Speaker 1: From the Skying Center.
Speaker 2: This is Paul Murray life.
Speaker 1: Yep, that's what it would have looked like if I
Speaker 1: had won seventy million bucks tonight. But like everyone else, no, no,
Speaker 1: we buy the ticket with fingers crossed. You're mentally buying
Speaker 1: a boat. But no, like everyone else, we've turned back
Speaker 1: up to work. One person has won seventy million dollars
Speaker 1: tonight in os Lotto. I don't know what state they're from.
Speaker 1: About twenty people have won the best part of fifty
Speaker 1: thousand dollars. One hundred and ninety three won about five thousand,
Speaker 1: and right down to the rest of us winning four fifths.
Speaker 1: Bugger all the wedding numbers tonight forty four, thirty four,
Speaker 1: forty five, one, forty six, twenty five and twenty one.
Speaker 1: The support entry is nine, fourteen and sixteen. Congrats to
Speaker 1: the one person who you will know who's won. Because
Speaker 1: they can't help themselves. They'll be buying a flash car.
Speaker 1: They might end if you see your next door neighbor
Speaker 1: new cars any time in the next couple of days.
Speaker 1: They're the ones that are seventy million dollars richer. Anyway, Congratulations,
Speaker 1: good fun for a day. These lottos, isn't it when
Speaker 1: you just do dream about that other life? But I
Speaker 1: promise sixty nine million, six hundred and fifty five thousand dollars.
Speaker 1: Anything above that, no, I won't turn up to work otherwise.
Speaker 1: I'm here. All right, Let's get into it. Let's do
Speaker 1: some work tonight. Now. You know that I care a
Speaker 1: lot about the Kid's Helpline runs all over the country.
Speaker 1: It is a vital service, vital service for an awful
Speaker 1: lot of people around the country. It is to me,
Speaker 1: a vital mental health service that keeps kids alive. You
Speaker 1: know that we've raised money for the Kid's Helpline before.
Speaker 1: You know that we've gone and visited their center to
Speaker 1: see what they do, what the group does, and they're
Speaker 1: do incredible work. I couldn't be bigger fans of what
Speaker 1: they do. The reason I mentioned them at the start
Speaker 1: of tonight's show is because of all of the money
Speaker 1: that the Victorian government has to spend on things, not
Speaker 1: a dollar to the Kids Helpline, despite a request from
Speaker 1: the Kid's Helpline for a little bit of cash. The
Speaker 1: Kids Helpline employs about one hundred and eighty counselors. Tracy
Speaker 1: Adams is the chief executive of your town says they
Speaker 1: need at least forty more. If we want to avoid
Speaker 1: our kids being in crisis, then we've got to be
Speaker 1: there when they need it, in those moments that really matter,
Speaker 1: when no one else is Seventy five percent of all
Speaker 1: contacts come outside normal business house, so the phone calls
Speaker 1: are happening right now. The Kids Helpline ask the Victorian
Speaker 1: government for four point four million dollars in the budget
Speaker 1: that has just gone. It is getting nothing. Nothing. Despite
Speaker 1: Victoria being the second busiest state for calls. The Kids
Speaker 1: Helpline provided more than seventy four six hundred counseling sessions
Speaker 1: to young people from five years old all the way
Speaker 1: through to twenty five across Australia in twenty twenty four Victoria.
Speaker 1: About eighteen percent of those seventy four six hundred calls
Speaker 1: were from that state. It's an increase in contacts requiring
Speaker 1: counseling compared to the previous year. Now the Victorian government
Speaker 1: has no excuse not to help something like the Kids Helpline.
Speaker 1: The West Australian government and you said Weil's government, Yes,
Speaker 1: the federal government too. They tip in money, but We're
Speaker 1: almost twenty percent of the phone calls that are made
Speaker 1: to the service come from Victoria, and they ask for
Speaker 1: four million bucks. They should be pooning up the cash. Now, yes,
Speaker 1: there's an awful lot of debt in Victoria, but here's
Speaker 1: a little reality. They're promising they're going to have a
Speaker 1: six hundred million dollar surplus ie money they don't know
Speaker 1: where to spend. And that's because Jacinta Allen was bailed
Speaker 1: out by Anthony Abernezi to the tune of billions of
Speaker 1: dollars thanks to our change in the GST amount. All
Speaker 1: of that, of course a way to save seats. All
Speaker 1: of that worked at the election. All of that might
Speaker 1: prop up an otherwise unpopular government at the upcoming election.
Speaker 1: That me talking about it probably doesn't help people that
Speaker 1: are trying to get something out of the Victorian government.
