker 2: and we talked about it a couple of weeks ago.
Speaker 2: Blacktown Council Is voted to stop debating foreign policy issues,
Speaker 2: stop doing things to address things happening overseas. They just decided,
Speaker 2: let's focus on rates, roads and rubbish their relationary revolutionary idea,
Speaker 2: which makes you wonder why doesn't a local government minister
Speaker 2: move to change the legislation governing councils so they can't
Speaker 2: do this kind of thing. Councils have no remit to
Speaker 2: be involving themselves in a federal government referendum, and yet
Speaker 2: they do these things over and over again.
Speaker 3: We talk about it ad nauseum. It's a wonder why.
Speaker 2: And maybe the coalition, if they win the federal election,
Speaker 2: maybe a local government minister will actually do something to
Speaker 2: rain these councils in.
Speaker 5: No, because they're part of the problem. State governments push
Speaker 5: the same nonsense, so they're not going to smack down
Speaker 5: their local government cohorts. I mean this is something that
Speaker 5: this same issue was perpetuated, especially throughout the labor governments
Speaker 5: around the country. And it just goes to show because
Speaker 5: we all know the results of the Voice campaign now,
Speaker 5: don't we very comprehensive.
Speaker 6: It doesn't work. So not only are you wasting rate.
Speaker 5: Payers money trying to brainwash them, trying to indoctrinate them
Speaker 5: on their own dime, It simply doesn't work. But you're
Speaker 5: quite right, it should just be taken out of their
Speaker 5: remit none of this nonsense from you guys, Thank you
Speaker 5: very much. This is not what rate payers pay for
Speaker 5: six states in the US, which isn't that many when
Speaker 5: you've got fifty states, but it's better than nothing. They
Speaker 5: have taken this to the policy level and they make
Speaker 5: sure that their local governments cannot engage, and not only
Speaker 5: on the ratepayer level, but tax pay funds aren't allowed
Speaker 5: to be implemented in a way that's going to try
Speaker 5: to sway the public psyche on matters like this, DEI
Speaker 5: matters and so and so forth. It's something that the
Speaker 5: government should do, and any government who was interested in.
Speaker 6: Being effective at their actual jobs would do so.
Speaker 5: It begs the question why is nothing happening? But speaking
Speaker 5: of things you'd like to see happen that, well, it's
Speaker 5: not happening if you're in Sydney beaches.
Speaker 1: Get this.
Speaker 5: The coastal councils have got together with the men's government
Speaker 5: and decided that at fifty one beaches across New South
Speaker 5: Wales they're going to take down the shark nets because
Speaker 5: the turtles are migrating during April.
Speaker 6: We've had this squabble before.
Speaker 5: How are turtles in any which way more important? Than
Speaker 5: protecting human beings from white sharks, tai sharks, bull sharks.
Speaker 6: What is this nonsense?
Speaker 5: And you've got to argue, why on earth are they
Speaker 5: doing this now? Notice it's the end of summer, so
Speaker 5: the peak season for beaches is over. So to me,
Speaker 5: it tells me they're actually not that confident in their
Speaker 5: alternative methods, which are going to be technologies of drone
Speaker 5: and smart drum lines. Just leave the nets up for
Speaker 5: crying out loud. Now will these alternative technologies work? I
Speaker 5: guess we're about to find out the hard way, aren't we.
Speaker 1: I can't do this anymore. I gotta I gotta have
Speaker 1: a moment, a moment.
Speaker 4: I'm in the turtles, the turtles who.
Speaker 1: Might die so that people won't die. It's a disgrace, I.
Speaker 4: Mean, for goodness sake. I know I've done this before.
Speaker 4: We've talked about this before. The animal activist loonies get
Speaker 4: on my emails and social media and whatever and carry
Speaker 4: on because I say this.
Speaker 1: But we are number one. We're top of the tree.
Speaker 1: Evolution came through. We rose to the top.
Speaker 4: We get to live on the land and we also
Speaker 4: get to go into the water. We make the decisions
Speaker 4: as human beings in this world as to how things operate.
Speaker 4: And you know, what would you rather? And this is
Speaker 4: you asked the greenies this question, and they always come
Speaker 4: back and say, well, it's the it's the shark's domain.
Speaker 4: You're going into his home, which sounds to me a
Speaker 4: bit like victim blaming. And you know, and then it's
Speaker 4: what is this since your fault, you silly? It is
Speaker 4: you in the water? What you think you weren't going
Speaker 4: to get chopped on? But surely to save one human
Speaker 4: being is worth it. It doesn't matter whether you sacrifice
Speaker 4: one hundred turtles in the process.
Speaker 1: No one wants turtles.
Speaker 4: To die, but nor does anyone want a human being
Speaker 4: to die. And their suggestion seems to be that the
Speaker 4: turtles and the sharks have more right to be in
Speaker 4: the water than we do. Now, sure, they might be
Speaker 4: born in that water and they might live there, but
Speaker 4: by virtue of the fact that we're human beings and
Speaker 4: we've learned how to swim, we also have a right
Speaker 4: to be in that water, and we want to be safe.
Speaker 1: When we do so.
Speaker 4: The six councils that have signed up and agreed to this,
Speaker 4: Waverley Central Coast Northern Beaches, Southerlandshire, Woolengong and Randwick should
Speaker 4: hang their heads in shame because they are potentially putting
Speaker 4: people's lives.
Speaker 1: At risk to save the turtles.
Speaker 4: Again, I don't want turtles to die, but I don't
Speaker 4: want human beings to die, and that seems to be
Speaker 4: the alternative here. The greenis should just put their hands
Speaker 4: up and say, actually, I want people to die, because
Speaker 4: that's basically what they're on board that.
