WEBVTT - Paul Murray Live | 4 October 0:00:00.409 --> 0:00:02.970 Good evening, Australia. Welcome to the Man Cave. I'm Caleb 0:00:03.070 --> 0:00:05.650 Bond filling in for Paul here in the Man Cave 0:00:05.670 --> 0:00:07.970 for the next couple of weeks. I hope he has 0:00:08.030 --> 0:00:10.510 some nice time off. And as Paul would often say 0:00:10.550 --> 0:00:13.010 on nights like this, this is one for the true believers. 0:00:13.530 --> 0:00:15.350 So thank you for being here with us. Here's a 0:00:15.350 --> 0:00:17.540 bit of what's coming up. The Treasurer still won't take 0:00:17.570 --> 0:00:21.540 any responsibility for inflation. Now he's blaming the private sector 0:00:21.600 --> 0:00:24.739 for driving things up, despite the fact government spending is, 0:00:24.780 --> 0:00:28.430 of course, at a four-decade high. Lee Hanson, David Limbrick 0:00:28.550 --> 0:00:31.060 on the panel tonight. Plenty happening in Victoria with the 0:00:31.080 --> 0:00:34.000 state election less than two months away now. Ben Carroll 0:00:34.060 --> 0:00:36.720 pledging to cut land tax, and apparently there's a promise 0:00:36.760 --> 0:00:39.559 to lock up Daniel Andrews and Jacinda Allen. I'll have 0:00:39.580 --> 0:00:41.630 a bit more on that later. Plus, we'll cross to 0:00:41.690 --> 0:00:44.490 London for all the latest UK news with Mark Dolan, 0:00:44.550 --> 0:00:49.489 including a terror plot against reform UK leader Nigel Farage. 0:00:49.550 --> 0:00:52.360 But we'll start with a poll... that has dropped this 0:00:52.460 --> 0:00:55.600 evening on the Financial Review. This is a Redbridge poll. 0:00:55.620 --> 0:00:57.700 Of course, our mate Cos Samaras, who pops up on 0:00:57.720 --> 0:01:00.750 this program all the time. Now, there's some of it 0:01:00.810 --> 0:01:03.210 that's not terribly surprising, but there's some of it that 0:01:03.270 --> 0:01:06.970 is quite instructive. What you're looking at there... The primary vote, 0:01:07.150 --> 0:01:09.570 which is, you know, bouncing around in the same way 0:01:09.610 --> 0:01:11.670 it's been bouncing around for the last couple of months. 0:01:11.790 --> 0:01:15.160 One Nation up by a point and Labor down by 0:01:15.170 --> 0:01:17.440 a point, so One Nation back in the lead there. 0:01:17.520 --> 0:01:20.540 Coalition down a point. The Greens down a point after 0:01:20.600 --> 0:01:23.580 appointing their new leader, of course, David Shoebridge, this week, 0:01:23.720 --> 0:01:26.340 and others up just a little. So not a great 0:01:26.420 --> 0:01:30.440 deal of movement on that front. The two-party preferred now, 0:01:30.720 --> 0:01:33.419 and this has been calculated, of course, between Labor... and 0:01:33.440 --> 0:01:37.700 the Coalition is now 50-50. So I'm sure the Coalition 0:01:37.720 --> 0:01:41.080 will be very happy to see that. But then you 0:01:41.100 --> 0:01:44.500 get into the more interesting stuff, the net approval ratings 0:01:45.270 --> 0:01:49.150 for leaders, right? So Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister... And 0:01:49.170 --> 0:01:51.430 keep in mind, this poll is done once a month, 0:01:51.490 --> 0:01:55.930 so this is a change in a month. Anthony Albanese 0:01:56.070 --> 0:02:03.820 down 10 points to a net approval rating of minus 1%. 27%. So, clearly, 0:02:04.300 --> 0:02:08.060 things are starting to change. People are catching on, particularly, 0:02:08.080 --> 0:02:11.959 you know, changes with the interest rates, et cetera. Some 0:02:12.000 --> 0:02:14.760 of this stuff would seem to be cutting through. And 0:02:14.780 --> 0:02:17.340 that is also quite evident when you look at the 0:02:17.419 --> 0:02:22.100 number below it, which is Jim Chalmers. He's now sitting 0:02:22.120 --> 0:02:27.780 at minus 23. He's gone back nine points. since the 0:02:27.820 --> 0:02:30.220 poll was taken a month ago. And, of course, we 0:02:30.260 --> 0:02:42.290 know exactly who Jim Chalmers is, don't we? So, in 0:02:42.310 --> 0:02:44.950 the space of a month, the Prime Minister's gone backward 0:02:44.950 --> 0:02:48.660 10 points and the Treasurer's gone backward nine points. It 0:02:48.700 --> 0:02:51.480 was slightly better for Pauline Hanson. She was up two points, 0:02:51.520 --> 0:02:55.160 so she's now sitting at Minus 10%, and Angus Taylor 0:02:55.190 --> 0:02:58.959 was slid three years now at minus 6%. But it 0:02:58.980 --> 0:03:02.680 would seem to be that the economic concerns are starting 0:03:02.700 --> 0:03:05.700 to cut through, and people are realising that the government 0:03:05.880 --> 0:03:08.860 is indeed at fault here. I mean, you've seen what 0:03:08.900 --> 0:03:11.360 happened to the interest rate during the week. The government 0:03:11.380 --> 0:03:13.700 keeps saying it's not their fault, inflation is not our fault. 