Speaker 1: From the skying seenter. This is Paul Murray live forgive
Speaker 1: me Sharry, distracting you all the way down here in
Speaker 1: the man cave. But I absolutely agree. Now, First, the
Speaker 1: apologies to anyone who saw a big fat blow pushing
Speaker 1: a car up a hill tonight. It was me in
Speaker 1: a pair of trackies because I'd run out of petrol.
Speaker 1: If only there was a little thing that told you
Speaker 1: when you ran out of petrol four days ago. Sorry anyway, Now,
Speaker 1: as you know, when it comes to Australia and this government,
Speaker 1: one song sums it up. Everything is as going now Now.
Speaker 1: Of course, the Australian public from time to time may
Speaker 1: disagree with the everything is awesome chant. For example, in
Speaker 1: the polling which appeared today in the Turnbull Times, where
Speaker 1: the blue line says forty nine percent of Australians to
Speaker 1: believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, a
Speaker 1: massive one point down from the fifty percent who said
Speaker 1: it last month. So celebration in lefty Land. They're now
Speaker 1: back into forty nine percent of the country believing that
Speaker 1: we are in the wrong direction. But of course it
Speaker 1: doesn't matter if people think we're in the wrong direction.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter if people think that the budget was
Speaker 1: too little, too late when it comes to cost of living,
Speaker 1: because we know what the plan is when it comes
Speaker 1: to the Labor Party mention one name, over and over again.
Speaker 1: Put up the spooky music and Australia will hand this
Speaker 1: government another majority. Peter Dutton.
Speaker 2: Peter Dutton, Peter Dutton, Peter Dutton, Peter Dutton, Peter Dutton.
Speaker 1: Well again, we turn to the commentary of today's essential
Speaker 1: poll in The Guardian otherwise known as the Turmbul Times,
Speaker 1: which reads as follows. Peter Dutton slipped back into negative
Speaker 1: territory with forty two percent of respondents disapproving of the
Speaker 1: job that he is doing. Albanizi is steady with forty
Speaker 1: seven percent. Hang on, what so cold? We just compare
Speaker 1: this to here, Peter Dutton, the un actable opposition leader.
Speaker 1: The problem of all, the font of all problems for
Speaker 1: the government is five points in a better position in
Speaker 1: terms of disapproval than the current Prime minister. Now, let's
Speaker 1: be honest, less than a year out from the last election,
Speaker 1: Anthony Abernezi in the same poll was running third. That
Speaker 1: don't know, so does this number mean something right now?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 1: But it does remind us that what the government may
Speaker 1: think is an impossibility of anything other than the majority
Speaker 1: of the next election is most likely going to be
Speaker 1: the fight between majority and minority. Now I have said
Speaker 1: this since day dot. I've said it in lots of
Speaker 1: different ways, trying to be funny sometimes and failing sometimes,
Speaker 1: saying it loudly, always saying it consistently. The most likely
Speaker 1: the next election is about a minority government for the
Speaker 1: Labor Party because of the big block of Teal seats.
Speaker 1: But every now and then there's a little bits of
Speaker 1: data that suggests things maybe even closer than I or
Speaker 1: anyone else's been thinking. For example, again essential poll, when
Speaker 1: we're looking at the primary vote of the political parties,
Speaker 1: now Labour sitting at thirty two. This is all compared
Speaker 1: to last month. Labor sitting at thirty two is basically
Speaker 1: where it was at the last election, when of course
Speaker 1: it only just fell over the line. Literally two thirds
Speaker 1: of the country didn't vote for them, but they had
Speaker 1: enough of support thanks to the Greens to get them
Speaker 1: into a place. And obviously Labor Greens you get to
Speaker 1: forty five percent. So the preferences of people like One
Speaker 1: Nation United Australia Party and independence matter. If you send
Speaker 1: them back to Labor, they're going to win. But if
Speaker 1: you send them a way the coalition, this thing gets
Speaker 1: close to fifty to fifty on primary they're at thirty
Speaker 1: six percent. Remember they've got to be at about forty
Speaker 1: to be in a truly competitive place. But again, everything
Speaker 1: is awesome. Everything is amazing. The budget was fantastic. Everything
Speaker 1: we do in question time is amazing. We never admitted
Speaker 1: a problem whatsoever. Again, turnmbule times. When it comes to
Speaker 1: two party preferred, it's dead level forty eight, forty eight
Speaker 1: and four perut of Australia. Four percent of Australians voting
Speaker 1: are going to make the key decision about whether it
Speaker 1: ends up as a fifty two forty eight scenario, whether
Speaker 1: it ends up as fifty one to forty nine or
Speaker 1: of course fifty to fifty who knows. But interestingly, there
Speaker 1: is a gender divide here when it comes to the
Speaker 1: two party preferred. Men clearly back the Liberal Party when
Speaker 1: it comes to women are backing the Labor Party. But
Speaker 1: then again, every now and then we focus on the poles,
Speaker 1: focus on the data, so we can show you the data,
Speaker 1: show you the receipts. Then have an opinion on top
Speaker 1: of it. That's the way we try to do it,
Speaker 1: no matter anyway, I won't say that now. Obviously, immigration
Speaker 1: is an issue that we're not supposed to talk about.
Speaker 1: We're not supposed to talk about busy streets. We're not
Speaker 1: supposed to talk about the hospital ramping. We're not supposed
Speaker 1: to talk about the cues for rental places. We're not
Speaker 1: supposed to talk about adding hundreds of thousands of people
Speaker 1: to already squeezy couple of major cities. You can't possibly
Speaker 1: talk about it. But guess what voters are and we
Speaker 1: are exactly where we think the majority of Australians are,
Speaker 1: and that this is an issue that increases that they
Speaker 1: are caring about. Press gallery all not allowed to talk
Speaker 1: about it. As I went into chapter and verse last night,
Speaker 1: the high Priestesses of the Camera Bubble say this is racist,
Speaker 1: Dutton terrible. But Dunton has less people disapproving than albnize.
Speaker 1: Whatever sush or shush get back to get done. According
Speaker 1: to the Financial Review today, and Philip Courriy, the excellent
Speaker 1: member of the press Gallery, who I always a couple
Speaker 1: of people I always exclude from this press gallery. Rant
Speaker 1: I had most knights. They know who they are. Immigration
Speaker 1: has searched as an issue of concern among voters, while
Speaker 1: the government's perceived handling of the issue is continuing to decline.
Speaker 1: A far right wing thing tank otherwise known as the
Speaker 1: Opinion Poll in the Financial Review says so in the
Speaker 1: latest True Issue survey by JWS Research, it shows that
Speaker 1: immigration and border security are our top five issue of
Speaker 1: concern with almost a quarter of voters. This is up
Speaker 1: from fifteen percent twolve months ago. So remember two months
Speaker 1: ago we were in a scenario where the government was
Speaker 1: bringing in a record number of people into the country
Speaker 1: and that's when the issue was fifteen percent, when people
Speaker 1: started to see what the results of those extra people
Speaker 1: being brought into the country. Well, of course immigration rose
Speaker 1: is an issue. Let alone Andrew Giles, Clare O'Neil, all
Speaker 1: of that business which has been going on for too long.