Speaker 2: There was a scientist, Sheldon Dudley who did a major
Speaker 2: study of sharknets in New South Wales, in Queensland, and
Speaker 2: in South Africa, and he found shark nets were impressive
Speaker 2: in reducing the number of sharks and in all of
Speaker 2: those places, Queensland, New South Wales and South Africa, after
Speaker 2: the introduction of shark nets, shark attacks fell by ninety percent.
Speaker 2: He found him twenty one in New South Wales there
Speaker 2: were forty sharks that were caught in the net ziesa
Speaker 2: sharks that they would want to catch. Of course, not
Speaker 2: all sharks are dangerous, but forty dangerous sharks caught and
Speaker 2: three hundred and thirty five non target animals, not.
Speaker 3: All of them were turtles. A lot of them were
Speaker 3: just fish that you'd catch with your line and hook.
Speaker 2: So for councils to be advocating for the removal of
Speaker 2: shark nets on some of our most popular beaches, I mean,
Speaker 2: including Bondai, their first responsibility is to ratepayers.
Speaker 3: I'm not sure turtles pay rates.
Speaker 4: No, if I can find a way to make them
Speaker 4: pay rates, they would be who.
Speaker 2: Rely on tourism, who swim in those waters. The council
Speaker 2: was responsible first and foremost, in fact, only to protect them.
Speaker 2: Everything else is superfluous. Speaking of protecting people, the courts
Speaker 2: are supposed to do that, but increasingly people losing confidence
Speaker 2: in our magistrates and our courts to uphold justice and
Speaker 2: protect victims of crime.
Speaker 3: What's happening recently.
Speaker 2: Is more and more cases are being dismissed because the
Speaker 2: accused is pleading mental health issues. More than three thousand,
Speaker 2: five hundred cases were dropped last year in New South
Speaker 2: Wales alone on mental health grounds. Many of these cases
Speaker 2: involving common assault and people breaching AVO orders. But god
Speaker 2: off scot Free. The case is dismissed because, as I said,
Speaker 2: the accused said that they had mental health issues and
Speaker 2: the case went no further. Now that's three and a
Speaker 2: half thousand cases dismissed up by one thy two hundred
Speaker 2: just five years ago.
Speaker 3: So this is a growing problem.
Speaker 2: David Hilpern, a former magistrate, said this is exploiting what
Speaker 2: some people would perceive as a loophole in the law.
Speaker 3: It's not to.
Speaker 2: Suggest there are genuine cases, of course there are with
Speaker 2: people with mental illness, but the threshold for claiming mental
Speaker 2: illness in court is arguably too low. There should be
Speaker 2: a greater hurdle than just suffering from a condition. There's
Speaker 2: no question that whether or not a mental health issue
Speaker 2: is present, that doesn't change the fact a crime has
Speaker 2: been committed. It doesn't change the fact that a victim
Speaker 2: has been affected by that crime. And I think this
Speaker 2: is the natural result of pathologizing everything as early as Kindy,
Speaker 2: and we've talked about this on the program as recently
Speaker 2: as last week. Our children, our teenagers, are being increasingly pathologized.
Speaker 2: There's no behavioral issues anymore, there's no personal responsibility. It's
Speaker 2: ADHD or some other issue. I know it personally myself
Speaker 2: because we had a kid who was mucking up at
Speaker 2: school in primary school and the teachers couldn't have tried
Speaker 2: to twist our arm harder if they had help to
Speaker 2: get us to go get a diagnosis, so they'd received
Speaker 2: more funding. So you're continually pathologizing things. Is it any
Speaker 2: wonder if that starts in kindy that eventually you end
Speaker 2: up in our courts with people claiming the same thing.
Speaker 1: And if you.
Speaker 4: Follow this to its logical conclusion, could begin to make
Speaker 4: the argument that every criminal has some kind of mental illness,
Speaker 4: because because most of us understand what is right and wrong,
Speaker 4: you might, in the case of someone who was caught
Speaker 4: going five compters over the speed limit, say they had.
Speaker 1: A mental illness.
Speaker 4: But most of us understand what is right and wrong,
Speaker 4: and so there are clearly people who just have no
Speaker 4: compunction about the fact that what they are doing is wrong,
Speaker 4: and so that is in some way a mental illness
Speaker 4: because it's out of the norm of what the rest
Speaker 4: of us experience. So why don't we just say everyone
Speaker 4: is associopath or a psychopath or or whatever it might be,
Speaker 4: and they've got a diagnosis for having been so, which
Speaker 4: is why they committed the crime, and so everyone.
Speaker 1: Gets let off.
Speaker 4: Sure, some people are off their brains, they're having mental episodes,
Speaker 4: their schizophrenic, whatever it might be, but it doesn't change
Speaker 4: the fact they have committed a crime. And quite often
Speaker 4: you will find it is people who have committed crimes
Speaker 4: while having mental episodes who are the the last people
Speaker 4: who should be allowed out or in the community or
Speaker 4: let off on a crime, because they should be locked
Speaker 4: up somewhere for their own safety as well as everyone else's.
Speaker 4: It's a cop out. And this is happening increasingly now,
Speaker 4: and funnily enough, we should note it's happening mostly at
Speaker 4: courts in wealthy suburbs. And why do you think that
Speaker 4: is because they've gone to their lawyer and said, what
Speaker 4: do I do to get off on this? And the
Speaker 4: lawyer said, well, if you're going to get a diagnosis
Speaker 4: and they say you had this mental illness when you
Speaker 4: committed the crime, then you're in a.