0:03:14.080 --> 0:03:17.530 And you now see there, in the top issues... that 0:03:17.590 --> 0:03:19.690 people are looking at. Of course, cost of living is 0:03:19.750 --> 0:03:22.530 still far and away the biggest one, and it will 0:03:22.550 --> 0:03:25.910 continue to do so, be so, for a long time. 0:03:25.950 --> 0:03:28.550 But coming in sixth now, and again, this has rocketed 0:03:28.610 --> 0:03:32.310 up the ranks since a month ago, economic management has 0:03:32.380 --> 0:03:37.400 gained seven points into sixth place, the sixth biggest issue 0:03:37.920 --> 0:03:40.640 for voters in this country now. I mean, this is 0:03:40.700 --> 0:03:44.740 the reality of what is happening, that people are looking 0:03:44.780 --> 0:03:47.990 at the bottom line They're looking at interest rates going up. 0:03:48.290 --> 0:03:51.060 They're looking at inflation going up. They're looking at the 0:03:51.100 --> 0:03:53.820 fact that, you know, they can't afford to buy a home, 0:03:54.000 --> 0:03:56.920 even though, of course, house prices are going down. But 0:03:56.980 --> 0:03:59.840 that's no real consolation to anyone because at the same 0:04:00.380 --> 0:04:02.180 time as house prices are going down because of all 0:04:02.220 --> 0:04:05.130 these tax changes that the government has made, the interest 0:04:05.190 --> 0:04:07.890 rate is going up. So you don't actually have any 0:04:07.990 --> 0:04:12.410 more buying power. I mean, you buy a house, you've 0:04:12.430 --> 0:04:14.610 got to pay your mortgage. So when it comes to 0:04:14.630 --> 0:04:17.280 the 28th of the month... Even though you might have 0:04:17.300 --> 0:04:19.420 paid less for the house than you otherwise would have 0:04:19.900 --> 0:04:22.760 before the government made tax changes, you have to pay 0:04:22.800 --> 0:04:25.380 more on your mortgage. So you don't end up ahead 0:04:25.420 --> 0:04:28.219 at all. You've got no extra encouragement to go and 0:04:28.240 --> 0:04:31.060 buy a home. It's not getting easier. And, of course, 0:04:31.100 --> 0:04:34.839 all of this has happened because inflation is running too hot. 0:04:35.540 --> 0:04:39.589 And yet the Treasurer, all through last week, no responsibility. 0:04:40.150 --> 0:04:44.839 Not my fault. It's not a government issue. that inflation 0:04:44.960 --> 0:04:47.580 is as high as it is. It's your fault, is 0:04:47.640 --> 0:04:50.660 basically what the Treasurer has been saying, and that's exactly 0:04:50.700 --> 0:04:52.780 what he said again this morning on Insiders. 0:04:54.080 --> 0:04:55.960 If you compare the last year of demand in our 0:04:56.000 --> 0:04:58.830 economy compared to the year before, what you'll see is 0:04:58.890 --> 0:05:01.830 that public demand has halved over the last year, while 0:05:01.870 --> 0:05:07.010 private demand has tripled. public final demand grow more slowly 0:05:07.410 --> 0:05:10.710 in the new figures that were released at the start 0:05:10.730 --> 0:05:13.330 of last week. And so what that shows is there 0:05:13.350 --> 0:05:15.969 are other factors at play here because public demand growth 0:05:16.010 --> 0:05:19.169 has been coming down at the same time as inflation 0:05:19.310 --> 0:05:20.250 has edged up. 0:05:21.480 --> 0:05:25.680 Now, that is a complete swindle. Public demand is going down. OK, 0:05:26.460 --> 0:05:29.700 it's not the demand that is the problem. It's the 0:05:29.820 --> 0:05:33.590 share of the pie. that belongs to the government. I mean, 0:05:33.610 --> 0:05:38.630 we are now at a 40-year high when it comes 0:05:38.690 --> 0:05:44.380 to a share of government spending