Speaker 1: But have a look at the issues that are the
Speaker 1: number one for Australian voters. Surprise, surprise. One we talk
Speaker 1: about all the time cost of living. Eighty percent of
Speaker 1: people say that that is a very significant issue to them,
Speaker 1: followed by healthcare, housing, the economy in general. When you
Speaker 1: look at that with cost of living. It's pretty much
Speaker 1: a very significant number the environment, employment, energy, education, immigration
Speaker 1: and public services. So anyone who wants to say that
Speaker 1: any discussion about it is racist are not actually paying
Speaker 1: attention to what Australian's attitudes are. Now. I know that
Speaker 1: their view in the media is that what they talk
Speaker 1: about will lead the polls. My view is that we
Speaker 1: should try to be where the people are as a poster,
Speaker 1: pretending that we have any magical powers through television, radio
Speaker 1: or online think peethers to lead people. That number, by
Speaker 1: the way, when it comes to cost of living at
Speaker 1: eighty percent, is up five points since last year. Now
Speaker 1: what does that tell you? It tells you that two
Speaker 1: little too late tax cuts are not going to change
Speaker 1: the perception of cost of living and the help that
Speaker 1: this government is offering at a time when, of course
Speaker 1: every opportunity they can to put up taxes, including petrol.
Speaker 1: Have you seen the price of petrol today? I mentioned
Speaker 1: it twice. It's extraordinary, way over two dollars in most
Speaker 1: parts of the country. But of course when it was
Speaker 1: a dollar eighty five. Anthony Abernez he said it's time
Speaker 1: to change the government. But remember they have no responsibility whatsoever,
Speaker 1: despite the fact that I, of course increase the amount
Speaker 1: of tax per liter to now forty nine cents. They
Speaker 1: could have done something about that in the budget, but no, no, no,
Speaker 1: they wanted a surplus, and that surplus is built off
Speaker 1: exclusively drivers, smokers, drinkers, because excise tax vice taxes are
Speaker 1: the only way this government stayed anywhere near a surplus.
Speaker 1: Now let's talk about our old mate, Bill Short and
Speaker 1: this has been bubbling for a couple of days, but
Speaker 1: you may all have heard the story by now that
Speaker 1: someone in the department of which he manages as the Minister,
Speaker 1: decided to hire somebody to write speeches for Services Australia.
Speaker 1: They were paid three hundred thousand dollars a year. It's
Speaker 1: a two year contract. We are now talking about six
Speaker 1: hundred thousand dollars. The question only came to light after
Speaker 1: some questioning from the Liberal Senator Linda Reynolds in Senate estimates.
Speaker 3: Services Australia OZ tender contract here for temporary personnel services
Speaker 3: contract value of six hundred and twenty thousand dollars for
Speaker 3: a two year contract period for a Julianne Stewart from
Speaker 3: Cremorn to write speeches for Bill Shorton? Is that correct?
Speaker 1: Extraordinary? Six hundred thousand dollars? Now, remember the Prime Ministry
Speaker 1: has paid five hundred thousand dollars a year backbenture in
Speaker 1: the Parliament above two hundred, minister above three hundred. Does
Speaker 1: anyone believe that a speech writer for a government department
Speaker 1: should be paid three hundred thousand dollars? Now? Literally, they
Speaker 1: could be the finest words in the world. But let's
Speaker 1: be honest, three hundred thousand dollars. That's ridiculous. But it's
Speaker 1: a symptom of something bigger that isn't necessarily anything to
Speaker 1: do with Bill Shortan. But I'll get back to that
Speaker 1: in a second. Of course, as this story was starting
Speaker 1: to build, he appeared on a Current Affair because they
Speaker 1: had an amazing story about the abuse of the ndies.
Speaker 1: But they got into this conversation. What happened?
Speaker 4: If you're referring today as some sort of cheap liberal
Speaker 4: tactic in the Parliament, do you think you're to.
Speaker 5: Spend that amount of money on a speech writer?
Speaker 1: Is the one more question I'm asking.
Speaker 4: First of all, I think that service, the hiring of
Speaker 4: a speech writer was done by Service Australia. I had
Speaker 4: no idea what the payment was. So if you're trying
Speaker 4: to link me to that, good luck. The point about
Speaker 4: it is the person involved as the speech writer, it
Speaker 4: does a very good job. I'm not responsible for negotiating
Speaker 4: a contract.
Speaker 1: But the question for shortened here is to say I
Speaker 1: didn't do this deal, but I agree with you. The
Speaker 1: deal's not going to be repeated. It's too rich. But
Speaker 1: instead we get to have it both ways because in
Speaker 1: this government there's never a mistake. They never admit wrong
Speaker 1: on anything, no matter what obvious evidence. So I can
Speaker 1: put in front of you and how many times have
Speaker 1: we done that for you? Almost every day since this
Speaker 1: mob came to power, multiple times a day. The longer
Speaker 1: that they go and the more mistakes that they make.
Speaker 1: But I don't know. We didn't make any here. Well,
Speaker 1: the reviews were rather obvious to Gibet today referred to
Speaker 1: the appearance of the minister on this particular subject as
Speaker 1: arrogant as hell. And then we started to come up
Speaker 1: with new excuses because of course this government can do
Speaker 1: no wrong, and everyone else will make excuses for everyone else.
Speaker 1: Tony Burke went on the radio today on Taxpayer Radio,
Speaker 1: and he decided to use worker shortages as a reason
Speaker 1: why somebody has to be paid six hundred thousand dollars
Speaker 1: for two years worth of work to write speeches for
Speaker 1: a government department.
Speaker 6: Time of labor shortage. You keep ending up with situations,
Speaker 6: You keep ending up with situations where people where some
Speaker 6: various professions are getting more money than would otherwise be
Speaker 6: paid when there's labor shortage. Like the departments made that decision,
Speaker 6: The Minister hasn't made that decision. Would that job ordinarily
Speaker 6: be paid that amount? Absolutely not, for the exact reasons
Speaker 6: that I've explained. That's why it landed in the place
Speaker 6: that it did.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. What this is not a doctor being paid
Speaker 1: extra money to work in regional Australia because there's not
Speaker 1: enough doctors in regional Australia. This is a person from
Speaker 1: the north Shore of Sydney being paid over the odds
Speaker 1: by a government department. What She's the only person who
Speaker 1: can write a speech in all of Australia. There's no
Speaker 1: one anywhere inside the entire labor phalanx, inside the machine
Speaker 1: who could do the job. There's no one who if
Speaker 1: you advertised the job for two hundred thousand dollars and
Speaker 1: even then it'd be too much. But still, if you
Speaker 1: advertised it for two hundred thousand dollars or one hundred
Speaker 1: thousand dollars a year, that wouldn't put their hand up
Speaker 1: and take the job. Now, I'm not talking about a
Speaker 1: completely unqualified personnel doesn't know what they're doing. But seriously,
Speaker 1: how many so called starving artists are there in the
Speaker 1: world who would be able to put two and two
Speaker 1: sentences together six hundred thousand dollars because of worker shortages
Speaker 1: pull the other one. But again, this is the habit
Speaker 1: of this government because they assume that everything that comes
Speaker 1: out of the Liberal Party will die an instant death
Speaker 1: as soon as it becomes public because the media will
Speaker 1: not want to do anything to disturb their chosen government.