Speaker 1: Much better position to do it.
Speaker 4: People who are going to magistrate's courts and whatever in
Speaker 4: less socioeconomic suburbs often are self represented, or they've just
Speaker 4: got a duty solicitor of what is that they have
Speaker 4: someone to tell them to go and do this. These
Speaker 4: are people who are being advised clearly to get a
Speaker 4: diagnosis because it'll help you get off on a crime. Well,
Speaker 4: that's not in the spirit of the justice system. Quite
Speaker 4: often it doesn't seem to be a justice system. It's
Speaker 4: a legal system. It's not delivering it all.
Speaker 5: Yeah, Section fourteen of the Mental Health Act has to
Speaker 5: be reviewed. That is patently obvious when you look at
Speaker 5: these ridiculous numbers.
Speaker 6: But like we say, it's the same with bail laws.
Speaker 5: These cases come down to a magistrate's judicial discretion. Okay,
Speaker 5: so only that judge has got the full facts of
Speaker 5: any one case. Of course, these are assessed on an
Speaker 5: individual basis. They're looking at all the facts, the crime
Speaker 5: that was committed, the fallout from that crime, how many victims,
Speaker 5: is this person likely to reoffend, is it their first offense?
Speaker 5: And then they're also weighing up the strength or weakness
Speaker 5: of that person's claim to Oh, but I suffer from
Speaker 5: poor mental health. Now is that just an extreme case
Speaker 5: of anxiety?
Speaker 6: We don't know.
Speaker 5: It's up to the judge to say, look, you may
Speaker 5: have a case of ADHD that's quite severe. That doesn't
Speaker 5: just what you have done as an example. At the
Speaker 5: end of the day, it comes down to whoever that
Speaker 5: judge is and their judicial discretion and once again, we
Speaker 5: the public are sat here going what on earth are
Speaker 5: you flogs thinking? Because it's not an instruction. Section fourteen
Speaker 5: is like, well, where's some guidelines. At the end of
Speaker 5: the day, it comes down to the judge. Why are
Speaker 5: so many judges, one would think knowingly being taken for
Speaker 5: a ride.
Speaker 2: The other issue here that we never talk about is
Speaker 2: what are we doing with serious mentally ill people. If
Speaker 2: you walk around any CBD, whether it's Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne,
Speaker 2: it's amazing how many people who are clearly not well
Speaker 2: are behaving in very odd fashions all around the place.
Speaker 2: No one seems to do everything, everyone walks around them.
Speaker 2: I noticed just this weekend in the CBD police dealing
Speaker 2: with a guy who clearly was not right in his
Speaker 2: mind from moving him on.
Speaker 3: I'm not sure what help.
Speaker 2: He gets, let alone what protection there is from the
Speaker 2: public from people who clearly aren't right. And that's an
Speaker 2: issue that no one wants to talk about.
Speaker 1: No, and it's a disgrace.
Speaker 4: I mean, you know, we changed our thinking last century
Speaker 4: on how mentally.
Speaker 1: Ill people should be treated. That there used to be asylums,
Speaker 1: insane asylums where.
Speaker 4: We locked people up for their benefit and the benefit
Speaker 4: of the rest of society, and at some point we decided, oh, well,
Speaker 4: that's not humane.
Speaker 1: We have to allow people to be out in the community.
Speaker 1: But again it's not.
Speaker 4: Just about the rest, it's about them as well, because
Speaker 4: they often pose a serious risk to themselves and the
Speaker 4: public mental health system is in tatters.
Speaker 1: If you go to a hospital.
Speaker 4: And try to get treatment for a mental health issue
Speaker 4: a public hospital, it's almost impossible. I mean they want
Speaker 4: to get you out the door as fast as possible.
Speaker 4: There was a case in Adelaide last year or the
Speaker 4: year before where there was a bloke who had presented
Speaker 4: to hospital with the mental health issues and he was
Speaker 4: detained there by police order for fourteen days I think
Speaker 4: it was. And then at the end of that fourteen days,
Speaker 4: instead of the hospital telling the police that they were
Speaker 4: going to discharge him, they just discharged him.
Speaker 1: He just left and he walked out and.
Speaker 4: He went into a real estate agency and he killed someone. Right,
Speaker 4: So the system does not talk. The left hand of
Speaker 4: the system does not talk to the right hand. How
Speaker 4: do these cases happen? And of course if you are
Speaker 4: having issues with mental health, follow the number on the
Speaker 4: bottom of the screen. We've talked about Trump derangement syndrome before.
Speaker 1: It's a real thing.
Speaker 4: I mean, people who just cannot get it through their
Speaker 4: heads that somehow the majority of electors in America would
Speaker 4: think he was the right look to be the president.
Speaker 4: Will show you one of those people later in the
Speaker 4: program before we leave you tonight.
Speaker 1: It's a great clip.
Speaker 4: You've got to stick around to the end of the
Speaker 4: show for that one. But now they've moved on from
Speaker 4: just Trump derangement syndrome. Now they're on board with Elon
Speaker 4: Musk derangement syndrome as well, because, of course he and
Speaker 4: his doge mob have been going through the books in
Speaker 4: America and cleaning it up and getting rid of government waste.
Speaker 1: And they can't believe it.
Speaker 4: I mean, how dare you threaten our public service jobs
Speaker 4: and actually try to get some value for the taxpayers
Speaker 4: of the United States. So they gathered online over the
Speaker 4: weekend in a meeting they call themselves Tesla Takedown, to
Speaker 4: talk about exactly how they're going to take down Tesla,
Speaker 4: which is, of course the electric vehicle manufacturer owned by
Speaker 4: mister Musk. I'll show you some highlights from this meeting.
