Speaker 1: From the Skying Center. This is Paul Murray Live. Thank you,
Speaker 1: sharing again an excellent hour of television. Congratulations to her
Speaker 1: and the team that's putting it together both over there
Speaker 1: and here. Welcome to a show where we don't muck around,
Speaker 1: We don't miss the point. We go straight after it
Speaker 1: each and every night. And one of the weirder moments
Speaker 1: of American politics of the past couple of years was
Speaker 1: an obvious low point for Donald Trump when he was
Speaker 1: considered to be mocking a disabled reporter during the twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen campaign. Written by a NASA reporter. Now, the poor guy.
Speaker 2: You got to see this guy.
Speaker 3: Oh, I don't know what I said. Ah, I don't remember.
Speaker 3: He's got like I don't remember. Oh, maybe that's what
Speaker 3: I said. Here's fourteen years ago. He's still They didn't
Speaker 3: do a retraction.
Speaker 1: Well, a version of it has happened in Australia today
Speaker 1: and it comes from no less a figure than the
Speaker 1: Australian Prime Minister. In question time today, things were heated,
Speaker 1: things were back and forth, and there was an exchange
Speaker 1: where the Shadow treasurer Angus Taylor was speaking while Albernizi
Speaker 1: had the microphone interjections and nothing new in the Australian
Speaker 1: political vernacular, but it was well and truly on show today.
Speaker 1: What you see is the Prime Minister mocking disability, the
Speaker 1: idea that where have you got Tourett's.
Speaker 4: Or something.
Speaker 1: You know, you know, you see there, babble babble, bab order.
Speaker 5: I we draw, Missus Speagher, I we draw, we draw,
Speaker 5: I we draw and apologize.
Speaker 1: Now this bloke is so high on his own supply
Speaker 1: that he thinks that he can punch down in that fashion,
Speaker 1: that somehow Turetts is something that he could mock publicly.
Speaker 1: Now this is the bloke who was, of course from
Speaker 1: the woke side of the woke political spectrum, yet he
Speaker 1: decided to do that as a way of littling and
Speaker 1: potentially dehumanizing his political opponents. Now I want you to
Speaker 1: watch this time, the same clip but no sound, because
Speaker 1: have a look at the different reactions that take place
Speaker 1: when the Prime Minister makes his statement. Firstly, you can
Speaker 1: see the Deputy Prime Minister who realizes that this is
Speaker 1: not a great moment. And then on the other side
Speaker 1: of things, if we can roll at one more time,
Speaker 1: you can see Annli who's going to be sitting there
Speaker 1: on the right hand side. Now, she is a minister
Speaker 1: who often sits behind the Prime Minister to sort of
Speaker 1: be this performance puppet behind him, going oh, who's in
Speaker 1: this hilarious and shocking? Well, she realizes even in that
Speaker 1: moment what the Prime Minister didn't remember. The Prime Minister
Speaker 1: didn't immediately say sorry. Instead, he said sorry because he
Speaker 1: was about to be confronted. Well, the Prime Minister thought
Speaker 1: this was a story that would be noticed by no one.
Speaker 1: If it was, it'd be noticed by people who he
Speaker 1: thinks he can frankly ignore. Well, it did turn up
Speaker 1: tonight as a story on the six PM News is
Speaker 1: close to the lead story in many online news sites
Speaker 1: tonight as a disgraceful lack of judgment from the Prime Minister.
Speaker 1: So he has walked back into the Parliament. But I
Speaker 1: need you to know he walked back into the Parliament
Speaker 1: about an hour ago. Now, those statements, of course, were
Speaker 1: made in and around the two o'clock hour in Canberra.
Speaker 1: He waited another six hours before issuing an apology, but
Speaker 1: only after the story had become one that he could
Speaker 1: not ignore and one that he would have to presumably
Speaker 1: answer for when the sun comes up tomorrow. Here is
Speaker 1: his apology not delivered immediately but many hours later, In fact,
Speaker 1: two hours after the story was on widespread six PM
Speaker 1: news tonight.
Speaker 6: Today in question time, I made comments that were unkind
Speaker 6: and hurtful. I knew it was wrong as soon as
Speaker 6: I made the comment. I apologized and I withdrew as
Speaker 6: soon as I said it.
Speaker 1: But it shouldn't have happened.
Speaker 6: So I want to apologize to all Australians who suffer
Speaker 6: from this disability. I regret saying it was wrong, it
Speaker 6: was insensitive, and I apologize.
Speaker 1: Now I'm going to be a hard mark on the
Speaker 1: Prime Minister here despite the apology, because this is what
Speaker 1: happened in real time. Did he look like he immediately
Speaker 1: regretted what he said or once the opposition rose to
Speaker 1: make it a point, you tell me.
Speaker 6: The idea that where have you got Tourett's or something?
Speaker 4: You know, you know you see there, babble babble, bab or.
Speaker 5: I we draw, mister Spegher, I we draw, we drawn,
Speaker 5: I we join and apologize.
Speaker 1: Disgraceful stuff. We'll talk about that and a whole lot
Speaker 1: more in the panel a little bit later tonight. Meantime,
Speaker 1: another poll has pointed out that the Prime Minister is
Speaker 1: on the wrong side of history when it comes to
Speaker 1: actually dealing with the economic crisis that many Australians are
Speaker 1: feeling and failing each and every day. This got lost
Speaker 1: in much of the October seven coverage. We mentioned it
Speaker 1: briefly last night, but it shows that fifty two percent
Speaker 1: of Australians believe that the person and people and organization
Speaker 1: who has most responsibility for dealing with inflation is not
Speaker 1: the Reserve Bank. There's just twenty nine percent of people.