Speaker 1: For whatever reason, they think they can just stand here
Speaker 1: and just speak into the wind, and when we show
Speaker 1: it to you, they think your student and won't be
Speaker 1: able to notice the silliness of their games. Now again,
Speaker 1: Bill Shorlden did not hire this person, and I believe
Speaker 1: in that someone in his department did. But it's very
Speaker 1: simple as the bloke who is trying to get on
Speaker 1: top of the costs and failing in many ways of
Speaker 1: the National Disability Insurance scheme. Don't you turn around and
Speaker 1: when you learn about this, and let's imagine he learns
Speaker 1: about this this week, you say that is ridiculous. Okay,
Speaker 1: we're stuck to the contract now, but when we were
Speaker 1: near the contract, that won't be happening again. You would
Speaker 1: think that would be what happened. But no, what about
Speaker 1: in question time today? Now? Again, this is the tactic
Speaker 1: of this government over and over again. Now they think
Speaker 1: they're as good as Daniel Andrews, and they think that
Speaker 1: they are as charming as the Howard government. So they
Speaker 1: think if they just straight bat everything, then all their
Speaker 1: problems will go away. But again, normal people see this
Speaker 1: stuff and go hang on, weren't you supposed to be
Speaker 1: better than everyone else? Here was the question asked about
Speaker 1: this issue to Bill Shorten about the department he is
Speaker 1: in charge of, with.
Speaker 7: Shocking revelations out of budget estimates last night that ilicted
Speaker 7: drugs such as heroin, cocaine's speed and icer being trafficked
Speaker 7: through the NDIS, with THEA officials admitting, I quote you
Speaker 7: name it, it's on the list. Why has the minister
Speaker 7: allowed illegal drugs to be trafficked to Australia's most vulnerable
Speaker 7: and paid for by taxpayers under the scheme that you design.
Speaker 1: So he's asked pretty directly, right, he's asked directly about
Speaker 1: again the failures of the system. But watch him literally
Speaker 1: not answer the question.
Speaker 4: The NDIS is changing lives, and I actually think that
Speaker 4: most members of the House are very committed to seeing
Speaker 4: the NDIS deliver the outcomes that it was designed to
Speaker 4: deliver for people with disability. But the NDIS needs to
Speaker 4: be got back on track. And the member goes to
Speaker 4: one of the questions about the future of the scheme,
Speaker 4: which is making sure that every dollar gets through to
Speaker 4: the participants from him it's designed.
Speaker 1: Somebody pops up and says, sorry, that's not an answer.
Speaker 1: The question speaker says he.
Speaker 2: Wasn't asked about alternative approaches. He wasn't asked about the opposition.
Speaker 2: He was asked a specific question regarding estimates and issues
Speaker 2: raised through the estimates process. I'm going to make sure
Speaker 2: he's remaining directly relevant to the question.
Speaker 1: So he might be looking at the opposition, but he's
Speaker 1: actually sending a message, Okay, mate, you've had your turn.
Speaker 1: Now answered the question. Watch him not answer the question.
Speaker 4: INDOS is a good idea, but under the Coalition was
Speaker 4: badly managed and one of the naive mistakes they made
Speaker 4: is that whilst they paid out money to participants and
Speaker 4: service providers, they failed to do anything about the system
Speaker 4: into which they were paying it.
Speaker 1: So for the second time, can you please answer the question?
Speaker 1: And the speaker pretty much tells him, Bill, answer the question.
Speaker 1: Minister will pause.
Speaker 2: He's had two minutes, and I gave an instruction before
Speaker 2: about referring. I can understand his just bringing some history
Speaker 2: into this issue, but it wasn't about the history of
Speaker 2: what he's talking about. It was about a specific matter
Speaker 2: raised in the estimates. So he's going to have to
Speaker 2: address that otherwise he'll be resuming his seat.
Speaker 1: So he's been warned a couple of times. But what
Speaker 1: is Bill shouldn't do exactly what every labor minister does.
Speaker 1: Ignore Ignore, Ignore.
Speaker 4: We have got about five hundred plus investigations of compliance
Speaker 4: matters under investigation. We have two hundred and twenty two
Speaker 4: investigations underway, We have twenty prosecutions in the court. We
Speaker 4: have another twelve matters currently with a DPAPA to consider.
Speaker 4: And clearly, anyone claiming items which are not allowed under
Speaker 4: the scheme.
Speaker 1: It is illegal.
Speaker 4: The one difference between us and those people opposite is
Speaker 4: we're doing something about fixing up the scheme.
Speaker 1: You did nothing right. So that story and the question
Speaker 1: he's being asked about was about waste inside the next
Speaker 1: disability insurance game. Brisbane Times put the headlines up suggesting drugs, alcohol, rent,
Speaker 1: holidays and cars. Integrity Chief reveals dodgy NDIS spending. He
Speaker 1: has no answer about it, his decision to pretend that
Speaker 1: he has no responsibility over the very department that hires
Speaker 1: a speechwriter for six hundred thousand dollars. And then there's
Speaker 1: the third part of this. Last Night on a Current Affair,
Speaker 1: an excellent report about somebody claiming to take care of
Speaker 1: people on the Nisiwal Central Coast but apparently and allegedly
Speaker 1: doing quite the opposite.
Speaker 5: Denise clissold sold herself as a trusted NDIS provider, an
Speaker 5: angel to our most vulnerable. Instead, clients like Michelle and
Speaker 5: Kyle found themselves homeless and broke. Millions of dollars have
Speaker 5: gone missing. A police investigation is underway, yet she still
Speaker 5: hasn't been banned.
Speaker 8: It was allocated an NDIS plan of three hundred and
Speaker 8: fifty seven thousand dollars in June last week year to
Speaker 8: cover twelve months of supports, which was controlled by Denise's business.
Speaker 3: She would send me money through my own personal bank account,
Speaker 3: which I thought was very weird.
Speaker 1: Now that story gets pretty complicated, we go and check
Speaker 1: it out on the Current Affair website or otherwise I'll
Speaker 1: post it up on our socials. But it was a
Speaker 1: perfect example about just how missy the system is. Of course,
Speaker 1: the woman the center of it all denies everything, but
Speaker 1: still these are the problems with a very big system,
Speaker 1: a very big system that all of us hope works better.
Speaker 1: We'll talk about it with the Shadow Minister for the
Speaker 1: ndis the Great Holy Hughes. So we'll also be talking
Speaker 1: about her political future. Why because the Liberal Party essentially
Speaker 1: has taken it away from her. I'll explain all when
Speaker 1: she's in the man Cave in a couple of moments time.
Speaker 1: How many people does it take to change a light
Speaker 1: global I don't know quite what the version of this is,
Speaker 1: but how many people does it take to build a house?