Speaker 4: We'll start with Micah Lee, who is a journalist.
Speaker 1: Take a look.
Speaker 7: We're a non violent, grassroots protest movement that's focused on
Speaker 7: an actual winnable strategy to bring down Elon Musk. If
Speaker 7: we kill the Tesla brand, if we drive down the
Speaker 7: stock price low enough, we can force him to sell
Speaker 7: his stock to pay back the billions of dollars of
Speaker 7: debt that he took on to buy Twitter. This will
Speaker 7: drive Tesla stock into a death spiral.
Speaker 1: So there you go. That's the plan. We're going to
Speaker 1: force him to get out of Tesla.
Speaker 4: How are we going to do that, Well, let's start
Speaker 4: with a woman, a professor.
Speaker 1: She's a professor memes. Apparently he's her plan.
Speaker 8: I study memes, and the most obvious meme nobody's.
Speaker 3: Talking about is Elon's black hat.
Speaker 8: And he thinks of himself as this black hat hacker
Speaker 8: that's broken into the government and socially engineered his way
Speaker 8: into the treasury, and he's going to abscond.
Speaker 3: With all the data.
Speaker 8: It's an obvious data heist, but he believes he's living
Speaker 8: a meme. And so we need to be very clear
Speaker 8: about what our demands are, about what our bright lines are,
Speaker 8: and that we're not going to stop until Tesla is
Speaker 8: done with Musk.
Speaker 4: He's the richest man in the world and he's just
Speaker 4: living in a meme.
Speaker 1: You know, he's not aware that he's in the real world.
Speaker 4: Please give me a break, Actor John Cusack, I mean, Charlie,
Speaker 4: he puts h may I want it?
Speaker 1: Didn't He's a ghoul.
Speaker 9: These are unprecedented times of mass criminality going on in
Speaker 9: the United States right now, and that, like Trump, Musk
Speaker 9: is a pathological liar. He's a criminal, He's a sociopath
Speaker 9: and a ghoul.
Speaker 1: He is a criminal.
Speaker 4: We shall await the charges. But my personal favorite is
Speaker 4: Jasmine Crockett.
Speaker 1: She's a US rep. And well, this is why she
Speaker 1: wants e Long to go down.
Speaker 10: I'll make sure that I keep it short, but I
Speaker 10: am truly here for very selfish reasons, starting with on
Speaker 10: March twenty ninth, it's my birthday and all I want
Speaker 10: to see happen on my birthday is for Eli to
Speaker 10: be taken down.
Speaker 4: Yet that's what we want in our elected representatives, isn't
Speaker 4: They have lost the plot because they can't get over
Speaker 4: how effective that mask has actually been with his doge.
Speaker 4: It's just blowing their brains that someone's actually gone through
Speaker 4: the books, going, hang on a minute, there's a bit
Speaker 4: of waste here. We can do something about. Maybe we've
Speaker 4: been running the show improperly for a very long time.
Speaker 1: They can't cope with it.
Speaker 2: Of course, boasting it, you want to drive Tesla stock
Speaker 2: into a quote unquote death spiral. Do they forget that thousands,
Speaker 2: maybe millions of Americans have stocks in Tesla, many of
Speaker 2: them it's their pension plan. And on top of that,
Speaker 2: I think there's about one hundred and twenty thousand people
Speaker 2: employed by Tesla's So they're not just talking about hurting
Speaker 2: one person because they disagree with him politically. They're talking
Speaker 2: about hurting thousands, tens of hundreds of thousands of their
Speaker 2: own countrymen because of their own political bias.
Speaker 6: And it's incredibly popular.
Speaker 5: There were like two eight hundred people on this call
Speaker 5: at any given time during it. And these are the
Speaker 5: ones who are leading these protests. They want mass protests
Speaker 5: on the twenty ninth of March, not even necessarily in
Speaker 5: places where there is a Tesla dealership. Those are being targeted.
Speaker 5: They're very calculated, but they're like, heck, if you just
Speaker 5: want to protest Tesla in the.
Speaker 6: Straight as well go for it. These guys know that sixty.
Speaker 5: Percent of Elon Musk's wealth is tied up in Tesla,
Speaker 5: and if they can make a big enough dent by
Speaker 5: people not wanting to buy them anymore lest they be
Speaker 5: graffiti less they're carby Molotov cocktailed, as has happened to
Speaker 5: Tesla dealerships across the US at this point, then they're
Speaker 5: going to be successful.
Speaker 6: People are too scared to buy them now.
Speaker 5: And the stocks were already falling, and even the current
Speaker 5: owners are saying, well, I can't even onsell it because
Speaker 5: nobody wants it. They've taken to using stickers that say.
Speaker 6: I bought this Tesla before. Elon Musks, through his.
Speaker 5: Weight behind Donald Trump, please don't target mine. The Trump
Speaker 5: administration has talked about classifying these people as domestic.
Speaker 6: Terrorists, and yet here.
Speaker 5: They are having an organization call with thousands.
Speaker 6: On it, planning their next steps. They were even really.
Speaker 5: Instructional, saying don't do the swastikas. We don't want any
Speaker 5: more swastikas out into the world. As you will recall,
Speaker 5: Elon was accused of doing a siege hile in a
Speaker 5: ridiculous rally move which was clumsy at best, but they're
Speaker 5: still running with this idea of he's a closet Nazi.