Speaker 1: These are the hardcore lefties. Instead, the majority of the
Speaker 1: country fifty two percent says that it is the federal
Speaker 1: government and specifically the Treasurer. Now because the Prime Minister
Speaker 1: and the Treasurer have actually failed to deal with how
Speaker 1: much money they keep pumping into the economy via increased spending,
Speaker 1: including yes, increased welfare spending. The Reserve Bank has made
Speaker 1: the decision twelve times since Jim Chalmers became the Treasurer
Speaker 1: of Australia, and now it easy became the Prime Minister
Speaker 1: to raise interest rates. Well, today we started to see
Speaker 1: some of the working documents behind their decision not to
Speaker 1: increase but more importantly not to cut interest rates. At
Speaker 1: their meeting a couple of weeks ago. The Board minutes
Speaker 1: they make it very clear that the Reserves Bank's message
Speaker 1: that is not ruling in or out a hike or
Speaker 1: a cut, is set against the diagnosis of a decidedly
Speaker 1: weak economy, according to the minutes of the discussion that
Speaker 1: took place, so there is still a potential here of
Speaker 1: a rate rise rather than a further rate pause or
Speaker 1: rate cut. Further, financial conditions might need to be even
Speaker 1: tighter or looser at the present to achieve the Board's objectives. Remember,
Speaker 1: the Board's objectives is to get inflation consistently back between
Speaker 1: two and three percent. It is currently below three percent,
Speaker 1: but that is because of millions of dollars being spent
Speaker 1: by the government to artificially drop the prices of power
Speaker 1: and therefore to frankly buy an inflation result. The Reserve
Speaker 1: Bank is waiting to see what happens about the real
Speaker 1: inflation result time. Economists are suggesting that there will be
Speaker 1: a rate cut and a most likely will happen before
Speaker 1: the next federal election. Now, again, as we've said, the
Speaker 1: orthodox thinking in Canberra is that if it goes up
Speaker 1: before the election, the government's going to be in a
Speaker 1: world of trouble. But I've got some breaking news for
Speaker 1: some of these people. Twelve intrastraight rises has created a
Speaker 1: huge amount of pain for millions of Australians. A third
Speaker 1: of Australians that are paying off a house, and presumably
Speaker 1: most of the third that are renting are in a
Speaker 1: house that is being paid off by somebody else. Even
Speaker 1: if there is a quarter or half percent increase, we
Speaker 1: will still be dealing with generation high interest rates. So
Speaker 1: don't fall for what is about to be the media spin,
Speaker 1: which is well, inflation is going down. No, its prices
Speaker 1: are still going up. The speed with which they are
Speaker 1: going up may will be slightly changing. And secondly, if
Speaker 1: there is a reduction in interest rates, that's good obviously
Speaker 1: for everyone who's paying things off. But because there's been
Speaker 1: twelve of them, that's the damage that needs to be
Speaker 1: put right. It needs to go down half a dozen
Speaker 1: times before people are going to start to notice any
Speaker 1: sort of relief. And as I've shown you before, again
Speaker 1: let's deal with the data and then we can put
Speaker 1: the opinion on top of it. There is a huge
Speaker 1: explosion in the amount of money that people are having
Speaker 1: to spend to pay off their mortgages right now. In fact,
Speaker 1: the average homeowners overall are now paying five billion dollars
Speaker 1: more than they were a couple of years ago to
Speaker 1: actually pay off their mortgages. This means there's been a
Speaker 1: sixty one percent increase in the total amount of money
Speaker 1: that people have had too fine to pay back interest
Speaker 1: rates since this Prime Minister and this Treasurer took over.
Speaker 1: So yes, any cut will be great, but it's because
Speaker 1: it's a signal that it's not going to get worse.
Speaker 1: Any rate cut, while accepted and celebrated, will not get
Speaker 1: the government off the hook because the effective financial pain
Speaker 1: has been twelve rate rises in the making. Bring it
Speaker 1: down by one and bring it down by two, Okay,
Speaker 1: that's better, But if the damage is twelve, then one
Speaker 1: is hardly going to touch the sides in terms of
Speaker 1: people actually feeling any better. Meantime, interesting polling coming from
Speaker 1: the Turmbal Times otherwise known as The Guardian, that shows
Speaker 1: us here about the government's role and what Australians believe
Speaker 1: the government's role is when it comes to the variety
Speaker 1: of issues. When it comes to cost of living. Now again,
Speaker 1: this government will try to tell you that everything's fine,
Speaker 1: everything's all right. Well, they say here, how much impact
Speaker 1: do you think the government has in reducing the following, Well,
Speaker 1: the best part, pardon me, of seventy almost eighty percent
Speaker 1: of people think that health the government could cut there again,
Speaker 1: about eighty percent. When it comes to energy, they believe
Speaker 1: the government plays a role in that. The same number
Speaker 1: when it comes to education. When it comes to housing, mortgages,
Speaker 1: interest rates, again, seventy eight percent of Australians believing the
Speaker 1: federal government plays a key role in all of that. Hence,
Speaker 1: why if it comes down by one it is not
Speaker 1: going to make the difference that the political people will
Speaker 1: tell you that it's the case seventy seven percent when
Speaker 1: it comes to transport and overall when it comes to groceries.
Speaker 1: It is interesting here that people who believe a large
Speaker 1: or moderate impact. Well again there you're dealing with more
Speaker 1: than sixty five percent of people who believe the government
Speaker 1: has a position to play in those particular areas. So
Speaker 1: what are Australians looking for? To what extent do you believe?
Speaker 1: Do you support or oppose the following economic measures to
Speaker 1: introduce price caps? And this is frightening that Australians are
Speaker 1: so frustrated by the cost of living crisis, which has
Speaker 1: been exacerbated by a government that, among other things, took
Speaker 1: money off people. Remember a couple of budgets ago when
Speaker 1: it came to the local middle income tax offset. Well,
Speaker 1: again you can see the best part there. Of seventy
Speaker 1: percent of people believe that the government could introduce price
Speaker 1: caps on groceries, rent energy bills. Pretty much the same
Speaker 1: when it comes to increasing taxes on big corporations, reducing
Speaker 1: personal income tax again about sixty five percent, fun more
Speaker 1: social services as some way of dealing with the economy. Again,
Speaker 1: more than half of people run a budget surflus to
Speaker 1: reduce inflation. Well it doesn't, but you can see there again,
Speaker 1: more than half of people think that's the right thing
Speaker 1: to do. Raise the level of income support for people
Speaker 1: who are unemployed again more than fifty percent, and reduce
Speaker 1: tracks tax breaks like negative gearing. Now interestingly, here again
Speaker 1: you're looking at a number of more than fifty percent.
Speaker 1: So these are in many ways very left wing proposals
Speaker 1: as to how to deal with situations, which is why
Speaker 1: the Prime Minister thinks is in the right place when
Speaker 1: it comes to shrinkflation. It's also why the Greens think
Speaker 1: they're in an even better place because they will actually
Speaker 1: suggest some of these things. But a bit of an
Speaker 1: indication that when pressure has been the way that it
Speaker 1: has been for as long as it has been, people
Speaker 1: are willing for any solution, no matter how counter productive
Speaker 1: it is to the concept of an open and free market. Now,
Speaker 1: you remember last year the Prime Minister told us that
Speaker 1: he was going to cut immigration. This was because, of course,
Speaker 1: it's wildly out of controllers. We've shown you before the
Speaker 1: best part of almost a million people have come to
Speaker 1: the country at a time when there's not a mini
Speaker 1: new houses being built. In fact, I remember the headlines
Speaker 1: at the time that labor is determined to have the
Speaker 1: record post pandemic migration. In fact, the Prime Minister even
Speaker 1: said this on three aw.
Speaker 7: But what we are projecting is that the non the
Speaker 7: net overseas migration is projected to come down to two
Speaker 7: hundred and fifty thousand in the coming financial year in
Speaker 7: twenty twenty four to twenty five.