Speaker 1: According to again, send it estimates and more information that
Speaker 1: we are getting the Prime Minister who apparently wants to
Speaker 1: spend more money than ever before on housing and social housing,
Speaker 1: and a treasurer who claims I we can get a
Speaker 1: million houses built in the next ten minutes. Well none
Speaker 1: of that is happening. Instead, Simon Benson with a great
Speaker 1: story tonight in the Australian newspaper. Howse about this is
Speaker 1: another example of other people's money. The Agency, which has
Speaker 1: been tasked with delivering Anthony I beneath his ten billion
Speaker 1: dollar affordable housing fund to low income families, has paid
Speaker 1: more than twenty four million dollars in external consultants at
Speaker 1: six million dollars in executive salaries last year, despite not
Speaker 1: having built a single home. The documents that they've been
Speaker 1: able to have a look at and are on the
Speaker 1: front page of The Australian's website right now, no doubt
Speaker 1: the paper tomorrow. The documents reveal that nineteen staff are
Speaker 1: employed by the agency on salary of more than three
Speaker 1: hundred thousand dollars. They haven't built one house, five people
Speaker 1: and more than four hundred thousand dollars. The top executive
Speaker 1: has paid five hundred and fifty seven thousand dollars, which
Speaker 1: is higher than what the Prime Minister is currently paid
Speaker 1: and so on and so on and so on, an
Speaker 1: extraordinary amount of money, and not one house has been built.
Speaker 1: But most importantly, we've got the most important people there,
Speaker 1: and that's the bureaucrats. The bureaucrats who are paid way above.
Speaker 1: Now remember when they used to say that the public
Speaker 1: service has to pay their people more because they have
Speaker 1: to be competitive with the private sector. Well now it's
Speaker 1: the other way around. The private sector because of the
Speaker 1: public sector, because it's so awash with cash, because it
Speaker 1: has a government that doesn't care about how much it spends,
Speaker 1: is hiring people at increasingly stupid numbers, like the bloke
Speaker 1: to administer the Prime minister's housing scheme is paid more
Speaker 1: than the Prime minister. Why should all these people be
Speaker 1: paid fifty grand a year? Of course not, but honestly,
Speaker 1: and this is where I talk about one of the
Speaker 1: projects of the far left of the Labor Party, but
Speaker 1: increasingly the entire Labor Party is to again follow the
Speaker 1: play of Daniel Andrews in Victoria and Anastasia Paloshet and Queensland.
Speaker 1: Why because it's worked electorally now it's wrong, but it
Speaker 1: has worked on multiples because the expectation is that you
Speaker 1: either get permanent people voting for you because they work
Speaker 1: for the government. Like all of those people, you get
Speaker 1: people voting for you because you are dependent on the
Speaker 1: government when it comes to welfare, and any change to
Speaker 1: that is a cut cut cut cut, cut cut cut.
Speaker 1: Or if you're in business, your biggest client is government.
Speaker 1: That way, they can lock up about seventy percent of
Speaker 1: the electorate and everyone else can stay in their house
Speaker 1: when there's a pandemic, which is exactly what happened to
Speaker 1: everyone in small business. But of course to the people
Speaker 1: who were working on the unionized buildings, they got to
Speaker 1: go to work. Nothing to see. Now again, there's an
Speaker 1: area of government that is closest to all of us,
Speaker 1: and it is local government. And while it frustrates me deeply,
Speaker 1: it is the most intimate form of government, and certainly
Speaker 1: as I've traveled around the country, local government when we
Speaker 1: go to our towns is basically government because canber is
Speaker 1: a long way away from places like mounta iSER or
Speaker 1: Burke or Long Says or Kangaroo Island. But equally in
Speaker 1: the cities, our local councils are the ones responsible for
Speaker 1: all sorts of things that we take for granted as
Speaker 1: the basic public amenities. But I always think about this,
Speaker 1: which is you always have politicians standing up of all
Speaker 1: stripes of all governments basically saying the same thing. Billionare
Speaker 1: million there, billionaire, million.
Speaker 9: There, spending millions of dollars, tens or hundreds of millions of.
Speaker 1: Dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars, tens
Speaker 1: of billions of dollars. But the reason all of these
Speaker 1: numbers kind of wash offers is because none of us
Speaker 1: really believe that the money is being spent properly. Because
Speaker 1: wherever you drive there's a pothole. If you go for
Speaker 1: a walk every day, well you know how bad the
Speaker 1: footpads are around the place. Well what about this? For
Speaker 1: an example, Northern Beaches Council in Sydney, they are hot
Speaker 1: to trot at the moment because, according to the Citney
Speaker 1: Morning Herald, are thousand dollars a meter to build footparts.
Speaker 1: Is how much they are spending. The council claiming that
Speaker 1: they need to spend this money and they too were
Speaker 1: in the middle of the cost of living stuff. But
Speaker 1: let me read you some of this stuff. A council
Speaker 1: who's out of control spending includes a million dollars a
Speaker 1: kilometer on foot paths. A million dollars a kilometer on
Speaker 1: footpaths was among those appearing before a parliamentary committee on Monday,
Speaker 1: why they want more abilities to increase taxes rates. Northern
Speaker 1: Beaches councilors nearly rejected their entire budget. Why because of
Speaker 1: a plan to borrow for and a bit million dollars to,
Speaker 1: among other things, take care of manaval cemetery. Under questioning,
Speaker 1: an independent councilor confirmed that footpaths in the municipality reestimated
Speaker 1: to cost just over one million dollars per kilometer. Now
Speaker 1: I get it, people just take the proverbial when it's
Speaker 1: government that's paying. But a million dollars a kilometer cost
Speaker 1: affixed local roads has bloooned to seven point one million
Speaker 1: dollars for four point eight kilometers and so on and
Speaker 1: so on. But before you start thinking, Northern Beaches Council
Speaker 1: has every right to bitch and because it is out
Speaker 1: of money. Like always, they go on the website of
Speaker 1: these councils and I have a look at the positions vacant.
Speaker 1: There are I think about twenty positions currently vacant on
Speaker 1: the Northern Beaches council website. One of them is for
Speaker 1: a cashier or a customer service assistant. The pay for
Speaker 1: this job let me put my glasses onto double checking.
Speaker 1: The actual number for this is sixty one thousand to
Speaker 1: seventy one thousand dollars. This is to work at the
Speaker 1: aquatic center. This is to be the cashier at the
Speaker 1: aquatic center that the local ratepayers of the Northern Beaches
Speaker 1: have to pay between sixty one and seventy one thousand
Speaker 1: dollars for the person who is charging you the entry
Speaker 1: fee or maybe occasionally having to reach back and grab
Speaker 1: a paddle pop. Seriously one thousand dollars a week for
Speaker 1: that job. I wonder if that the council's concept of
Speaker 1: spending might be slightly out of control. We'll talk about
Speaker 1: this and a whole lot of other local council issues,
Speaker 1: because there is a legitimate need for counsels to have
Speaker 1: more money to spend on infrastructure with our dear friend
Speaker 1: Linda Scott, who represents local council of course at the
Speaker 1: federal cabinet, but fed inkom, how can you be crying
Speaker 1: poor when you're paying seventy one thousand dollars for the
Speaker 1: cashier at the freaking pool. Honestly, now, fair amount of
Speaker 1: stuff I want to get to overseas, and there is
Speaker 1: quite a bit of it around tonight, including Hunter Biden.