as GDP. 26.9%. The 0:05:44.520 --> 0:05:48.979 highest share it has been in four decades. And you 0:05:49.020 --> 0:05:52.080 have the Reserve Bank saying we have domestic pressures causing this. 0:05:52.990 --> 0:05:57.310 causing the inflation and the fact that interest rates have 0:05:57.350 --> 0:05:59.650 to go up, and the Treasurer says, it's got nothing 0:05:59.690 --> 0:06:01.430 to do with me. Now, what you're looking at there, 0:06:01.970 --> 0:06:05.609 that graph, which Warren Hogan sent through to me the 0:06:05.650 --> 0:06:10.270 other day, is government spending as a percentage of GDP, 0:06:10.310 --> 0:06:13.190 recurrent government spending, right? So this is the stuff that 0:06:13.240 --> 0:06:16.310 they just keep having to spend. And you can see 0:06:16.380 --> 0:06:20.980 there that it was basically a flat line for decades 0:06:21.140 --> 0:06:26.110 and decades... Up until around 2015-16, it started to creep 0:06:26.170 --> 0:06:29.070 up a bit, but particularly in the last few years, 0:06:29.410 --> 0:06:34.830 it has absolutely shot up. This is not one-off spending. 0:06:35.610 --> 0:06:39.520 This is recurrent spending by the government as a share 0:06:39.620 --> 0:06:42.919 of GDP. And yet the Treasurer wants to tell us 0:06:43.600 --> 0:06:47.479 that government spending is not part of the problem here. 0:06:47.839 --> 0:06:51.820 It is absolute rubbish. But clearly, it would seem... people 0:06:51.860 --> 0:06:53.880 are starting to pick up on this. Because when you 0:06:53.900 --> 0:06:57.500 look at those poll numbers, you know, economic management now 0:06:57.560 --> 0:07:00.260 into the sixth biggest issue in the country, and the 0:07:00.320 --> 0:07:05.230 Prime Minister and the Treasurer both going backwards significantly in 0:07:05.290 --> 0:07:08.550 terms of their approval ratings, maybe people are starting to 0:07:08.630 --> 0:07:12.370 realise that the government isn't the saviour. The government actually 0:07:12.470 --> 0:07:16.110 causes most of these problems. Now, I will give credit 0:07:16.390 --> 0:07:18.920 where it's due, even to the Greens. Even a broken 0:07:18.940 --> 0:07:22.000 clock is right twice a day, I suppose. But good 0:07:22.040 --> 0:07:24.920 on the new Greens leader, David Shoebridge, for calling out 0:07:24.980 --> 0:07:28.180 the power that the Digital Duty of Care Bill would 0:07:28.220 --> 0:07:31.700 give the government and the communications minister. He confirmed here 0:07:31.760 --> 0:07:34.210 on News 24 this morning that the Greens would not 0:07:34.290 --> 0:07:36.750 be supporting the bill in its current form because it 0:07:36.790 --> 0:07:39.370 would give too much power to the communications minister. 0:07:40.400 --> 0:07:42.720 You know, we've had a look at that draft legislation 0:07:43.320 --> 0:07:47.620 and there is too much ministerial discretion in it and 0:07:47.960 --> 0:07:54.490 we don't think that giving a minister, you know, excessive 0:07:54.530 --> 0:07:55.890 discretion is a good way of going. 0:07:56.050 --> 0:07:57.750 So you're not passing it in its current form? 0:07:58.370 --> 0:08:00.850 Oh, no, but I'll give the government credit. 0:08:00.870 --> 0:08:02.270 I've been kicking them a bit this week, right? 0:08:02.310 --> 0:08:03.150 Yeah, yeah. 0:08:03.270 --> 0:08:05.210 I don't think they expect it to pass in its 0:08:05.230 --> 0:08:05.650 current form. 0:08:06.640 --> 0:08:08.640 Now, I said I'd give credit where it's due, but 0:08:08.680 --> 0:08:11.110 I'm also not going to gloss over things. Just a 0:08:11.150 --> 0:08:13.390 couple of weeks ago, David Shoebridge seemed to have a 0:08:13.450 --> 0:08:16.470 different view on all of this. I want to be clear. 0:08:16.530 --> 0:08:19.840 The digital duty of care does not prevent material being 0:08:19.900 --> 0:08:25.640 shared unless it meets those criteria, child sexual abuse, terrorism. 0:08:26.040 --> 0:08:27.760 Bestiality, things that I think. 0:08:28.570 --> 0:08:32.610 we would have overwhelming agreement amongst the Australian public. A 0:08:33.290 --> 0:08:38.780 well-designed digital duty of care isn't about prohibiting any one 0:08:38.820 --> 0:08:40.200 of those political messages. 