Speaker 1: Now, of course, one of the problems with too many
Speaker 1: people coming in and not enough infrastructure being built, specifically housing,
Speaker 1: is the rental cues They are as long as they
Speaker 1: currently are. Where places like in Ipswich, even a two
Speaker 1: bedroom joint that is available more than one hundred people
Speaker 1: try to apply for it. In places like Western Australia
Speaker 1: Tasmania in particular, there's less than one percent of all
Speaker 1: of the available housing that is available for rent right now.
Speaker 1: You add a Midian people to that, guess what, the
Speaker 1: queue gets longer. The issue gets tougher when it comes
Speaker 1: to the infrastructure that states have to produce. We know
Speaker 1: that ambulance ramping is the worst it has been in
Speaker 1: every single state Queensland. You have an opportunity, in just
Speaker 1: a couple of weeks time to send a message that
Speaker 1: this is not okay that when you call Triple O,
Speaker 1: an ambulance may or may not turn up. If you
Speaker 1: are on the back of the ambulance, you may or
Speaker 1: may not, But most likely we'll end up sitting in
Speaker 1: the back of the ambulance because there's no room in
Speaker 1: the hospital. Why because in part a million more people
Speaker 1: have been added to the country. And by the way,
Speaker 1: just in case you think it's me making this up
Speaker 1: as a talking point, I want to point you to
Speaker 1: a study from Maccuarra University that says ambulance ramping is
Speaker 1: getting worse in Australia. Now they suggest what can be
Speaker 1: done about it, But there is a whole collection of
Speaker 1: data points there that prove what I have said, that
Speaker 1: this thing is out of control, that it is a
Speaker 1: problem in almost every single state where we are at
Speaker 1: record numbers because there are numbers of people trying to
Speaker 1: call an ambulance if it is ever needed at any
Speaker 1: one time. So you see migration matters because more people,
Speaker 1: well they do sometimes create more problems. Now, this is
Speaker 1: not a hit on people to come from different parts
Speaker 1: of the world. It's not a soft race comment. You
Speaker 1: know how many times and almost every night have to
Speaker 1: say the same thing because we know somebody's going to
Speaker 1: run off to the umpire and try to dob me
Speaker 1: in for saying something that I am clearly not. But
Speaker 1: guess what the government is about to miss its own targets,
Speaker 1: the one that was apparently going to dramatically drop things
Speaker 1: by a hundred thousand people. Yes, an entire MCG is
Speaker 1: how wrong they have got it. Australia as net migration
Speaker 1: target for the last financial year risks being overshot by
Speaker 1: as much as one hundred thousand labor likely to eclipse
Speaker 1: its targets on the current annual intake as ongoing strength
Speaker 1: in domestic jobs market keeps workers in Australia and attracts
Speaker 1: overseas arrivals. As Maxwell Smart would say, missed it by
Speaker 1: that much. If only it was funny. Now back to
Speaker 1: the protests and the ongoing carry on that we need
Speaker 1: to be dealing with because people want to bring the
Speaker 1: problems on the other side of the world to this country.
Speaker 1: We know how ridiculous things were yesterday when even on
Speaker 1: October the seventh, people were deciding to listen to a
Speaker 1: collection of speakers, one including somebody who's visiting from the
Speaker 1: United States saying, in my belief, completely inappropriate and disgraceful
Speaker 1: things to be said on the day where the Jewish
Speaker 1: community in Australia deserves its right to mourn it's dead.
Speaker 8: Today is not fully a day of mourning in many respects,
Speaker 8: today is also a day that marks considerable celebration, considerable progress,
Speaker 8: and in some respects, considerable privilege.
Speaker 1: Now this bloke is a visitor in our country. I
Speaker 1: don't know why he is still in the country after
Speaker 1: what was said. Now, this bloke works for the Arizona
Speaker 1: State Universe. I have blacked out the contact information. I
Speaker 1: don't suggest anyone goes looking for it. I'm not suggesting
Speaker 1: anyone gets in contact with him other than the authorities
Speaker 1: who should cancel his visa. Now again, I believe that
Speaker 1: it's completely legitimate for the people to be in standing
Speaker 1: of the Palestinian cause talking about the tens of thousands
Speaker 1: of people who have died since October the seventh. But
Speaker 1: the people who were saying what they were saying on
Speaker 1: October the seventh were not really talking about the Palestinian
Speaker 1: people in my view. They were using the plight of
Speaker 1: the Palestinian people to overtly antagonize the Australian Jewish community.
Speaker 1: The fact that that event was happening on the steps
Speaker 1: of a mosque was again an attempt from the people
Speaker 1: who were making those comments to make sure that no
Speaker 1: one would shut it down because it was a religious ceremony.
Speaker 1: But again, this bloke has got plenty of form. You
Speaker 1: can find what he's had to say online. He's got
Speaker 1: his Instagram feed, his Twitter feed. Can you believe this
Speaker 1: bloke's followed by two point three million people on Instagram.
Speaker 1: I want to read his words. But we were looking
Speaker 1: at his social media feed today, including in the past
Speaker 1: few days, the celebration seemingly of at least fourteen Israeli
Speaker 1: soldiers who were dying. Why because they were attempting to
Speaker 1: invade Lebanon. As for the overall protest situation, there's an
Speaker 1: interesting word that is starting to come out now from
Speaker 1: the new soobals premiere. Now, the new Soba's premier we
Speaker 1: know wants to crack down on the worst elements of
Speaker 1: this stuff again, the new ones. In the conversation, I've
Speaker 1: already stated tonight that I understand that for fifty two
Speaker 1: weeks people have been recognizing what's been happening in Gaza.
Speaker 1: I understand that the people with the Hesbala flags, the
Speaker 1: people saying what's been said in the past twenty four
Speaker 1: to forty eight hours, that's a completely different story. But
Speaker 1: the Prime Minister, as sorry, the premier, i should say
Speaker 1: in New South Wales, says that it's costing at least
Speaker 1: five maybe eleven million dollars to police what has been
Speaker 1: going on of recent times. This is what he said.
Speaker 1: I think on the radio today it's.
Speaker 9: My view that police should be able to be in
Speaker 9: a position to deny a request for a march due
Speaker 9: to stretched police resourcing. And I'm not talking about a
Speaker 9: union rally against the government over a wage deal. But
Speaker 9: when you've got someone putting in an application every seven
Speaker 9: days for fifty one weeks to march through Sydney streets,
Speaker 9: this is costing millions of dollars and I think taxpayers
Speaker 9: should be in a position to be able to say
Speaker 9: we would prefer that money is spent on road side
Speaker 9: breath testing, domestic violence investigations, knife crimes, rather than the
Speaker 9: huge resources that's going into the city and the community.