Speaker 5: Completely unfounded of course. So they're saying, when you graffiti
Speaker 5: these cars, please no swastikas.
Speaker 6: They even suggested to just graffeiti.
Speaker 5: Them with a man's private part, that's fine, or some
Speaker 5: expletives that's fine too.
Speaker 6: But no swastikas. They literally got down into the nitty.
Speaker 5: Gritty of how to deface people's private property, but.
Speaker 4: Essentially use a form of domestic terrorism because you're the
Speaker 4: idea is to discourage people from buying a certain product
Speaker 4: because they're going to make a target of themselves if
Speaker 4: they do that, they're trying to terrorize them like it
Speaker 4: is actually a.
Speaker 1: Form of terrorism.
Speaker 4: And I'm trying to think of an example of this
Speaker 4: if it were to happen in Australia. And it's almost
Speaker 4: impossible to think that anyone would do anything like this
Speaker 4: in Australia because we just don't do those sorts of
Speaker 4: things here. But if you are saying to someone if
Speaker 4: you buy this product, which is a legal or normal
Speaker 4: product that until five minutes ago, was like a symbol
Speaker 4: of how great you work, because you were driving around
Speaker 4: in a Tesla electric car. So I'm doing something to
Speaker 4: help the planet, and all of a sudden you're supposedly
Speaker 4: evil for doing it. I mean, do they understand that
Speaker 4: they're trying to bring down an electric vehicle manufacturer?
Speaker 3: Here we say it wouldn't happen in Australia.
Speaker 2: The only Tesla dealership in Tasmania has been vandalized with
Speaker 2: this kind of graffiti that has been encouraged in the
Speaker 2: United States, but pretty much these days, if you wear
Speaker 2: a Maga hat, and as you said, we'll show an
Speaker 2: instance of someone with a Mega hat being abused a
Speaker 2: little later in the program. If you were a Mega
Speaker 2: hat or you drive a Tesla, you're almost guaranteed that
Speaker 2: you're begging, making yourself a target. You're begging for chars,
Speaker 2: domestic terrorism. They are bullying, humiliating and threatening people to
Speaker 2: make a political point.
Speaker 5: And I dare say the magacrowd can take it. But
Speaker 5: the Tesla buyers, who are probably on board with the
Speaker 5: lefty climate cult, they're not cut out for this kind
Speaker 5: of pushback to Victoria now, where you may remember former
Speaker 5: Premier Daniel Andrews and the lead up to the twenty
Speaker 5: eighteen election, promised to build Craigieburn Hospital Community Hospital.
Speaker 6: And nine others like it. What a way to get votes.
Speaker 5: Who doesn't want more hospitals in their state. As we
Speaker 5: know nationwide, no state is doing very well when it
Speaker 5: comes to their health portfolio. Well now two of those
Speaker 5: have been built, but they're sitting vacant.
Speaker 6: Nobody's using them.
Speaker 5: They are not open for business, and it's got locals
Speaker 5: wondering what the heck is going on. Quote it's been
Speaker 5: sitting abandoned for months now. One local mother wrote on Facebook,
Speaker 5: the lights are on twenty four seven. What a waste
Speaker 5: of electricity. Another local wrote, I would say the state
Speaker 5: government is baroke real broken. To that local, I say
Speaker 5: cigar for you, buddy.
Speaker 6: I think you've hit the nail on the head. Now.
Speaker 5: The idea of these extra hospitals was to take the
Speaker 5: pressure off the emergency departments in the bigger hospitals.
Speaker 6: What a wonderful idea.
Speaker 5: But here we are in twenty twenty five and the
Speaker 5: state doesn't have two cents to rub together. It's one
Speaker 5: thing to build it, it's another thing to staff it,
Speaker 5: to run it, to actually be a functioning hospital.
Speaker 6: They haven't got the shiggy well.
Speaker 3: I think you hit the nail on the head. They
Speaker 3: promised to build it.
Speaker 2: Excit over and of course the building it is you
Speaker 2: get to wear a high viz vest and hat opportunity
Speaker 2: expensive one. But I've got an idea. It doesn't matter
Speaker 2: that these hospitals are empty of patients. Why don't they
Speaker 2: use them as juvenile romance centers that could work in Victoria.
Speaker 1: Use them.
Speaker 4: If someone had told you five years ago that there
Speaker 4: would be a state government somewhere in Australia that would
Speaker 4: build hospitals and then.
Speaker 1: Just shut the gates, leave the lights.
Speaker 4: On and not have anyone you would say, oh, come
Speaker 4: on mate again, offered.
Speaker 3: I've said immediately Victoria.
Speaker 1: Heah, Victory. Now that that's a very good point. But
Speaker 1: how ridiculous.
Speaker 4: How can you go to the expense of doing I
Speaker 4: mean that's the most expensive part, is to actually build
Speaker 4: the thing and then you shut the gate and leave
Speaker 4: it there. I mean, if you live next door or
Speaker 4: you live in the local community and you've been promised
Speaker 4: to hospital, I mean you do expect the front door
Speaker 4: to open every now and again, don't you. It's nice
Speaker 4: there to be able to walk past it go oh look,
Speaker 4: we've got a new hospital, but no one goes there.
Speaker 1: That's fine, seriously helpful.
Speaker 2: Well maybe they could staff it with some of the
Speaker 2: public servants that the Coalition is going to cut if
Speaker 2: they win office. Of course, Peter Dutton has promised to
Speaker 2: slash thirty six thousand jobs from our bloated public service,
Speaker 2: very similar to what Elon Musk is doing in the US.