0:08:41.300 --> 0:08:43.460 Now, maybe he's actually read the bill now or maybe 0:08:43.480 --> 0:08:45.579 he just wants to hit the ground running, putting a 0:08:45.600 --> 0:08:47.920 bit of pressure on Labor. I don't know. But a 0:08:48.059 --> 0:08:51.069 couple of weeks ago, he seemed keen on controls over 0:08:51.120 --> 0:08:54.250 what people see on social media, you know, only to 0:08:54.290 --> 0:08:56.930 stop bestiality and child abuse materials, what he said there. 0:08:57.660 --> 0:09:00.040 Now he says it gives the minister too much discretion. 0:09:00.420 --> 0:09:03.020 I'll let you work out why you think he's changed 0:09:03.070 --> 0:09:05.930 his tune, but at least what he says now is right. 0:09:05.950 --> 0:09:08.650 I mean, this has been the problem all along. If 0:09:08.690 --> 0:09:12.650 you're giving a minister, and basically by extension the government, 0:09:13.110 --> 0:09:16.850 the power to determine what is harmful content online, then 0:09:16.870 --> 0:09:20.130 you're effectively creating a ministry of truth. I mean, giving 0:09:20.190 --> 0:09:22.890 a government the power to decide what you should and 0:09:22.970 --> 0:09:26.609 shouldn't see online should scare you. Once upon a time, 0:09:26.650 --> 0:09:29.699 that was called censorship. Now it's called a digital duty 0:09:29.740 --> 0:09:32.920 of care. Very tricky. And it makes it no better 0:09:33.179 --> 0:09:36.520 that the parliament would have oversight of that, because what 0:09:36.559 --> 0:09:39.180 happens when the government controls both of the houses? You 0:09:39.200 --> 0:09:42.380 have complete control of what is and isn't harmful. And 0:09:42.440 --> 0:09:44.939 you might think that the mob today wouldn't wield that 0:09:45.000 --> 0:09:48.240 in a dangerous way, but what if they do? What 0:09:48.280 --> 0:09:51.240 if someone else does in the future? I've made this 0:09:51.300 --> 0:09:53.780 point before. I know Paul often says it. You might 0:09:53.820 --> 0:09:57.450 be comfortable with the team you like having those powers 0:09:57.490 --> 0:10:00.200 because you think they'd make the right decisions. but do 0:10:00.260 --> 0:10:02.859 you want that power in the hands of the team 0:10:02.900 --> 0:10:07.590 you oppose? Because that is inevitably what will happen. I mean, 0:10:07.610 --> 0:10:10.630 you could have a government of the day effectively ban 0:10:10.670 --> 0:10:14.290 stuff from the internet because it believes it to be harmful. Well, 0:10:14.890 --> 0:10:19.290 harmful to whom? What's the threshold for something being harmful? 0:10:19.330 --> 0:10:22.710 It's just far too broad. And this can apply to 0:10:22.750 --> 0:10:25.250 news outfits too. I mean, we could have the communications 0:10:25.290 --> 0:10:28.420 minister telling us here at News 24 or over at 0:10:28.440 --> 0:10:31.079 the News Corp papers where I write columns to bury 0:10:31.140 --> 0:10:37.599 stories because she thinks they're quote-unquote harmful. It is just absurd. Well, actually, 0:10:37.620 --> 0:10:41.370 it's worse than that. It's scary. It's properly Orwellian. And 0:10:41.429 --> 0:10:44.670 don't forget... that the government has already granted itself similar 0:10:44.710 --> 0:10:48.880 powers to ban political parties and organisations under hate speech 0:10:48.940 --> 0:10:52.380 laws that were rushed through parliament after the Bondi massacre. 0:10:52.720 --> 0:10:55.500 As the old saying goes in politics, never let a 0:10:55.540 --> 0:10:58.819 crisis go to waste. When the government already has too 0:10:58.860 --> 0:11:01.540 much power over what you can and can't see and 0:11:01.600 --> 0:11:04.350 what you should or shouldn't think, sure as hell shouldn't 0:11:04.370 --> 0:11:08.130 be given any more. So, look, good on David Shoebridge... 