Speaker 1: Now, there's two other little things that I want to
Speaker 1: put a little pin in because I think it's going
Speaker 1: to be interesting to see exactly what are the consequences
Speaker 1: for people who continuously are on the wrong side of
Speaker 1: what the police or the government are trying to say
Speaker 1: is reasonable or excessive protest. Now a story today that
Speaker 1: there is a person who has been fired from their
Speaker 1: job because of activism and repeated activism. What will be
Speaker 1: interesting here is to work out when presumably this matter
Speaker 1: goes before a work tribune, or whether that is going
Speaker 1: to be why a company or an organization can sever
Speaker 1: its links from someone watch this space meantime, in Victoria,
Speaker 1: the first person to actually be successfully charged and found
Speaker 1: guilty of holding up offensive symbols, well, he again was
Speaker 1: found guilty today, but we will find out again. Put
Speaker 1: a pin in it here. Now, Remember the maximum for
Speaker 1: things like Nazi salutes or Hezbollah flags or swastikas in
Speaker 1: Victoria is tens of thousands of dollars and maybe a
Speaker 1: year in jail. Now, whatever the judge decides to be
Speaker 1: the punishment will then end up being the standard. Now
Speaker 1: remember what I've just said there about how much money
Speaker 1: and how long in prison, Well, all of that is,
Speaker 1: of course just the absolute maximum that can be handed
Speaker 1: Nine times out of ten, we know that judges for
Speaker 1: all different reasons decide to not hand out that maximum.
Speaker 1: So we'll truly find out what the actual standing penalty
Speaker 1: is rather than the one that politicians just announce. Also
Speaker 1: worth noting here too, we'll talk tonight about what happened
Speaker 1: in the Parliament, about the motion that was first put
Speaker 1: forward by the Opposition leader, then changed by the Prime Minister,
Speaker 1: and all that happened in and around this today. But
Speaker 1: I want to show you that pole that I showed
Speaker 1: you last night Now it says here that what the
Speaker 1: best part of less than twenty percent of people believe
Speaker 1: that we should be having the marches in Australia. Now again,
Speaker 1: only eight percent of people think that that's okay when
Speaker 1: it's in the name of Hamas, only seven percent. When
Speaker 1: it comes to Israel. In terms of voicing principal support
Speaker 1: one way or the other, again, it's only thirty five
Speaker 1: percent of people that have a strong position on that
Speaker 1: in favor of one or the other. And in terms
Speaker 1: of refugees again it's twenty four percent. Now, I understand
Speaker 1: how passionate this issue is for a certain series of people,
Speaker 1: with the vast majority of people in every version of
Speaker 1: that pole echo my position from last night, which is,
Speaker 1: we understand, but Australia is different than the other parts
Speaker 1: of the world and if generationally, parents, grandparents, or even
Speaker 1: you yourself fled those places, then you leave the grievances there.
Speaker 1: Can have strong political opinions, fine and fair enough, but
Speaker 1: we live in this country under a new harmony. And
Speaker 1: a new harmony is that literally two people who diametrically
Speaker 1: oppose each other can live next door to each other,
Speaker 1: can work in the same workplace, can occupy the same
Speaker 1: public square. I just thought that was worth reminding everyone
Speaker 1: who seems to think that this is the only thing
Speaker 1: people want to talk about. It isn't. Meantime, eighteen days
Speaker 1: left for Queensland to finally pass its judgment on that
Speaker 1: idiot to Stephen Miles, old giggles Miles, and of course
Speaker 1: he is a merry band of fools who currently parade
Speaker 1: themselves as the Labor Party government in Queensland. Now. Amazingly,
Speaker 1: Stephen Miles, trying to win the seat of Bunderberg, which
Speaker 1: had been decided ultimately by just nine votes at the
Speaker 1: last election, was out and about at the side of
Speaker 1: a hospital that was promised four years ago. You may
Speaker 1: well notice no hospital has been built. I doubt the
Speaker 1: people of Bunderberg are going to fall for it twice.
Speaker 1: But when asked today the Health minister, that's the health
Speaker 1: minister who is responsible for, remember, among other things, hospital ramping,
Speaker 1: among other things, taking out patients from hospitals to accommodation
Speaker 1: at sea world. A person who is very sorry when
Speaker 1: somebody lost their life because they gave up waiting for
Speaker 1: an ambulance, Well, this is what she says about a
Speaker 1: patch of dirt four years after they promised it would
Speaker 1: be a hospital.
Speaker 5: Sarah, did you.
Speaker 9: Not see all of those trucks right?
Speaker 10: So they have to absolutely make sure that all of
Speaker 10: the earthworks has done first and over the next month
Speaker 10: the contractors were just telling us things were really going
Speaker 10: to ramp up.
Speaker 1: Pathetic, pathetic. Bundy won't fall for it, Queen's Land won't
Speaker 1: fall for it. They are just spinning their tires, sucking
Speaker 1: up days before inevitably they are wiped from political history.
Speaker 1: Do not assume that everyone else will do it. If
Speaker 1: you are in Queensland, you can do it. You can
Speaker 1: do it. In my view, you must do it by
Speaker 1: voting for anything but certainly not the Greens, but anything
Speaker 1: but at this upcoming election. Meantime, shout out to the
Speaker 1: state political reporter for Channel nine. Great story that they've
Speaker 1: had in the past twenty four hours about a labor candidate.
Speaker 11: The nine News can exclusively reveal the labor candidate in
Speaker 11: the marginal seat of Burleigh, Claire Carlin, who joined the
Speaker 11: campaign trail as recently as Saturday, has made repeated social
Speaker 11: media posts across a number of years abusing police. These posts,
Speaker 11: which have now been deleted, include in two thousand and
Speaker 11: nine saying we don't like the police because they kick
Speaker 11: and punch, another a year later saying on the count
Speaker 11: of three, sayf the police, and another in twenty eleven,
Speaker 11: again F the police.
Speaker 1: Now, presumably the social media history that was available to
Speaker 1: Channel nine was available to the Labour Party, but the
Speaker 1: Labor Party didn't think that anyone would go back and look.
Speaker 1: Well they did, and the reporter confronted the person who
Speaker 1: would like to be a member of Parliament. I think
Speaker 1: after this performance, I can guarantee she won't.
Speaker 11: What are your views on the Queensland Police. I'm actually
Speaker 11: just about to go somewhere and I'm not able to
Speaker 11: talk at the moment.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry.
Speaker 11: Okay, Well, you've seen some of your tweets where you've
Speaker 11: repeatedly tweeted F the police. Can you comme in on that?
Speaker 11: If elected, would you support the Queensland Police?
Speaker 3: Of course I support the Queen's and police.
Speaker 11: Can you explain those tweets?
Speaker 3: I'm not aware of what you're talking about at the moment.
Speaker 5: I'm just about to go and see my mum.
Speaker 3: If I can show you here, I don't know.