Speaker 3: And Anthony Albanezi.
Speaker 2: Is making this sound like the worst thing that could
Speaker 2: possibly happen. He's the Prime Minister talking about the coalition's plan.
Speaker 11: And the idea that Peter Dutton wants to do. Two
Speaker 11: things when it comes to public servants. One questioned working
Speaker 11: from home, But secondly he's also said I want you
Speaker 11: to be at home seven days of work, twenty four
Speaker 11: hours a day because he's going to sack thirty six
Speaker 11: thousand public servants.
Speaker 1: Hang on, hang on, can I just interrupt.
Speaker 4: I've just learned from the Prime Minister that unemployed people
Speaker 4: are not allowed to leave the house. I didn't know
Speaker 4: that was a thing.
Speaker 1: They trained at home four seven.
Speaker 4: No wonder they're unemployed because they can't go out and.
Speaker 2: Go do The funny thing is someone wrote that line
Speaker 2: for him. I thought it was really good and I'm
Speaker 2: not sure if it was the delivery that let him
Speaker 2: down or the line. But then came Finance Minister Kadie
Speaker 2: Gallagher and she said that if Dutton slashes thirty six
Speaker 2: thousand dollars from the public service, it's going to endanger
Speaker 2: the nation.
Speaker 3: She said, defending our.
Speaker 2: National interests delivering aucust maintaining a robust immigration system. That
Speaker 2: one is funny. A robust immigration system. I'm not sure
Speaker 2: where she thought that one from our veterans. It requires
Speaker 2: funding and requires people. The safety is at risk under
Speaker 2: Peter Dutton, who is more obsessed with slashing government jobs.
Speaker 2: The reality is the public service has to be resourced
Speaker 2: to do the job we want it to do. Now, this,
Speaker 2: of course assumes that Peter Dutton's thirty six thousand jobs
Speaker 2: gone will sort of just be evenly spread across all departments,
Speaker 2: including the defense. So she makes it sound like suddenly
Speaker 2: we're not going to have, you know, submariners to We
Speaker 2: don't have submarines, so it doesn't really matter. The thing
Speaker 2: I thought was brilliant and a total own goal here
Speaker 2: is in this statement, Calebs, you talked about the fact
Speaker 2: that we are you know, increasing our defense spending as
Speaker 2: a percentage of GDP to two point four percent over
Speaker 2: the next decade, which is hardly anything at all.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: And in addition, if we're cutting public servants from the
Speaker 2: defense forces, isn't just a couple of weeks ago, Liz,
Speaker 2: that our defense force were unaware a Chinese warship was
Speaker 2: firing live rounds off the coast of Sydney. So maybe
Speaker 2: there are some people who, you know, maybe shouldn't be.
Speaker 5: And also we can't recruit any speaking of numbers, lady,
Speaker 5: because you guys outsource the ADFS.
Speaker 6: Recruitment to a jolly Swiss company.
Speaker 4: And it's interesting that they're using this like they're treating
Speaker 4: this public servant issue the labor party as though it's
Speaker 4: like a major election issue, which I met thirty six
Speaker 4: thousand people. There are something like one in seven people
Speaker 4: in this country who work in the public service, but
Speaker 4: most of them are at the state level, they're not
Speaker 4: at the federal level. But they're trying to tug on
Speaker 4: those people and make them think, like, you know, your
Speaker 4: number could be up tomorrow, You're going to lose your job.
Speaker 4: And that's why labor governments in particular want a big
Speaker 4: public service because if you've got to rely on the
Speaker 4: government for your money, my guess I'd better vote for
Speaker 4: the mob that's going.
Speaker 3: To keep my job.
Speaker 2: Indeed will in a moment, we'll look at what's making
Speaker 2: news tomorrow, and of course all the talk is about
Speaker 2: how Jim Chalmers will deliver his budget tomorrow night.
Speaker 3: We look at what they're saying in just a moment.
Speaker 2: Well, with Jim Chalmers bringing down his budget tomorrow night,
Speaker 2: as you can imagine, most of tomorrow's news will center
Speaker 2: on the budget and finances.
Speaker 3: Liz, you've got the Daily Telegraph, I do.
Speaker 5: Indeed, will it make any difference.
Speaker 6: To these guys?
Speaker 5: Gen Z hit hardest by tax brackets creeping US out
Speaker 5: reads the slash. Young people are being hit the hardest
Speaker 5: by bracket creep, with gen Z and millennial full time
Speaker 5: workers on a median wage paying up to three five
Speaker 5: hundred more income tax now than three years ago age
Speaker 5: fifteen to thirty four will experience the biggest jumps in
Speaker 5: how much of their wage goes to the tax office
Speaker 5: in percentage items sorry, percentage terms.
Speaker 6: According to new.
Speaker 5: Coalition analysis, young professionals like Manly couple, which you can
Speaker 5: see there in the picture. Hannah Maxwell and Matthew Nicole,
Speaker 5: both twenty one, say current tax rates can be daunting
Speaker 5: in a costs crunch. Yeah, I don't suspect any relief
Speaker 5: will be coming there anytime soon. I've always thought that
Speaker 5: our tax bracket.
Speaker 6: System here is utter nonsense.
Speaker 5: The fact that someone on as little as forty five
Speaker 5: k excuse me, forty five K and one dollar our
Speaker 5: tax the same percentage as someone on one hundred and
Speaker 5: thirty five K.
Speaker 6: No one can make that math work.
Speaker 4: And I can't believe this hasn't been an issue that
Speaker 4: the Coalition has run with so much more.
Speaker 1: Because bracket creep is the dirty secret.