0:11:07.929 --> 0:11:11.500 What am I saying? Shoebridge. Shoebridge! for saying that the 0:11:11.520 --> 0:11:16.300 Greens won't support it. But this thing, properly, needs to 0:11:16.340 --> 0:11:19.510 be killed. While I'm talking about the Greens, apparently they 0:11:19.530 --> 0:11:22.330 now also think that wind and solar farms mightn't always 0:11:22.390 --> 0:11:25.010 be good for the environment. Isn't that an amusing bit 0:11:25.030 --> 0:11:27.650 of irony? Now, keep in mind that to achieve the 0:11:27.690 --> 0:11:33.140 government's renewable goals, we need 406,000 hectares... for new wind 0:11:33.179 --> 0:11:36.220 and solar farms. And, of course, where you put them 0:11:36.800 --> 0:11:39.660 does matter. And this is something I've always thought was 0:11:39.700 --> 0:11:44.090 so funny about some of these greenies. Well, maybe not funny, hypocritical, 0:11:44.410 --> 0:11:47.030 more like it. We have to save the rivers and 0:11:47.050 --> 0:11:49.850 the trees and the animals, and any time someone tries 0:11:49.910 --> 0:11:52.710 to dig a mine or put up a housing development, 0:11:52.750 --> 0:11:56.510 they find some one-wing spotted pygmy possum or something that 0:11:56.550 --> 0:11:59.490 means it couldn't possibly go ahead. But when it comes 0:11:59.530 --> 0:12:02.569 to tearing up land for wind and solar farms, no problems. 0:12:02.670 --> 0:12:06.640 Go for your life. Let's destroy the environment to save 0:12:06.700 --> 0:12:10.820 the environment. Former Greens leader Christine Milne is one person 0:12:11.100 --> 0:12:13.679 who's called this out before. She said last year that 0:12:13.780 --> 0:12:17.199 environmentalists were too scared to say anything bad about a 0:12:17.220 --> 0:12:19.920 renewable project because they didn't want to be lumped in 0:12:19.980 --> 0:12:22.020 with the evil right-wingers. 0:12:22.260 --> 0:12:22.920 Oh, no. 0:12:23.720 --> 0:12:25.950 She said the reason that the larger groups have got 0:12:26.000 --> 0:12:28.760 to this point is is because the right in Australia 0:12:28.980 --> 0:12:32.520 oppose renewable energy. And so the environment movement have been 0:12:32.559 --> 0:12:35.199 reluctant to stand up and say, well, actually, on this 0:12:35.260 --> 0:12:39.580 particular wind farm or this particular transmission line, it's not appropriate. 0:12:39.980 --> 0:12:46.120 They're frightened of being characterised in climate-denial terms. Poor things. 0:12:46.900 --> 0:12:50.360 But she is right that, of all people, the Greenies 0:12:50.400 --> 0:12:54.089 and environmentalists should be able to acknowledge... when an allegedly 0:12:54.130 --> 0:12:57.230 green project isn't all that good for the environment. In fact, 0:12:57.530 --> 0:12:59.190 they ought to be the first jumping up and down. 0:12:59.610 --> 0:13:03.209 But sometimes principles don't come into these arguments. And that's 0:13:03.250 --> 0:13:06.709 where the Greens were, at least until very recently. This 0:13:06.790 --> 0:13:10.190 was reported in The Australian a year ago today. The Greens' 0:13:10.270 --> 0:13:13.330 federal leader, Larissa Waters, is refusing to back activists and 0:13:13.370 --> 0:13:16.410 communities and some of her own senators and party stalwarts 0:13:16.980 --> 0:13:22.880 in fighting biodiversity-damaging renewable projects, underlying schisms within the environmental movement. 0:13:23.610 --> 0:13:26.730 Senator Waters on Friday appeared to give support to five 0:13:26.770 --> 0:13:30.120 key renewables projects that opponents, in some cases their own senators, 0:13:30.650 --> 0:13:34.400 claim will have a significant impact on biodiversity and natural landscapes. 0:13:34.740 --> 0:13:37.559 They include Robbins Island Wind Farm, proposed for a globally 0:13:37.600 --> 0:13:41.860 significant wetlands area in Tasmania's north-west, that is fiercely opposed 0:13:41.920 --> 0:13:44.990 by Green Senators Nick McKim and Peter Wish-Wilson, as well 0:13:45.030 --> 0:13:48.510 as former leaders Bob Brown and Christine Milne. Another contentious 0:13:48.550 --> 0:13:52.290 proposal to transform a vast area of Western Australia's Nullarbor 0:13:52.370 --> 0:13:56.839 into a wind, solar and hydrogen-producing region is also privately 0:13:56.890 --> 0:14:00.420 opposed by Senator McKim. Senator Waters also declined to answer 0:14:00.460 --> 0:14:04.160 calls for help from activists fighting wind farms and significant 0:14:04.220 --> 0:14:07.880 impacts on threatened species or vital remnant vegetation in New 0:14:07.920 --> 0:14:12.740 South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. But