Speaker 6: I can't actually read that while i'm there.
Speaker 4: You completely stop and have a look.
Speaker 9: It's that clarsy is that you?
Speaker 1: What a disgrace? Court red handed and then pretends I
Speaker 1: don't have time. I'm going to visit my mom. Giggle, giggle, runoff.
Speaker 1: Don't vote for that lady. Now, A couple of other
Speaker 1: things to mention before I get to American politics, which
Speaker 1: has got a really nice segment for you tonight. One
Speaker 1: of the greats of Australian radio has decided to retire again,
Speaker 1: but this time forever. John Laws is of course radio legend,
Speaker 1: member of the Hall of Fame, a man who has
Speaker 1: made his impact multiple times before. In fact, can we
Speaker 1: roll that tape again because that was when he retired
Speaker 1: from TUI. Pay attention to the far left hand corner
Speaker 1: of that footage because you're going to see me. I'm
Speaker 1: holding up a triple M microphone because that's where I
Speaker 1: worked at the time. There he is, Oh, well, see
Speaker 1: I was a reporter at one point period of time,
Speaker 1: so I was there the first time that he retired.
Speaker 1: He of course went back and worked two sm and
Speaker 1: Bill Carlos for many years. Bill's now passed on. Since then,
Speaker 1: John's lost his wife and now it's time to pull
Speaker 1: upin at the end of the year on his radio career.
Speaker 12: It's time for a rest, is what I think. But
Speaker 12: I still feel young, I still feel healthy, and when
Speaker 12: I call it a day.
Speaker 1: It'll be a day.
Speaker 12: I'm not going to go away and then come back
Speaker 12: again and say, oh, it was all a mistake. It
Speaker 12: may well be a mistake, but there'll be no return.
Speaker 1: We'll try and have a chat to Lawsey before he
Speaker 1: is done. In the meantime, of course, we wish him
Speaker 1: nothing but the best and one of my favorite Australians
Speaker 1: of all time. Like it's kind of Peter Brock and
Speaker 1: John Farnham. I don't have any other faces that I
Speaker 1: need on my Mount Rushmore. I'll just stick with those two. Well,
Speaker 1: John Farnham is finally sitting down and he's written in
Speaker 1: an autobiography. We know how crook he's been of recent times. Well,
Speaker 1: we started to hear his voice for the first time. Obviously,
Speaker 1: I would doubt he's ever going to sing again when
Speaker 1: you hear his voice, But Jesus, it's good to hear
Speaker 1: him up and kicking, isn't it.
Speaker 12: I don't enjoy talking about myself, I really don't.
Speaker 9: I'll get me wrong.
Speaker 12: I'm an ego maniak, but judging up the fast and
Speaker 12: figuring through what has and hasn't been it's just not
Speaker 12: something I've ever really enjoyed.
Speaker 1: I've never met him. It was always my dream to
Speaker 1: interview him. Clearly, that won't happen now. But I love
Speaker 1: that man. Now I don't quite love Kamala Harris. I
Speaker 1: think I've made that clear from now. And we thought
Speaker 1: that the worst thing that was going to happen to
Speaker 1: her this week was when her teleprompter failed and she
Speaker 1: couldn't add lib.
Speaker 2: And did youse Magic Johnson.
Speaker 13: Remember his number?
Speaker 3: Thirty two.
Speaker 11: Today?
Speaker 1: We got thirty two days.
Speaker 2: It's all the election, So thirty two days, thirty two days.
Speaker 14: Okay, we got some business to do.
Speaker 2: We got some business to do, all right, thirty two days.
Speaker 1: Well, it got worse. She was interviewed on sixty minutes
Speaker 1: in the United States, and it's the toughest interview that
Speaker 1: she's got. And I've got to say well done to
Speaker 1: the reporter who did it. Not perfect, but hey, this
Speaker 1: is the best we're going to get. He followed up
Speaker 1: the astro top question. He followed up and he called
Speaker 1: Bayes on her. For example, all of the ideas that
Speaker 1: she has, how are you going to pay for it?
Speaker 14: My plan is about saying that when you invest in
Speaker 14: small businesses, you invest in the middle class, and you
Speaker 14: strengthen America's economy. Small businesses are part of the backbone
Speaker 14: of America's economy.
Speaker 15: The pardoning that Advice President, the question was how are
Speaker 15: you going to pay for it?
Speaker 14: He one of the things, I'm going to make sure
Speaker 14: that the richest among us who can afford it, pay
Speaker 14: their fair share and tax. It is not right that
Speaker 14: teachers and nurses and firefighters are paying a higher tax
Speaker 14: rate than billionaires and the biggest corporations. And I plan
Speaker 14: on making that face what you're.
Speaker 15: Dealing with the real world here, But the real world
Speaker 15: includes how are you going to get this to Congress?
Speaker 14: You know, when you talk quietly with a lot of
Speaker 14: folks in Congress, they know exactly what I'm talking about,
Speaker 14: because their constituents know exactly what I'm.
Speaker 1: Talking about about. But blah blah blah. The garbage, garbage, garbage, garbage, garbage, garbage.
Speaker 1: And again, the reporter was great because again in all
Speaker 1: the interviews that she's done, there's sort of a question about, look,
Speaker 1: you've changed your mind a lot from the time you
Speaker 1: ran for president, for when you were vice president, and
Speaker 1: now all of those positions we know you definitely lose on.
Speaker 1: So you've put out all these statements that you've changed
Speaker 1: your mind on this issue and that issue. But this
Speaker 1: is the best version of that question that he's thrown
Speaker 1: at her.
Speaker 4: Let me tell you what your critics and the colum
Speaker 4: this say.
Speaker 15: Okay, they say, the reason so many voters don't know
Speaker 15: you is that you have changed your position on so
Speaker 15: many things. You were against fracking, now you're for it.
Speaker 15: You supported looser immigration policies, now you're tightening them up.
Speaker 15: You were for medicare for all, now you're not.
Speaker 4: So many that.
Speaker 15: People don't truly, I can't believe or what you stand for.
Speaker 1: Middle Stone. You've hurled that.
Speaker 14: In the last four years. I have been vice president
Speaker 14: of the United States, and I have been traveling our country,
Speaker 14: and I have been listening to folks and seeking what
Speaker 14: is possible in terms of common ground. I believe in
Speaker 14: building consensus. Do you We are diverse people geographically regionally
Speaker 14: in terms of where we are in our backgrounds.
Speaker 1: And by the way, see the American.
Speaker 14: People do want is that we have leaders who can
Speaker 14: build consensus where we can figure out and understanding.
Speaker 1: The opposite of what you use your.
Speaker 14: Values to find common sense solutions.