Speaker 4: Right governments have used this, and this is why the
Speaker 4: Coalition hasn't talked about it, because they've been guilty of
Speaker 4: it too, and have used this for a very long
Speaker 4: time to just claw in more and more of your
Speaker 4: money without actually having to tell you.
Speaker 1: That they're going to tax you anymore.
Speaker 4: And it does disproportionately hurt young people.
Speaker 1: I've been saying this for some time.
Speaker 4: That was the biggest problem with the changes that Labor
Speaker 4: made to the Stage three tax cuts, where they didn't
Speaker 4: get rid of the thirty seven and a half cent
Speaker 4: tax bracket because it is young people who will have
Speaker 4: career progression in the next decade who will see more
Speaker 4: of their money eaten up by bracket creep. Now, I
Speaker 4: know Paul went through some numbers in his program before
Speaker 4: us about how much government spending has gone up and
Speaker 4: government apartments have gone up in the last twenty years.
Speaker 4: I'll give you some numbers over the last ten years.
Speaker 4: Income tax receipts this financial year so this we'll hear
Speaker 4: some of this in the budget tomorrow night are expected
Speaker 4: to be four hundred and ninety six billion dollars.
Speaker 1: That's double what it was ten years ago.
Speaker 4: Right, So, how in that period of time do you
Speaker 4: manage to increase your income tax receipts by that much?
Speaker 4: The working population has increased by twenty five percent in
Speaker 4: that same period, and yet we have doubled the income
Speaker 4: tax receipts.
Speaker 1: How do you do it? You do it by bracket cream.
Speaker 4: People earn more money naturally, inflation goes up, which means
Speaker 4: they earn more money in their wages because their wages
Speaker 4: have to go up to match it, and then the
Speaker 4: government cashes in.
Speaker 1: It is a joke. Something has to be done about it.
Speaker 2: Well, this story talking about how it affects younger people
Speaker 2: comes from analysis done by the Coalition. The Coalition are
Speaker 2: always struggling to attract younger voters. It's amazing to me
Speaker 2: they haven't made an issue of this and come up
Speaker 2: with an idea to help young people out.
Speaker 4: So hope they run with it now. Now, of course,
Speaker 4: tomorrow will be the bouget and we will find out
Speaker 4: what Jim Sharma's has heated up for us in the
Speaker 4: Microwavey will be here at eleven PM to talk it
Speaker 4: all through. I hope you can make it through. I
Speaker 4: know it's a long time, but we will give you
Speaker 4: the entertaining analysis of the budget when you get to
Speaker 4: us at eleven, because you'll be sitting there with a
Speaker 4: glass of red and you'll be ready for a bit
Speaker 4: of fun with it. That's exactly what we'll give you.
Speaker 4: But the papers tomorrow are alluding to some of what
Speaker 4: will be in the budget. The Canberra Times says back
Speaker 4: for the future, Treasure Jim Charmers sees one hundred and
Speaker 4: seventy seven billion dollar debt turnaround will enable the federal
Speaker 4: government to invest in the future. Today's budget papers will
Speaker 4: forecast gross debt of nine hundred and forty billion dollars
Speaker 4: for this financial year, down from the one point one
Speaker 4: trillion dollars forecast at the twenty twenty two election, a
Speaker 4: reduction for one hundred and seventy seven billion dollars in
Speaker 4: real terms. Hooray, the debt is slightly less big than
Speaker 4: we thought it was going to be.
Speaker 1: That's a win for mister Charmers.
Speaker 4: Dr Charmers, I should say before he writes in a
Speaker 4: complaint over on the odds tomorrow they say ALP's fiscal reckoning.
Speaker 4: Debt to GDP rises amid pre elections burge, decade of
Speaker 4: deficits looming Jim Charmers dead outlook has worsened a mid
Speaker 4: a pre election spending splurge of more than sixty seven
Speaker 4: billion dollars in three months, with both both sorry gross
Speaker 4: debt as a percentage of GDP and it's expected peak
Speaker 4: projected to be higher than forecast in last year's federal budget.
Speaker 1: Analysis by The.
Speaker 4: Australian reveals Treasury figures in Tuesday's budget are expected to
Speaker 4: show gross debt as a percentage of GDP in twenty
Speaker 4: twenty four to twenty five will be higher than predicted
Speaker 4: in the May twenty twenty four budget, and in December's
Speaker 4: mid year budget update it just gets better and better.
Speaker 4: It'll be thirty seven percent of GDP, up from thirty
Speaker 4: five point two percent that was forecast by Treasury ten
Speaker 4: months ago. They're going to try and I think they're
Speaker 4: going to try and make this a cost of living
Speaker 4: budget as much as they can tomorrow, because it's the
Speaker 4: only thing they can do to try and get a
Speaker 4: win out of it going into an election.
Speaker 1: Let's throw some cash around.
Speaker 4: Ie will extend the power of subsidies and another one
Speaker 4: hundred and fifty.
Speaker 1: Dollars off will P.
Speaker 4: But we haven't heard a lot actually licked out of
Speaker 4: this budget yet, so it makes you think, how much
Speaker 4: are we really going to learn tomorrow?
Speaker 2: Well, I wonder if not much has been leaked because
Speaker 2: Jim Chalmers wasn't thinking he would need to deliver this,
Speaker 2: but it was only because of cyclone Elfred. I'm pretty
Speaker 2: sure that this budget is being brought down tomorrow night.
Speaker 2: The other question is whether this is a budget for
Speaker 2: the next few years or whether this is a budget
Speaker 2: for the next five weeks, because for the government, that's
Speaker 2: really the only thing that matters is getting across.