that's now changing, apparently, 0:14:13.220 --> 0:14:15.760 because the new leader, David Shoebridge, he's been a busy 0:14:15.800 --> 0:14:18.790 boy today... He's told The Australian, and this will be 0:14:18.809 --> 0:14:21.770 in the paper tomorrow, there is this clear and present 0:14:21.840 --> 0:14:24.580 threat to our ecosystem coming from climate change and we 0:14:24.620 --> 0:14:27.780 need to build the renewable future, we need to electrify 0:14:27.840 --> 0:14:31.340 our economy. But, of course, he says, that isn't just 0:14:31.400 --> 0:14:34.680 a blank check for thoughtless development. It's always going to 0:14:34.700 --> 0:14:37.350 be a balancing act and we know we have to 0:14:37.400 --> 0:14:40.130 do this at speed and scale. You always want to 0:14:40.170 --> 0:14:44.730 make sure that protecting nature is front and centre of 0:14:44.810 --> 0:14:48.470 the work we do. So the tune has changed. And 0:14:48.550 --> 0:14:53.160 maybe now you'll see the Greens opposing renewable energy projects. 0:14:53.480 --> 0:14:57.460 Watch this space. Now, One Nation had their Victorian campaign 0:14:57.500 --> 0:15:00.620 launch yesterday, less than two months now until people get 0:15:00.680 --> 0:15:05.160 the chance to boot out the Andrew-slash-Allen-slash-Carroll government, and it 0:15:05.300 --> 0:15:07.860 looked like a pretty raucous event at Crown in Melbourne. 0:15:09.120 --> 0:15:12.470 A rock star reception for one of Australian politics' most 0:15:12.630 --> 0:15:13.830 polarising figures. 0:15:19.590 --> 0:15:23.470 Pauline Hanson taking centre stage in Victoria for a crowd 0:15:23.510 --> 0:15:27.690 convinced One Nation can shake up November's state election. The 0:15:27.710 --> 0:15:30.700 Labor Premier said One Nation terrifies you. 0:15:31.140 --> 0:15:33.400 Well, I'll tell Ben Carroll, if you're listening, Ben, don't 0:15:33.460 --> 0:15:35.800 be scared of me. I'll tell you what, mate, he 0:15:35.820 --> 0:15:46.870 should be scared of you. Yeah! And they put out 0:15:46.910 --> 0:15:50.210 their policy platform. They'll hold all gang members accountable for 0:15:50.230 --> 0:15:53.630 the actions of one member. They'll scrap the suburban rail loop. 0:15:53.650 --> 0:15:56.810 They're getting rid of the state's treaty. They'll establish a 0:15:56.830 --> 0:16:00.250 24-hour bail court, amongst others. But it was a throwaway 0:16:00.330 --> 0:16:04.010 line by Mark Nicholson that caught the media's attention. He's 0:16:04.190 --> 0:16:06.070 running as a candidate. You probably would have seen him 0:16:06.130 --> 0:16:08.380 on the channel here with Chris Kenny every week. He's 0:16:08.390 --> 0:16:10.940 the bloke who makes the Please Explain cartoons. 0:16:11.980 --> 0:16:14.860 A One Nation candidate has promised to lock up former 0:16:14.920 --> 0:16:19.220 Victorian Premiers Daniel Andrews and Jacinta Allen if elected. Northern 0:16:19.260 --> 0:16:22.640 Metropolitan candidate Mark Nicholson said the former leaders would be 0:16:23.180 --> 0:16:26.960 imprisoned by Christmas at the party's campaign launch in Victoria. 0:16:27.340 --> 0:16:30.750 One Nation's state election launch has been told former Premiers 0:16:30.830 --> 0:16:34.630 Daniel Andrews and Jacinta Allen should be locked up. The 0:16:34.650 --> 0:16:38.850 claim came during a raucous event at Crown. Now, throwing 0:16:38.890 --> 0:16:41.970 Daniel Andrews and Jacinta Allen in jail was probably always 0:16:42.010 --> 0:16:45.790 going to generate headlines. But, boy, has the media reported 0:16:45.810 --> 0:16:50.150 it earnestly in the Herald Sun. One Nation has unveiled 0:16:50.200 --> 0:16:53.640 its complete policy platform at the party's state election campaign launch, 0:16:54.100 --> 0:16:57.460 amid promises that if elected, former premiers Daniel Andrews and 0:16:57.500 --> 0:17:00.420 Jacinta Allen would be in prison by Christmas. 0:17:01.200 --> 0:17:01.860 The age. 0:17:02.380 --> 0:17:05.639 A prominent One Nation Victorian candidate has threatened to jail 0:17:05.760 --> 0:17:09.480 former premiers Daniel Andrews and Jacinta Allen by Christmas... if 0:17:09.500 --> 0:17:14.280 the insurgent right-wing party wins November's state election. The Guardian. 