Speaker 1: And that has been my approach. And then finally on
Speaker 1: the issue of immigration, where the reality is millions of
Speaker 1: people have been able to as a result of the
Speaker 1: policies of Joe Biden Kamala Harris. Borders are, whether she
Speaker 1: wants to admit it or not, the evengel the country
Speaker 1: illegally now again, migration fantastic, illegal migration not great, this reporter,
Speaker 1: the best question hits a roight between the oys.
Speaker 15: There was an historic flood of undocumented immigrants coming across
Speaker 15: the border the first three years of your administration. As
Speaker 15: a matter of fact, arrivals quadruple correct from the last
Speaker 15: year of President Trump. Was it a mistake good to
Speaker 15: loosen the immigration policies as much as you did.
Speaker 14: It's a long standing problem and were at hand and
Speaker 14: from day one, literally you.
Speaker 1: Saw undoing all of the Trump stuff.
Speaker 15: What I was asking was was it a mistake to
Speaker 15: kind of allow that flood to happen in the first place.
Speaker 14: I think the policies that we have been proposing are
Speaker 14: about fixing a problem, not promoting a problem.
Speaker 15: Okay, but the numbers did quadruple, and the.
Speaker 14: Number today because of what we have done. We have
Speaker 14: cut the flow of illegal immigration half. Should we have
Speaker 14: to cut the flow of fentanyl by half? But we
Speaker 14: need Congress to be able. Congress actually fixed the problem.
Speaker 15: You have accused Donald Trump of using racist troops when
Speaker 15: it comes to Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, surprise, surprise, well done, reporter spectacular, her performance terrible.
Speaker 1: You can see the frightened behind her eyes, which is
Speaker 1: why the interview she's doing in the next twenty four hours.
Speaker 1: Howard Stern, who has said that he hates Trump's supporters,
Speaker 1: not just Trump, and Stephen Colbert, who of course had
Speaker 1: people dress up like the vaccine. So we get the
Speaker 1: cuddles that she's going to get, but at least a
Speaker 1: serious interview and surprise, surprise, the mental ginger that she's playing.
Speaker 1: The tower fell down. But I need to discuss and
Speaker 1: debate in the next little while. Make sure you join
Speaker 1: us Nigel Farage in a couple of minutes time as well.
Speaker 1: You can join us anytime via email to Polotskuynews dot
Speaker 1: com dot a you and a reminder we are coming
Speaker 1: to Tasmania a couple of Sunday's time outdown at sky
Speaker 1: News dot com. If you want to join us in
Speaker 1: long Ceys then on October the twentieth. All right, two
Speaker 1: quick things. Apologies for the voice. I don't know what's
Speaker 1: going on. It just so it maybe feels worse than
Speaker 1: it actually sounds, but my apologies. And secondly, Asher made
Speaker 1: this for me today. Love your darlin, so that's why
Speaker 1: it's on Telly all right here loving their kids as
Speaker 1: well as Senator Holly Hughes and future Senator Joe Hildebrand
Speaker 1: because he's going to be pushing it uphill tonight. All right,
Speaker 1: So we saw what the Prime Minister had to say
Speaker 1: when it came to mocking Tourette's. He then took a
Speaker 1: grand total of six hours before issuing the apology. Now
Speaker 1: remember this is the bloke who in real time wanted
Speaker 1: Barnaby Joyce to say sorry for calling him a sook.
Speaker 1: So I don't buy Alvo's version of the apology, which
Speaker 1: is while I immediately withdrew it, he didn't immediately withdraw it.
Speaker 1: He doubled down, kept going and then eventually when he
Speaker 1: realized it was a problem, and then hoping that it
Speaker 1: wouldn't turn up on the six pm news. He waited
Speaker 1: until eight o'clock at night when everyone in the press
Speaker 1: gallery had gone home. Well, thankfully we were rolling on it,
Speaker 1: so you got this apology.
Speaker 6: Today in question time, I made comments that were unkind
Speaker 6: and hurtful. I knew it was wrong as soon as
Speaker 6: I made the comment. I apologized and I withdrew as
Speaker 6: soon as I said it.
Speaker 1: But it shouldn't have happened.
Speaker 6: And I also want to apologize to all Australians who
Speaker 6: suffer from this disability. I regret saying it was wrong,
Speaker 6: it was insensitive, and I apologize.
Speaker 1: Holly metaphorical freak from the Senate end.
Speaker 13: Look, it is just beyond belief that he came out
Speaker 13: with this today and then the way he's handled it.
Speaker 13: Richard Miles's face was I think the personification of exactly
Speaker 13: what it should have been. You could see on Miles's face,
Speaker 13: just the look of abject horror the second Albanese said it.
Speaker 13: You know, as the parent of a child with a disability,
Speaker 13: you know, I go crazy when I hear people say, oh,
Speaker 13: we're all autistic, or we're all a bit on the
Speaker 13: spectrum because it denigrates the experience of those people like
Speaker 13: my son who suffer considerable disability because of their autism.
Speaker 13: But then to use turetts as an insult is just offensive.
Speaker 13: And it's not only offensive, as I said, I was
Speaker 13: offended as the mother of an autistic child. It's offensive
Speaker 13: to anyone in the disability community that anyone's disability would
Speaker 13: be used to mock someone, to denigrate someone. And I
Speaker 13: think his apology was embarrassing. I think it was inadequate.
Speaker 13: Obviously someone in his office has said, quick, get yourself
Speaker 13: out there and do it now.
Speaker 1: Just six hours later.
Speaker 7: With that.
Speaker 13: Look, I mean you could you could even hear it
Speaker 13: in the speaker's voice, you know, Milton Dick, that you
Speaker 13: could hear when he spoke over the top, that everyone
Speaker 13: was appalled at what he said. And you know, this
Speaker 13: is the Prime Minister who promised he'd do politics differently,
Speaker 13: at Gendler politics and a kind Agendler. And I can
Speaker 13: tell you it's been nothing but worse than it's ever
Speaker 13: been under this mob. And this is just another example.
Speaker 1: Joe, what are we missing?
Speaker 4: I will defend him.
Speaker 16: I think this is I can understand the frustration that
Speaker 16: the left gets incredibly outraged when anyone on the right
Speaker 16: does it. I don't think that makes it right for
Speaker 16: the right to get ridiculously outraged. I mean, the same
Speaker 16: people who say everything's political correctness gone man say this,
Speaker 16: he was not. He was not insulting people with tourets.
Speaker 16: He was using a very very common vernacular term that
Speaker 16: Australians use all the time.
Speaker 4: I have I have plenty of I have plenty of
Speaker 4: people extremely.
Speaker 16: Close to me who have had profound and have profound disabilities,
Speaker 16: including my brother and my best mate. I was not
Speaker 16: in the remotest offended by it any more than I
Speaker 16: would be if someone said that a policy was schizophrenic
Speaker 16: because it went all over the place. Does that mean
Speaker 16: it's that you're insulting schizophrenic people?