Speaker 3: The line at an election in May, and of.
Speaker 2: Course Thursday night, when Peter Dutton delivers his response. So
Speaker 2: far the Coalition have just matched spend for spend. Did
Speaker 2: you say, it's seventy sixty seven billion dollars promised in
Speaker 2: the last three months, and there's been not much to
Speaker 2: separate Labor and the Liberal Party. Everything Albanezi promises, Peter
Speaker 2: Dutton says, we'll do the same, which might be smart politics,
Speaker 2: but I'm not sure it's great for our fiscal situation.
Speaker 6: No, not at all.
Speaker 5: And those who are fiscally minded are rightly going, oh great,
Speaker 5: it's tweet al ed and tweet all dumb.
Speaker 6: I know we've got to rein this in.
Speaker 5: It was Milton Friedman who said that when it comes
Speaker 5: to government spending, you and I are the problem because
Speaker 5: we incentivize governments to promise all in sundry free ice
Speaker 5: creams for roll you get a pony, all this free
Speaker 5: stuff that our children's children then.
Speaker 6: Have to pay for. But they do it every election.
Speaker 5: Cycle because what else gets votes not much, if any,
Speaker 5: Although I dare say a lot of fiscally minded ossies
Speaker 5: would actually love.
Speaker 6: To hear one of these national.
Speaker 5: Leaders talk like, all right, kids, we've got to tighten
Speaker 5: our belts. We've got to pull our socks up. This
Speaker 5: is for future generations. I'm going full Doge style. Why
Speaker 5: is the penny not yet dropped?
Speaker 6: That?
Speaker 5: Actually that will get you votes in today's environment.
Speaker 4: And that did, as you say, passes on to younger
Speaker 4: people who will eventually have to pay back, and they're
Speaker 4: the ones who are having more and more of their income.
Speaker 1: Take it away and break it creep.
Speaker 3: Want to be a young person in Australia.
Speaker 1: Seriously.
Speaker 4: There is one thing though, before we go to a
Speaker 4: break that they aren't going to spend more money on.
Speaker 1: Funnily enough, what do you think it is? Defense?
Speaker 4: Maybe will defire the Trump administration's calls for a substantial
Speaker 4: boost to Australia's military spending, sticking to its current funding
Speaker 4: trajectory in Tuesday's federal budget while bringing forward a billion
Speaker 4: dollars for submarine.
Speaker 1: And missile program.
Speaker 4: So there is something that this government doesn't want to
Speaker 4: spend more money on.
Speaker 3: We should be on.
Speaker 4: This was to be the one thing that is the
Speaker 4: most important thing.
Speaker 3: I mean, isn't it brilliant?
Speaker 2: You've had a dollar for every time they said, oh,
Speaker 2: it's very uncertain geopolitical times. At the moment you'd be
Speaker 2: able to afford those nuclear stufs. We're going to go
Speaker 2: to a break where we come back that maga hat
Speaker 2: that was tried to someone trying to steal it, But
Speaker 2: karma too begins, toll will show you that it is
Speaker 2: the moment. Well, everyone knows the Teals were elected on
Speaker 2: a promise to restore integrity to politics. So how's that going, Monique?
Speaker 2: Right from the seat of Couyong. Well, her husband Peter
Speaker 2: Jordan was filmed taking down the sign of a political opponent,
Speaker 2: which maybe suggests the Teals should be called the Steals.
Speaker 4: So hang on, mate, what are you doing? I'm taking
Speaker 4: the sign?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I beg your pardon. I'm taking the sign out.
Speaker 1: What are you doing that for? It's on public land and.
Speaker 10: I'm not saying who I am?
Speaker 4: Who are you?
Speaker 7: Or you're wearing a Teal t shirt.
Speaker 10: I'll start to film you.
Speaker 4: Are you, Monic Ryan supporter of ripping down people's people's signs?
Speaker 4: Are you?
Speaker 1: Is that what you're doing? That belongs to me?
Speaker 4: Hey, you can take it off the property, but it
Speaker 4: belongs to me.
Speaker 7: If it goes back up it'll be taken down again.
Speaker 4: There you go, Monique Ryan, There you go.
Speaker 1: Community values.
Speaker 3: I love the way they ask you. Are you a
Speaker 3: teal supporter? Nah nah nah No, I'm just her husband.
Speaker 2: He put out a statement later in the day saying,
Speaker 2: I apologize for the removal of the sign. It should
Speaker 2: not have happened. All concerns around signage should be reported
Speaker 2: to count So I reckon he's learned his lesson.
Speaker 5: They're not sorry they did it. They're sorry they got caught.
Speaker 5: But check out this case of karma on a New
Speaker 5: York subway just goes.
Speaker 6: To show trumped arrangement syndrome.
Speaker 5: Despite the vast majority of Americans voting for the man
Speaker 5: is still alive and well.
Speaker 3: The Democrat.
Speaker 6: The bigger they are, the harder they fall.
Speaker 5: I mean, she face planted, she ate concrete.
Speaker 4: That is the perfect example of f around and find out,
Speaker 4: isn't it. That is just so chef's kiss perfect. Let's
Speaker 4: hope that happens to a.
Speaker 1: Few more of them. Mate.
Speaker 2: That was pretty much a metaphor for the US election.
Speaker 2: He was Trump, she was Kamala Harris. That's all we've
Speaker 2: got time for tonight. We'll be on at eleven pm
Speaker 2: tomorrow night, look forward to your company. Then right now,
Speaker 2: here's rid of Penny.