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden is in a world of trouble. He is
Speaker 1: currently involved in a criminal case right now. Jury has
Speaker 1: just been selected, and he is in a world of trouble.
Speaker 1: Exactly what trouble is in he a Ken Doll, American
Speaker 1: news reporter, Please read it to me.
Speaker 10: Hunter Biden facing three felony charges after prosecutors say he
Speaker 10: lied on a federal full form indicating he wasn't using
Speaker 10: drugs when he bought a Revolver handgun in twenty eighteen,
Speaker 10: during a period where he admits that he was addicted
Speaker 10: to crack. The charites carry a maximum sentence of twenty
Speaker 10: five years in prison if he's convicted now.
Speaker 1: Last night, I said something that a few people thought
Speaker 1: was too creepy to be true. Sadly it is true,
Speaker 1: and it is also creepy, but it ain't too creepy.
Speaker 1: A lady by the name of Hailey Biden was married
Speaker 1: to Hunter's brother Bo. Bo of course died of brain
Speaker 1: cancer and grief apparently brought them together, and then his
Speaker 1: brother hooked up with his brother's widow and they were
Speaker 1: in a relationship for some period of time. Now, supposedly,
Speaker 1: Haley Biden is going to be one of the people
Speaker 1: that is going to be giving evidence for the prosecution
Speaker 1: in the gun case. Yeah, you've got that right. He
Speaker 1: hooked up with his dead brother's wife, Classy Feller. Anyway,
Speaker 1: Hailey Biden, now fifty, was dating Hunter Biden in twenty
Speaker 1: eighteen when she found the gun in his outside our home.
Speaker 1: According to federal prosecutors, Haley Biden then drove to when
Speaker 1: he by grocery store tossed it into the bin. Prosecutors
Speaker 1: are expected to include testimony from Hailey as well as
Speaker 1: Hunter's other ex wife, who is going to be talking about,
Speaker 1: among other things, some of the business dealings. Hunter and
Speaker 1: Hailey Biden started dating several months after his wife filed
Speaker 1: for divorce and after her husband Bo his brother Bo died.
Speaker 1: For his part, Joe Biden says nothing.
Speaker 11: He says as the president, I don't and won't comment
Speaker 11: on pending federal cases, but as a dad, I have
Speaker 11: boundless love for my son, confidence in him, and respect
Speaker 11: for his strength. Our family has been through a lot
Speaker 11: together and Jill and I are going to continue to
Speaker 11: be there for Hunter and our family with our love
Speaker 11: and support.
Speaker 1: Now, generally speaking, I'm a you do you kind of person. Yep, brothers,
Speaker 1: we do your husband's brother. Weird anyway, In the UK,
Speaker 1: huge news. Our dear friend Nigel Farage, known to be
Speaker 1: the only place you can see him on Australian TV,
Speaker 1: is here and we are waiting for our chance to
Speaker 1: be able to talk to him. But he's been a
Speaker 1: little bit busy in the past couple of days. Why
Speaker 1: because he is running for parliament. He is not only
Speaker 1: running for parliament, but he plans to lead the Reform
Speaker 1: Party for the next five years. In his announcement that
Speaker 1: he is running for parliament, he said this, so frankly, we're.
Speaker 12: In a situation I think when nobody believes a word
Speaker 12: that they say, No one's listening. People are zoned out
Speaker 12: and right at the minute, none of the above is
Speaker 12: top of the polls by a country mile.
Speaker 1: His clarity of messaging is always amazing. Now I know
Speaker 1: that there is in Britain increasingly becomes a lefty country,
Speaker 1: but the parts of the country that are conservative sort
Speaker 1: of Boris Johnson Conservatives, well they hate what the Tory
Speaker 1: Party has become. So his plan here is to try
Speaker 1: to turn those from Tory seats in to Reform seats
Speaker 1: and from there they make their way from a few
Speaker 1: seats in the House to maybe the opposition, and then
Speaker 1: in a few cycles may be on their way to government.
Speaker 1: That's the idea. But when asked by people in the
Speaker 1: UK media, all right, you said you weren't going to run,
Speaker 1: but then you decided to run. Why the election's over?
Speaker 12: I mean another poll out tonight at five o'clock an
Speaker 12: MRP poll on Sky and Nears, which Puts once again
Speaker 12: says fourteen cabinet ministers will lose their seats.
Speaker 1: It's over labor of one.
Speaker 12: This is now about who forms the voice of opposition
Speaker 12: in an ex parliament and in the country, and it
Speaker 12: won't be the Conservatives. They'll be in opposition, but they
Speaker 12: won't be the opposition. They're split down the middle. They
Speaker 12: agree on nothing, They have no purpose. They don't stand
Speaker 12: for a blooming thing. Whereas what we stand forth perfectly
Speaker 12: clear and people know that.
Speaker 1: Strength to his arm. Not am busy to join us
Speaker 1: eachin every week, but we will be talking to him
Speaker 1: before now and the election good luck to Nigel Farage
Speaker 1: trying to take them all on, and he will take
Speaker 1: on all comers in the English election. And just finally
Speaker 1: before we start a debate with Nicole Flynn and Linda
Speaker 1: Scott in a moment or two time, Welcome to the World. Billy.
Speaker 1: Billy is a beautiful little girl who is now welcome
Speaker 1: to the world by her parents, Tom and Olivia. She's
Speaker 1: two point four kilos, she's happy, healthy, and she's going
Speaker 1: to have a wonderful life with the parents that she
Speaker 1: gets in a jackpot. But there's something really special about Billy.
Speaker 1: Billy is the first ever baby to be produced by
Speaker 1: this television show. What Tom was a former executive producer
Speaker 1: of mine and is an absolute rock star. I love
Speaker 1: him with all my heart. And there was this beautiful,
Speaker 1: beautiful woman by the name of Olivia who was working here.
Speaker 1: They eventually started to work on the same show. They
Speaker 1: eventually fell in love, they got married, and now there
Speaker 1: is an official Poor Murray Live baby. I don't know
Speaker 1: what that means for Billy's future, but it certainly means
Speaker 1: she's got an uncle in me who will protect her
Speaker 1: twice as much as anyone else in the world. Congratulations
Speaker 1: to Tom and Olivia, beautiful people. Billy, you hit the
Speaker 1: jackpot with Mum and Dad. More in a secure on pormote.
Speaker 1: So much to talk about with Loving Nicole Flint, who
Speaker 1: was of course the little candidate for the seat of
Speaker 1: Boothby vote vote, vote, vote, vote, vote early, just even
Speaker 1: before there's even a ballot paper vote for the lady.
Speaker 1: And none other than Linda Scott has of course running
Speaker 1: for reelection on the City of Sydney Council. Vote early,
Speaker 1: vote now, now, now, now, now right, just walk up
Speaker 1: knock on the townel So how do I vote for her?