Speaker 1: But you're missing the second part of it. I didn't
Speaker 1: just say Toretz it was it was it was the.
Speaker 4: Something.
Speaker 16: This is someone who can't can't stop talking and he's
Speaker 16: using he's using what every Australian I reckon in the
Speaker 16: pub at some point or another would have said.
Speaker 1: So you think the pub test on this is.
Speaker 16: Well, if you say to someone, mate, are you are
Speaker 16: you psycho? Is that insulting. I mean, is as mental
Speaker 16: as anything? Are they insulting? Where was the outrageous.
Speaker 1: Team?
Speaker 16: I think I think it's different when it's the other side.
Speaker 16: And this is the thing as someone who.
Speaker 1: You think in the same way. One side is too sensitive.
Speaker 16: That's right, And I see it all the time and
Speaker 16: it does my head in because I get caned by
Speaker 16: both sides were actually saying no, we've got to actually
Speaker 16: draw back here.
Speaker 4: There are plenty of people in the chamber laughing, I.
Speaker 1: Think on both sides. But I look, I think that's
Speaker 1: when you're the Prime minister. You're supposed to be above
Speaker 1: that stuff. And look, all human beings, especially ones that
Speaker 1: are speaking extemporaneously, ad libbing or adversarial conversation. You might
Speaker 1: go too far. You should have the sensitivity around yourself
Speaker 1: to know you've gone too far and not just go oh,
Speaker 1: because there's going to be a point of ward. There's
Speaker 1: a way to say sorry six hours later.
Speaker 4: But he did it. He did it straight away.
Speaker 16: He did it, was already he already said said two
Speaker 16: or three times that he withdrew it, and he said
Speaker 16: that he apologized straight afterwards.
Speaker 4: It is there in the audio.
Speaker 1: You cannot so why did he go back in six
Speaker 1: hours later.
Speaker 16: To make it even clearer, Because we live in a
Speaker 16: culture of ridiculous outrage that has just hold the proportion
Speaker 16: they were in the chamber debate, but one holdating the
Speaker 16: war in Gaza and.
Speaker 4: This is what people get upd about.
Speaker 16: You've got a million displaced lebantes. You've got it as
Speaker 16: part of the overall question time, and and there was
Speaker 16: that there was Peter Dunn saying, we're so pro is
Speaker 16: we're going to refuse to back a motion that's and
Speaker 16: now we're going to get to get upset that you
Speaker 16: said that last word quickly.
Speaker 13: It wasn't about Gaza at all, Joe, And it was
Speaker 13: about that. It was a question around the family home
Speaker 13: and capital gains tax, so it actually had nothing to
Speaker 13: do with the Gaza.
Speaker 4: The number one question.
Speaker 13: Question time and you ask a mother of a child
Speaker 13: with dread and if it's something that's so colloquial and
Speaker 13: so acceptable in the pub test, why did he come
Speaker 13: back in six hours later and apologize? So I think, Joe,
Speaker 13: because that I love you are trying to pull it
Speaker 13: very long, but I.
Speaker 4: Love you too.
Speaker 16: And but but the idea he knows that there that
Speaker 16: these things can be whipped up, that they can be mischaracterized,
Speaker 16: that people will point you.
Speaker 1: Would he have done if it was Scott Morrison? You
Speaker 1: know exactly what.
Speaker 13: I said that were blessed during the debate.
Speaker 4: That's right, thank you, and I did. I did not
Speaker 4: get outraged. Sure not get out by that.
Speaker 1: And I'm not holding you responsible for what he says.
Speaker 4: You're consisted in your life and that's outrage.
Speaker 16: Machine needs to take a good, long, hard look at
Speaker 16: itself and ask why it's not outraged about this, because
Speaker 16: you know what, you've got to look at the context,
Speaker 16: you've got to look at the intent behind things, and
Speaker 16: you've got to have a sense of proportion about what
Speaker 16: you get outraged about, because when you know.
Speaker 4: The world's on the brink of World War three.
Speaker 1: Don't disagree, but it's just the standard is only going
Speaker 1: to apply now when it's you know, metaphorically you're got.
Speaker 4: All everyone else, then we wouldn't have to have these.
Speaker 1: In And okay, we've got Nigel up in a couple
Speaker 1: of seconds, so let's quickly talk about the motion commotion
Speaker 1: that took place today. So Saturday, I think was when
Speaker 1: Peter dun'ts look, we should talk about October seven. When
Speaker 1: Parliament goes back, it won't be on October seven, but
Speaker 1: it'll be on October eight. Back and forth about what
Speaker 1: the words would be because it started to broaden out
Speaker 1: from what Dunton wanted it to be. Dunn't says he
Speaker 1: wasn't going to sign up to it. In fact, he
Speaker 1: ended up saying this because the motion wasn't what he
Speaker 1: was planning it to be.
Speaker 10: There are other sections here which go well beyond the
Speaker 10: intent of what should be a motion to mark the
Speaker 10: loss of life of twelve hundred people on the first anniversary.
Speaker 10: That's what this motion was to be about. But of
Speaker 10: course the Prime Minister is trying to speak out of
Speaker 10: both sides of his mouth and that is not something
Speaker 10: that we will support in relation to this debate.
Speaker 1: All right, Holly, you've had it good, so now it's
Speaker 1: time for you to feel slightly wobbly here. Right. The
Speaker 1: polling out of Resolve, No never, The polling out of
Speaker 1: Resolve showed right that basically thirty percent of people when
Speaker 1: questions about what should our standing, what should our response be,
Speaker 1: what should refugees, they have a very diffinite view about
Speaker 1: Israel versus garsa okay, thirty percent of people okay now
Speaker 1: and another twenty percent. You can get to fifty percent
Speaker 1: and they're saying, well, both sides right, And then there's
Speaker 1: the other half that says, okay, we get it, but
Speaker 1: we don't want it to dominate our conversation all day
Speaker 1: every day. Your response to that polling and the endless
Speaker 1: priority of it in the Parliament from everyone from your
Speaker 1: side to the Greens.
Speaker 13: Look, the Australian people are doing it incredibly tough with
Speaker 13: cost of living pressures at the moment. We know that
Speaker 13: that is their top first, second, third, fourth and fifth
Speaker 13: issue is cost of living. We know that the situation
Speaker 13: in Israel and Gaza and Lebanon is not their top
Speaker 13: of mind. But the reality is what we're talking about
Speaker 13: was a commemoration of October seventh, the biggest murder per
Speaker 13: grom of Israeli and Jewish citizens since the Second World War.
Speaker 1: We were talking.
Speaker 13: About one day commemoration, one year anniversary of when that
Speaker 13: terrible crime occurred, when that terrorist attack occurred. We're not
Speaker 13: you know, this isn't about talking about it every day.