0:17:14.960 --> 0:17:16.840 The Herald Sun reported... Of course, they say the Herald 0:17:16.859 --> 0:17:19.320 Sun reported because they weren't allowed in the room. The 0:17:19.359 --> 0:17:22.960 Herald Sun reported that Northern Metropolitan candidate and creator of 0:17:23.000 --> 0:17:25.840 the parties, Please Explain cartoon Mark Nicholson, vowed at the 0:17:25.859 --> 0:17:29.400 launch that if One Nation won the election, former premiers 0:17:29.420 --> 0:17:34.310 Daniel Andrews and Jacinta Allen would be in prison by Christmas. So, 0:17:34.310 --> 0:17:37.250 if you're hearing and reading all of this, you're probably thinking... 0:17:37.290 --> 0:17:40.910 that One Nation promised to jail Daniel Andrews and Jacinta 0:17:40.970 --> 0:17:45.530 Allen by Christmas. That's literally what the Seven News report said. Well, 0:17:46.290 --> 0:17:52.710 this is what Mark Nicholson actually said. Corruption thrives in darkness. 0:17:54.330 --> 0:17:57.590 And, folks, we're going to turn on the lights. 0:17:57.650 --> 0:18:02.780 And heads are going to rock. By the way, Dan Andrews, 0:18:02.800 --> 0:18:10.480 Jacinta Allen, come in. Heads are going to roll if 0:18:10.560 --> 0:18:12.740 I had it my way they'd be in prison. It 0:18:12.820 --> 0:18:16.520 wasn't a promise to lock them up. There's no policy 0:18:16.980 --> 0:18:19.370 to lock them up. I mean, a politician can't just 0:18:19.400 --> 0:18:22.210 chuck someone in prison. They'd need to be arrested and 0:18:22.250 --> 0:18:25.070 charged by police and prosecuted in court and then found 0:18:25.130 --> 0:18:27.630 guilty of a crime by a judge before they could 0:18:27.650 --> 0:18:30.560 be locked up. It wasn't a vow. It wasn't a 0:18:30.700 --> 0:18:34.270 literal statement. It was expressing the sort of anger that 0:18:34.310 --> 0:18:37.650 a lot of people in Victoria still feel for what 0:18:37.710 --> 0:18:40.629 happened during COVID, for the fact that Melbourne was one 0:18:40.650 --> 0:18:42.889 of the most locked-down cities in the world. I'm one 0:18:42.930 --> 0:18:45.369 of them. I lived there for part of it. The 0:18:45.450 --> 0:18:49.010 anger that they feel about corruption and money disappearing on 0:18:49.030 --> 0:18:51.889 the big build. I mean, he was not literally standing 0:18:51.930 --> 0:18:54.840 there saying, we are going to lock them up. That's 0:18:54.880 --> 0:18:58.119 the context that's been missing from all of this. The 0:18:58.140 --> 0:19:02.199 Australian's Victorian political editor, Anthony Galloway, wrote this on the 0:19:02.240 --> 0:19:05.419 newspaper's website today... Now, I like Anthony's work in the Oz, 0:19:05.420 --> 0:19:29.280 but come on. That's not what it was. Surely no 0:19:29.420 --> 0:19:33.720 one actually believes that One Nation is planning to somehow 0:19:33.880 --> 0:19:37.399 lock people up without them being charged and convicted of 0:19:37.440 --> 0:19:40.820 a crime. Just calm down a bit. One of the 0:19:40.859 --> 0:19:44.140 more accurate reports was actually by the ABC, funnily enough. 0:19:44.780 --> 0:19:47.139 The story on their website said, Mr Nicholson led the 0:19:47.180 --> 0:19:50.770 attendees in a rendition of Advanced Australia Fair... before making 0:19:50.790 --> 0:19:53.429 an impassioned speech promising to hold the government to account 0:19:53.840 --> 0:19:57.159 for the CFMEU corruption scandal. Quote, if I have it 0:19:57.220 --> 0:20:00.379 my way, Daniel Andrews and Jacinta Allen, they'll be in 0:20:00.440 --> 0:20:03.939 prison by Christmas, Mr Nicholson said. I mean, that actually 0:20:03.980 --> 0:20:07.290 has a bit of context and it doesn't mischaracterise it 0:20:07.420 --> 0:20:12.590 as a promise. See, it's... Not that hard. An interesting 0:20:12.619 --> 0:20:16.510 story today in the News Corp papers about single-income families. 0:20:16.630 --> 0:20:19.250 They're much less common than they used to be. That's 0:20:19.290 --> 0:20:22.070 probably a statement of the bleeding obvious, but the numbers 0:20:22.190 --> 0:20:25.680 are that a little over one in five households, 21.5%, 0:20:25.680 --> 0:20:31.780 have a stay-at-home parent compared to 53% of families in 1980. 