Speaker 1: All right, let's start with this welcome to country thing
Speaker 1: that was apparently performed in the Attorney General's Department in Queensland. Now, Nicole,
Speaker 1: we get it, well, welcome to country, in my view,
Speaker 1: a little too much of it. But there's sort of
Speaker 1: this bizarre little bit of extra that was thrown in
Speaker 1: there where everyone was told to take their shoes off
Speaker 1: so they could wiggle their toes along with the welcome
Speaker 1: to country to feel at one with the earth. Now, again,
Speaker 1: this thing is overused. It does have its place, but
Speaker 1: I think we all could agree we're in the wrong
Speaker 1: place when everyone's being told to whip their shoes off
Speaker 1: for it.
Speaker 9: And I think we could all agree that this is
Speaker 9: not an appropriate use of the eloyees' time, who are
Speaker 9: funded by the taxpayers of Australia. Pol So, whether it's
Speaker 9: taking your shoes off and wiggling your toes or whether
Speaker 9: it's multiple acknowledgments of country and welcomes to country, these
Speaker 9: people who are employed by government departments are paid by taxpayers.
Speaker 9: So I think this is ultimately a productivity issue, leaving
Speaker 9: aside all of the questions about what value that is
Speaker 9: actually providing. But come on, how much time are we
Speaker 9: now are bureaucrats wasting with multiple welcomed countries and doing
Speaker 9: things like taking their shoes off as well, Let's just
Speaker 9: all get on with serving the people of Australia who
Speaker 9: are paying their salaries.
Speaker 1: We'll take anyone who's even been to a school speech day,
Speaker 1: like every single speaker now, now again, Linda, I understand
Speaker 1: the respect of previous traditions, the respected previous customers, get all.
Speaker 1: I understand the concept, right, But the idea that please
Speaker 1: wh whip you shoes off and have a little wiggle,
Speaker 1: how does that improve anyone? How does that build a
Speaker 1: deeper connection.
Speaker 13: I think nobody would want me to take my shoes
Speaker 13: off anywhere. Mate clear about that, but I do think
Speaker 13: that every time we do a welcome to country, it
Speaker 13: reminds us that the land was indigenous land, and in
Speaker 13: many cases that land has not given back it was stolen.
Speaker 1: It in the two hours last in the country.
Speaker 13: I know I've learned so much through in the city
Speaker 13: of Sydney, Gaddigle elders. Every time they do a welcome
Speaker 13: to country teach me a little bit more about some
Speaker 13: local history. I find it interesting, I find it useful.
Speaker 13: I talk to my community about it, and I think
Speaker 13: it's a really important tradition to recognize history, learn more
Speaker 13: about our beautiful nation, but also recognize the past injustices
Speaker 13: and commit ourselves to doing a little bit more to
Speaker 13: redress them into the future. I don't think that's too
Speaker 13: much to ask. To celebrate the oldest continuing culture in
Speaker 13: the world, and that is our Aboriginal culture. Should be
Speaker 13: celebrating and talking about that. And if people who work
Speaker 13: in the service of the public are doing that at
Speaker 13: the start of a significant event like an opening of
Speaker 13: a building, I'm not sure the circumstances of this welcome
Speaker 13: to country.
Speaker 1: Well, I think there's a lot of times it ain't
Speaker 1: that significantly the start of a job interview, or as
Speaker 1: I say, the fourth person making a speech on any
Speaker 1: one day. Again, I get what the purpose of it is,
Speaker 1: whether it's overused or not. Kind of think we're on
Speaker 1: the little overused site. All right, let's talk about this
Speaker 1: local council thing that I was mentioning. And there is
Speaker 1: an overall issue with and I've got to say, and
Speaker 1: it's being an unpopular view, is that I do think
Speaker 1: that there needs to be a bit more money given
Speaker 1: to local councils to actually perform some of the basic functions.
Speaker 1: I think some local councils don't do themselves a favor by, say,
Speaker 1: seventy one thousand dollars for the cashier at the local pool,
Speaker 1: or a whole bunch of other things they choose to
Speaker 1: spend their money on. But Nicole, how have we got
Speaker 1: to a point where, yes, it's a counsel in Sydney. Yes,
Speaker 1: it's probably some faction all this, that and the other
Speaker 1: where somebody's having a go at somebody else. It's a
Speaker 1: thousand dollars a meter or a million dollars a kilometer
Speaker 1: to put foot pads down.
Speaker 9: I know, and private businesses would go out of business
Speaker 9: if these were the sorts of costs they were paying
Speaker 9: to get things done. Paul, I mean goodness me, what
Speaker 9: have they gold plated the footpath? You've really got to
Speaker 9: ask questions about how this council is running its basic infrastructure.
Speaker 9: And also I would be asking questions about what else
Speaker 9: are they wasting money on if they can't get the
Speaker 9: basics like this? Right, great, payers in this particular council
Speaker 9: should be asking some hard questions of the people that
Speaker 9: they have elected if this is how they are ministering
Speaker 9: basic local infrastructure.
Speaker 1: Correct alas that Tech Council has gone deep teal super teal,
Speaker 1: so they perhaps wouldn't ever respond, but we'll try and
Speaker 1: find it something, Linda, I want to get. It's very
Speaker 1: tempting to have a ten minute conversation about whether or
Speaker 1: not the person who's the cashier the PEO will deserve
Speaker 1: seventy one thousand dollars but whatever. But the overall issue though, right,
Speaker 1: and I've always been very sympathetic to this, and we've
Speaker 1: always talked about it that I understand that everything, everything,
Speaker 1: costs more. But what do we need to do to
Speaker 1: make sure that counsels literally don't go broke providing the
Speaker 1: things that we come to expect. And conversely, how do
Speaker 1: we make sure that just because it's the government pain,
Speaker 1: that this doesn't get wildly out of hand, because I
Speaker 1: think this is wildly out of hand.
Speaker 13: Well, of course, local governments are public bodies. They have
Speaker 13: a very important responsibility to be responsible with all public money,
Speaker 13: to be transparent about their procurement processes, you know, to
Speaker 13: do the right thing, and to ensure that they're doing
Speaker 13: the best job for the public at the cheapest price,
Speaker 13: and they're being transparent and responsible with public money. So
Speaker 13: of course there's no argument about that. I think what
Speaker 13: is important to recognize, however, is that across as straight
Speaker 13: as five hundred and thirty seven local governments, most of
Speaker 13: them are really under very significant financial pressure. I've got
Speaker 13: counselors in you know, the remotest parts of Central Australia
Speaker 13: that are earning, many of them under fifteen thousand dollars
Speaker 13: a year to be a counselor, to go to meetings,
Speaker 13: to manage all the decisions, and their staff are getting
Speaker 13: paid more than them as they should, but they're getting
Speaker 13: very little to do a really important job, basically to
Speaker 13: be the government of the area, because let's face it,
Speaker 13: there's no state, territory or federal government presence in these areas,
Speaker 13: and more generally, local governments are under pressure, we know,
Speaker 13: you know, more than ever before. They're much more reliant
Speaker 13: on federal government funding. Under the Keyping government, they were
Speaker 13: getting about one percent of commonwealth taxation revenue. That's now
Speaker 13: down to half that for federal assistance grants. Local governments
Speaker 13: run about a third of the nation's infrastructure on four
Speaker 13: percent of the nation's tax take. So let's just talk
Speaker 13: about what local governments are doing with that money. We're
Speaker 13: very efficient when you look at the big numbers, and
Speaker 13: we're not doing a lot with a little.