Speaker 13: What occurred in the Parliament today was a break with
Speaker 13: a very long standing of decades and decades of bipartisanship
Speaker 13: when it came to standing with Israel, which you know,
Speaker 13: as Bob Hawk said, if the bell tolls for Israel,
Speaker 13: it tolds for all of us.
Speaker 1: So, Joe, do you think that the motion, I mean,
Speaker 1: you're going to disagree that the motion strayed from that
Speaker 1: central point. But again, look, I'm going to annoy a
Speaker 1: lot of people. People are going to send me emails us. Again,
Speaker 1: I understand what's going on in the world, and I'm
Speaker 1: not saying don't talk about it. I'm just saying, for
Speaker 1: everyone who thinks that they can make the ultimate endless
Speaker 1: points about this, I don't think that's where the majority
Speaker 1: of people are.
Speaker 16: No, and I think that I actually agree with you.
Speaker 16: I think this is something that people are scared to
Speaker 16: even engage with. It's something that people quite frankly don't
Speaker 16: want to touch with a barge pole, and they don't
Speaker 16: want it.
Speaker 4: Over here overwhelmingly.
Speaker 16: That's another thing that resolving that the idea that you
Speaker 16: would turn what's happening over there into a conflict on
Speaker 16: of all days, the anniversary of October seventh.
Speaker 1: Hence why I was as clear as the jewishy Elert.
Speaker 16: Absolutely get him out of here, get him on the
Speaker 16: first had disgrace. I think this was a motion that
Speaker 16: tried to say something simple and mournful and positive, and
Speaker 16: I think Peter Dutton and the Coalition rejected it at
Speaker 16: their peril.
Speaker 1: All right, this was fun. Thank you guys, do appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Love you see well again next week. Everyone loves everyone.
Speaker 1: Nobody's wabbling. We're all great, all right, quick break back
Speaker 1: with more. Nigel Farage standing by in London. Lots to
Speaker 1: talk about about what's happening in the UK, and we'll probably.
Speaker 6: Talk about.
Speaker 1: Our mate. Nigel Farage is joining us from the UK
Speaker 1: right now and he's making quite the point about the
Speaker 1: new Labor government. In fact, the Reform Party's put out
Speaker 1: a bit of a piss take video about the new
Speaker 1: Labor government rollo tape.
Speaker 4: We bring you Labor's Britain.
Speaker 1: Featuring shivering grandparents with no winter feel allows free clothing, glasses,
Speaker 1: accommodation and tickets as long as you're a Labor MP storry,
Speaker 1: free gear gear rubbing Rachel in association with the Trade
Speaker 1: Unions Labor's Britain. I love it, Nigel. You're a happy
Speaker 1: warrior on the trial and you continue to be so
Speaker 1: in the Parliament. Ah, I love it. I love it.
Speaker 17: So the broadcasting rules in the UK are very clear.
Speaker 17: We get a party political broadcast once every year or
Speaker 17: so which goes out on the big channels BBC, ITV, etc.
Speaker 17: But you're not allowed to use images of political opponents.
Speaker 17: So what our bright young things in the office decided
Speaker 17: is let's use AI representations of Kir Starmer, of Rachel Reeves,
Speaker 17: the Chancellor. And we said it to the broadcasters last
Speaker 17: week and they told us we would love to refuse this,
Speaker 17: but we can't because you're within the rules. Now I
Speaker 17: expect the rules will get rewritten. But it's had quite
Speaker 17: an impact. And you know what, it's a hard hitting
Speaker 17: political message, but it's also quite funny.
Speaker 1: Well, and I think if you can make them laugh
Speaker 1: then you're halfway there to being able to convince somebody
Speaker 1: to whatever your position is. Now, tell me about a
Speaker 1: fight involving particular islands. What's happening?
Speaker 17: This is awful. So the cha Gas Islands, Okay, I
Speaker 17: know you've never heard of them. They're bang in the
Speaker 17: middle of the Indian Ocean. They're a chain of islands
Speaker 17: and the British have controlled. The British have sovereignty of
Speaker 17: those islands. No one lives there for a variety of reasons.
Speaker 17: But on the biggest island, Diego Garcia, there is a
Speaker 17: massive US base. It's a US British base, but for
Speaker 17: America it is one of their two most important assets
Speaker 17: in the East. And what the Labor government have decided
Speaker 17: to do, basically because of colonial guilt about our past,
Speaker 17: using the spurious United Nations Maritime Court that's going to
Speaker 17: rule against us, They've decided to give the sovereignty of
Speaker 17: the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, which is oney three hundred
Speaker 17: miles away from Chagos. And by the way, Mauritius have
Speaker 17: never had control of them in the past either. What's
Speaker 17: the problem with that? Well, the problem is that Mauritius,
Speaker 17: run by a hard left labor government, and I went
Speaker 17: there on holiday a couple of years ago, has a
Speaker 17: massive China town. The Chinese are investing huge amounts of
Speaker 17: money in Mauritius. And what will happen here is whatever
Speaker 17: the lease agreement says. We saw a lease agreement with
Speaker 17: Hong Kong that was totally ignored. What will happen is
Speaker 17: on one of the other islands, the Chinese will build
Speaker 17: their own naval and air force base. This is a
Speaker 17: strategic disaster, apparently supported by President by but then he's
Speaker 17: got every single foreign policy decision wrong. And so I
Speaker 17: raised the question yesterday in the House of Commons to
Speaker 17: our Foreign secretary, well, what after November the fifth, when
Speaker 17: Donald Trump wins, what's he going to think about this?
Speaker 17: And what does this do to our relationship, our key
Speaker 17: as with Australia, our key relationship with America. They must
Speaker 17: be laughing their socks off in Beijing.
Speaker 1: What's perfect metaphor for how the Western world? You know?
Speaker 1: But they have for one of a bit of term
Speaker 1: a shop being fired. They're handing the keys back, and
Speaker 1: it's something that we all find as hard againstation every
Speaker 1: day you do in the Parliament, we do it here.
Speaker 1: I'm hardly happening about thirty seconds. So give me, give
Speaker 1: me the rah rah. The latest poles are pretty good
Speaker 1: for Trump. A feeling yeah, looking good.
Speaker 17: Kamala Harris appeared on sixty Minutes The Big American Program
Speaker 17: last night. She's avoided media up until now. She was
Speaker 17: totally exposed. She couldn't answer the question about the number
Speaker 17: of illegals crossing the border since she had been. The
Speaker 17: borders are and the bedding markets and bananas last night,
Speaker 17: and Trump is now a clear favorite.
Speaker 1: Go get them Donald, fight, fight, fight, vote, vote vote,
Speaker 1: as they say, thank you, mate, appreciate it. We'll talk
Speaker 1: to you soon. Nigel Faras will see him again next week.
Speaker 1: That's our show for tonight, making Kelly tomorrow and he's
Speaker 1: the late debate