0:20:31.780 --> 0:20:34.080 So that's a big shift. And here might be one 0:20:34.100 --> 0:20:37.850 of the problems, according to this article. Recent analysis by 0:20:37.970 --> 0:20:42.470 Conal Griffin, commissioned by advocacy group The Parenthood, found raising 0:20:42.630 --> 0:20:47.710 one child now costs an Australian family around $ 17, 800 a year, 0:20:48.210 --> 0:20:54.590 an 86% increase since 2003, which was then $ 9, 476 annually. 0:20:54.750 --> 0:20:59.230 It's probably also a big reason that people aren't having 0:20:59.290 --> 0:21:02.170 kids at all. But I thought this was interesting. The 0:21:02.280 --> 0:21:05.500 story quotes a young mum, Miranda Anderson. She'd like to 0:21:05.540 --> 0:21:07.770 be a stay-at-home mum, but she's had to go back 0:21:07.810 --> 0:21:09.750 to work one day a week to make ends meet. 0:21:09.770 --> 0:21:12.810 It says Ms Anderson is thankful for the leaps and 0:21:12.869 --> 0:21:15.890 bounds women have made, saying it allowed her to build 0:21:15.930 --> 0:21:18.910 her own career assets and financial autonomy as a young 0:21:18.970 --> 0:21:22.800 working woman. But she fears, quote, the pendulum has swung 0:21:22.910 --> 0:21:26.480 too far and now women like her no longer have 0:21:26.560 --> 0:21:30.200 the choice to be a stay-at-home mum. She says there's 0:21:30.260 --> 0:21:33.520 no-one saying this is a good thing. The expectation is 0:21:33.820 --> 0:21:36.679 you just go back to work. There's no policy that 0:21:36.720 --> 0:21:40.210 supports you in that. There's no financial gain. There's no-one 0:21:40.250 --> 0:21:43.150 looking out for you. I just feel like the policies 0:21:43.230 --> 0:21:47.170 haven't kept up with this ever-changing landscape of actually giving 0:21:47.230 --> 0:21:51.290 women choice, especially those who choose to be a stay-at-home mum. 0:21:52.170 --> 0:21:53.990 And I'm sure she's not the only one. I mean, 0:21:54.619 --> 0:21:57.040 there are loads of families who'd love to have a 0:21:57.060 --> 0:21:59.340 parent at home. Typically mum, but it doesn't have to 0:21:59.380 --> 0:22:02.360 be mum. But it's just so much harder to do now. 0:22:03.100 --> 0:22:06.939 Stay-at-home mums, they aren't really a thing anymore. Not simply 0:22:07.000 --> 0:22:10.240 because it's more acceptable for women to work and there's 0:22:10.290 --> 0:22:12.100 equality in the workplace and all the rest of it, 0:22:12.790 --> 0:22:16.350 but because women have been forced to work. I mean, 0:22:16.390 --> 0:22:19.790 it's not all that long ago that an Australian working-class 0:22:19.869 --> 0:22:22.420 family could have one parent at home with the kids 0:22:22.460 --> 0:22:26.000 and one at work. I'm 27, and that's the childhood 0:22:26.020 --> 0:22:29.590 that my brother and I enjoyed. My father worked full-time 0:22:29.619 --> 0:22:32.390 as a landscaper and then a horticulturalist. He still does that. 0:22:33.070 --> 0:22:35.110 And my mother worked in retail one and a half 0:22:35.150 --> 0:22:38.990 days a week, Thursday nights and Saturdays. So, yes, she 0:22:39.030 --> 0:22:41.710 did work a little bit. But there was never a 0:22:41.770 --> 0:22:45.250 time that either mum or dad wasn't home. We didn't 0:22:45.290 --> 0:22:47.990 have to go to childcare or daycare or anything so 0:22:48.770 --> 0:22:51.689 that they could go to work. That is the family 0:22:51.790 --> 0:22:54.690 unit that they decided they wanted to have. They wanted 0:22:54.730 --> 0:22:57.490 a parent at home to look after the kids..... at 0:22:57.530 --> 0:23:02.410 all times. And they sacrificed stuff for that, sure. But 0:23:02.470 --> 0:23:06.679 it wasn't impossible, you know? They bought a house in 0:23:06.680 --> 0:23:09.500 1997 in suburban Adelaide, worth a lot more now than 0:23:09.540 --> 0:23:14.340 it was then. Had two boys within three years, shortly 0:23:14.380 --> 0:23:17.719 after they got married. And we didn't struggle. Mum was 0:23:17.740 --> 0:23:20.020 there every morning to run the show, make sure I 0:23:20.460 --> 0:23:23.000 hauled my lazy bum out of bed. They had a mortgage, 0:23:23.460 --> 0:23:25.879 they earned a modest income. We didn't go on big 0:23:25.930 --> 0:23:29.820