Speaker 1: More from the state, more from the Feds rather than
Speaker 1: the rate pay themselves. So that's one sympathetic to it.
Speaker 1: It's not just because Linda's me mate, It's because, I mean,
Speaker 1: if you do think about it, and as if you
Speaker 1: travel as widely as we do for the show. Local
Speaker 1: government is the most obvious form of government. But if
Speaker 1: you're in this financial scenario, if you're in a place
Speaker 1: that doesn't have a lot of money, it ends up.
Speaker 1: But can I stuck in that?
Speaker 13: Can I also just say it's not going to surprise
Speaker 13: you to say I'm not across every budget line item
Speaker 13: for the Northern Beaches Council or the five hundred and
Speaker 13: thirty six other local governments. But you know, here's how
Speaker 13: a council budget works. They've got a line item for footpaths,
Speaker 13: that includes cycle ways, that includes paving in marine areas.
Speaker 13: You know, that includes detailed engineering work that has to
Speaker 13: be done. I'm sure or somebody in Parliament somewhere has
Speaker 13: taken an estimate and blown this up and it's a
Speaker 13: great story, but in reality, the Council's got to do
Speaker 13: complex works in this marine environment with really significant erosion
Speaker 13: and a lot of you know, weather events that are
Speaker 13: causing very expensive public works to be needed. It's a
Speaker 13: great headline, but when you look into the details, there's
Speaker 13: a lot more to it.
Speaker 1: Okay, but Nicole, give me thirty seconds here. Sorry, I'm
Speaker 1: going to do it again, just because I just was
Speaker 1: reading here about the Northern Beaches Concil thing. It's a
Speaker 1: part time role. It's only twenty nine hours per week
Speaker 1: and you can earn up to seventy one thousand dollars
Speaker 1: to be a cashier at the local pool. Look, there's
Speaker 1: a chance I've been locked in the media bubble for
Speaker 1: too long and about how much the media earns and
Speaker 1: what people earn and what people But have you ever
Speaker 1: heard of seventy one thousand dollars for the person who's
Speaker 1: handing out the paddle pops and giving out the tokens
Speaker 1: of the local pool?
Speaker 9: No, I haven't, Paul, And the only other person I
Speaker 9: can think that's paid as generously as this is Bill
Speaker 9: Short and Speech, Right, let's get to do it. Three
Speaker 9: hundred thousand dollars a year. Clearly, Clearly I am applying
Speaker 9: for the wrong type of job when I'm putting my
Speaker 9: hand up to be a member of Federal Parliament again,
Speaker 9: responsible to one hundred and twenty five thousand voters. Because
Speaker 9: three hundred thousand a year is way more than a
Speaker 9: backbencher and way more than a junior minister. So I
Speaker 9: can only imagine they having to pay somebody that much
Speaker 9: money to try and spin Labour's way out of the
Speaker 9: ndis mess, because it is such a mess, and there's
Speaker 9: a lot that Labor must be trying to hide to
Speaker 9: get themselves out of this debacle.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we'll talk about it, Holly Hughes and a second
Speaker 1: in Manko. But again Nicole Bill Shelden could have responded
Speaker 1: to said, look, obviously I didn't hire this person. Obviously
Speaker 1: I wouldn't renew this contract because it's too much money.
Speaker 1: But instead it's part of the wider pattern of this
Speaker 1: government which is we make no mistakes and even when
Speaker 1: we're caught or and we didn't make a mistake. And
Speaker 1: even Tony Burke on Taxpayer Radio this morning saying it
Speaker 1: was about worker shortages, as if there's no other person
Speaker 1: in the entire Ohi continent of Australia that could write
Speaker 1: a speech.
Speaker 9: Totally and quite frankly, if you are a senior government
Speaker 9: cabinet Minister of Bill short and length of service to
Speaker 9: the Australian people as an MP, and you can't get
Speaker 9: up and give a speech and or write your own speech,
Speaker 9: and or use your staff who you employ within your
Speaker 9: office to write a speech, then there's something wrong with it.
Speaker 1: Nicole.
Speaker 13: Let's look at who else is costing tax pays more
Speaker 13: than three hundred thousand dollars a year. Malcolm Turnbull four
Speaker 13: hundred and ten thousand dollars last year, John Howard three
Speaker 13: hundred and ninety five thousand dollars on flights and staff
Speaker 13: for his office, Tony Abbott three hundred and forty eight
Speaker 13: thousand dollars. These are just Australia about.
Speaker 14: I'm sorry, Kevin, you have you spendiship and break.
Speaker 13: It is not all there Liberals, it is it is
Speaker 13: they're all over three hundred thousand and the laborsters.
Speaker 9: And you're saying, Kevin right and Julia Gillard, you have
Speaker 9: a look Nicole ambassador.
Speaker 13: My point is a lot of people are on the
Speaker 13: public dollar here and we've got three liberal prime ministers
Speaker 13: in the most recently.
Speaker 9: Sorry dollars and.
Speaker 13: They're getting paid on the public dollar in Nicole for staff,
Speaker 13: for travel, for drivers.
Speaker 1: I mean, so you're saying from now on all all
Speaker 1: former prime ministers, that's it nothing zero gone.
Speaker 13: I'm definitely not saying.
Speaker 14: What I'm saying.
Speaker 13: Definitely, and careful, be careful, be careful.
Speaker 1: Okay, all right, love you all all right?
Speaker 9: No, no, no, no, no, no, I'm quickick.
Speaker 14: No no no.
Speaker 9: They served our nation in the highest stress most public
Speaker 9: job that is incomparable to a nameless, spaceless departmental staffer
Speaker 9: who is right speeches three hundred thousand is outrageously play
Speaker 9: that person.
Speaker 1: A year forgive me. I promise more fighting at the
Speaker 1: start of the segment, not at the end of the segment.
Speaker 1: Bad host, Bad host, Bad host. Thank you guys. Quick break,
Speaker 1: Holly Hughes joins us to talk about this, but more importantly,
Speaker 1: her political future. She should be looking forward to another
Speaker 1: six years in the Senate, but because of the Liberal
Speaker 1: Party ups and downs, she ain't more In a second now,
Speaker 1: I love Holly Hughes's a person. I love her as
Speaker 1: a professional and I love her as a guest here
Speaker 1: on the show. I think she has a great future
Speaker 1: in Australian politics, but factional people inside the Liberal Party
Speaker 1: seem not to agree. Because you see every single time
Speaker 1: there's an election in the Senate there are six senators
Speaker 1: in New South Wales. Generally it'll be two Libs and
Speaker 1: a NAT that will get up, as well as a
Speaker 1: two Labor and Agreeing that will get up. Due to
Speaker 1: factional nonsense inside the party, Holly has gone from the
Speaker 1: position which she should be, which is top of the ticket,
Speaker 1: into a place where she's unlikely to get one of
Speaker 1: those two Liberal spots. She's in the man cave now again, Holly.
Speaker 1: I respect you as a person, I love you as
Speaker 1: a professional. How do you feel because you've put in
Speaker 1: the hard yards and then they came for you.
Speaker 15: Well, this has been my life for twenty plus years
Speaker 15: that I've given to the Liberal Party, So you know
Speaker 15: it to be a liied to say I'm not disappointed devastated,
Speaker 15: you know, but the support that I've had has been
Speaker 15: extraordinary and I think what's been most telling is the
Speaker 15: fact that people are so shocked.
Speaker 1: And horrifying by this.
Speaker 15: Overwhelmingly, the people that've reached out to me, people that
Speaker 15: I know, people that watched on this show and from
Speaker 15: all across Australia have said, what has the Liberal Party done?
Speaker 15: And I think, you know, what is the New South
Speaker 15: Wales Liberal Party done here? And I mean, you know,
Speaker 15: having a look and really thinking about it over the
Speaker 15: last couple of weeks, it does look like being good
Speaker 15: at your job as a woman in the New South
Speaker 15: Wales division is not a good thing.
Speaker 14: And it's not just me, you know.
Speaker 15: Melissa Macintosh got a swing to her in Limdsay in
Speaker 15: a marginal seat at the last election, and of course
Speaker 15: she was challenged for pre selection and Peter Dubban's basically
Speaker 15: had to step in there to.
Speaker 14: Make sure she wasn't challenged.
Speaker 15: We saw it as Natt Ward, who's now the Deputy leader,
Speaker 15: wanted to move to the Lower House so that she
Speaker 15: could have made a greater impact and perhaps be leader
Speaker 15: one day, and of course that was blocked as well.
Speaker 15: Thankfully Matt still in the Upper House. But there does
Speaker 15: seem to be a bit of a pattern. So, but
Speaker 15: I'm a liberal. I've been a liberal for a really
Speaker 15: long time. I love this country. I was the only
Speaker 15: senator who stood up for the No campaign because I
Speaker 15: believe we should have a quality of opportunity, regardless of
Speaker 15: your background, regardless of how long you've been here.
Speaker 14: And you know I'm going to stand by those values.
Speaker 1: So John Howard talked about how factionalism was ruining that.
Speaker 1: He said, well, I was Liberal party. I completely agree
Speaker 1: with him, because we have this scenario where the internal
Speaker 1: fight seems to be more important than what the external
Speaker 1: result ends up being. How does that ever get fixed
Speaker 1: because it seems like everyone on the outside of grees,
Speaker 1: but everyone on the inside keeps fighting like no one's watching.
Speaker 15: Yeah, and look there's been sort of talk, you know,
Speaker 15: but they've replaced a woman with a woman. But if
Speaker 15: you actually go back and want the campaign was a
Speaker 15: lot of the people that were sort of running this
Speaker 15: campaign were basically saying, oh, no, Holly's fine, Holly's already there.
Speaker 15: I'm actually running against Andrew Bragg. And I kept saying
Speaker 15: to people, will no, how can I already be there
Speaker 15: where it's all?
Speaker 14: And you only vote once?
Speaker 1: Yes, So the people were shocked.
Speaker 14: People were horrified.
Speaker 15: So I think if they'd been a rerun of the
Speaker 15: vote straight away, it might have been different when people
Speaker 15: realized what had happened.
Speaker 14: But we'll never know. We'll never know.
Speaker 15: But you know, I'm still there until June thirty next year.
Speaker 15: So I'm still there till the next election, and I
Speaker 15: am determined.
Speaker 14: You know, Peter gave me and diis.
Speaker 15: Peter gave me mental health and suicide prevention to look after,
Speaker 15: and I planned to keep working really hard in those areas.
Speaker 15: I want to get rid of this Albanezer government. They're
Speaker 15: destroying our country and I plan to support Peter Dutton
Speaker 15: in doing that.
Speaker 1: Because that's the important thing for people to note right
Speaker 1: now and again, and we've only texted briefly in and
Speaker 1: around this time, and you've heard everything I've had to
Speaker 1: say publicly and it's no different and what I've said privately,
Speaker 1: which is you are at pains to say you don't
Speaker 1: want to cause a problem for Peter Dutton. There's an
Speaker 1: issue in New South Wales that needs to be dealt with.
Speaker 1: So tell us about the plan between now and June.
Speaker 1: Is that do you want to be the happy warrior
Speaker 1: for Dutton or do you pull back because New South
Speaker 1: Wales didn't know really the right thing.
Speaker 15: I Thigiven portfolios that I'm very focused on, and I
Speaker 15: mean there's been a lot of talk today at the NDIS.
Speaker 15: I can tell you on Saturday because I was in Sydney,
Speaker 15: I went with my son to and All Abilities, you know,
Speaker 15: my son on the NDIS All Abilities Jim program. And
Speaker 15: I looked at the twelve kids that were there and
Speaker 15: every single one of those kids is going to need
Speaker 15: support for the rest of their lives.
Speaker 14: I mean, they are hilarious.
Speaker 15: They're all big now, so it's not cute when they
Speaker 15: do their flapping and they're screeching and you know all
Speaker 15: of the things that goes with having significantly special need
Speaker 15: children and whatever it was.
Speaker 14: They're not all autistic. There was a whole range of things.
Speaker 15: But all of those parents that I spoke to where
Speaker 15: all they're trying to do the best for our kids.
Speaker 15: We're trying to set them up with opportunity. It is
Speaker 15: for them when they're ready to leave school that they
Speaker 15: will have some sort of future. But they will need
Speaker 15: support forever. And I know the NBIS for it needs
Speaker 15: reform and I want to be part of that. There's
Speaker 15: too many people on it. Absolutely, the price guide is
Speaker 15: a massive problem. There are massive roughts occurring, but it's
Speaker 15: not everyone. And we need to stop tarring people and
Speaker 15: clamp down where we can. They know where the problems are.
Speaker 15: There are a lot of excesses. I mean some of
Speaker 15: the plans for people that what is their permanent lifelong disability?
Speaker 14: Perhaps we could start by defining that.
Speaker 1: Well, that's the look. You'll be passionate about that way
Speaker 1: beyond June thirty. This she to do. It's my whole life, Paul, whether.
Speaker 14: I like it or not.
Speaker 1: And you always welcome here. And I admire the way
Speaker 1: in which you've You've dealt with this, no doubt a
Speaker 1: significant kick in the backside, but If there's one woman
Speaker 1: who can push back, it is you.
Speaker 14: Hey, my whole career has been kicks in the backside.
Speaker 1: I can tell you.
Speaker 15: I got pushed off the ticket in a double dissolution.
Speaker 15: The High Court ruled me out at one point.
Speaker 14: So maybe this is just Hurtle number three.
Speaker 1: Good, great, Thank you Onick, Thanks Bell. We're always welcome here,
Speaker 1: all right, that's our shof at night. We'll see again
Speaker 1: tomorrow and right here on Paul Murray Life, he comes
Speaker 1: a late to bath