Speaker 1: But if you are someone somewhere with some access, somehow
Speaker 1: to the Victorian Parliament or the Victorian government, can you
Speaker 1: pick up the phone not on my behalf, but on
Speaker 1: the behalf of the kids. The eighteen percent of seventy
Speaker 1: four thousand calls which go to the Kid's helpline, think
Speaker 1: about how stressed and how in danger a kid may
Speaker 1: be to reach out for help. Now it can also
Speaker 1: be done via the Internet or text messaging, but this
Speaker 1: is a vital service. If the state government claims have
Speaker 1: got six hundred million dollars for a surplus six hundred
Speaker 1: million dollars more than they would otherwise plan to spend,
Speaker 1: surely they can find four million bucks. There's also another
Speaker 1: plea that I'll be making to the Victorian government right now. Again,
Speaker 1: I get it, they couldn't be more hard left. I
Speaker 1: am clearly not of the hard left. But still we
Speaker 1: are Australians united and we should focus on that are
Speaker 1: doing it tough, like the kids I just mentioned, or
Speaker 1: of course the many farmers affected by the drought. The
Speaker 1: drought that is deep and very hard across big parts
Speaker 1: of Victoria starting to move into parts of southern New
Speaker 1: South Wales and across into South Australia, the Hume region.
Speaker 1: You may know some of these regions, but we're talking
Speaker 1: about places like Mansfield, places like Well you can see
Speaker 1: they're Tuwom and a whole bunch of others Mitchell Sheperd
Speaker 1: and Greatest Sheperdon. All of those areas are part of
Speaker 1: the Hume area. And we learned today by the Herald
Speaker 1: Sun that a dozen't local councils in and around that
Speaker 1: area that you can just see, have written a letter
Speaker 1: to the Premier saying, for goodness sake, can we please
Speaker 1: get a drought declaration. Now, the Premier did turn up
Speaker 1: in this part of Victoria last week, but let me
Speaker 1: read from the letter that has come from the local councils.
Speaker 1: Despite dams running dry and farmers looking as far as
Speaker 1: Western Australia for feed, a local mayor and farmer, Claire
Speaker 1: Ewitt Kennedy, says the region has been largely abandoned by
Speaker 1: the Allen government. In an urgent letter to the Agriculture Minister,
Speaker 1: the mayors said the financial strain was becoming untenable as
Speaker 1: rural communities battle a growing emotional toll. Livestock and cattle
Speaker 1: prod users in our local government areas are facing mounting
Speaker 1: pressure due to the limited feed availability, dwindling hay reserves,
Speaker 1: rising fodder and transport costs, and depleted water storage. Now
Speaker 1: again that letter was apparently published just prior to when
Speaker 1: the Premier did turn up in that region. But even
Speaker 1: the help that has been announced to this point by
Speaker 1: some of these mayors is being said to be not enough. Again.
Speaker 1: This is a government that thanks to extra money from
Speaker 1: the federal government, which means extra money from taxpayers all
Speaker 1: over Australia, including in Victoria. Well, I would imagine things
Speaker 1: like the kids' helpline and people like the farmers will
Speaker 1: we want them to get some help. One of the
Speaker 1: mayors again has gone on to say that the whole
Speaker 1: thing is a slap in the face. They're dividing the region.
Speaker 1: She said, I'd like to see the science behind declaring
Speaker 1: droughts because it seems fairly subjective. She said that farmers
Speaker 1: can't wait any longer for financial relief. With die conditions
Speaker 1: crucifying livelihoods and communities. It's heartbreaking. Farmers are on their knees.
Speaker 1: We'll have a chat to the Shadow Agriculture Minister for
Speaker 1: their perspective. A little bit later in the show, the
Speaker 1: nation seems quite fixated on a courtroom in Regional Victoria.
Speaker 1: It is, of course, the murder trial, all in and
Speaker 1: around issues to do with mushrooms. Now, there there was
Speaker 1: such interest in this thing that we know every story
Speaker 1: that goes online, massive numbers podcasts are about it. I've
Speaker 1: had mates that I wouldn't have thought are interested in
Speaker 1: anything to do with true crime, But no, they are
Speaker 1: all invested in this. And what about the cues that
Speaker 1: were there before the sun came up? To get into
Speaker 1: the court room to watch the person accused giving evidence,
Speaker 1: The group of mostly middle aged women talked quietly and
Speaker 1: watched on as nearby a long row of TV cameras
Speaker 1: and journalists perform live crosses back to their newsrooms across
Speaker 1: the country from six am. By the time the doors
Speaker 1: opened at nine am, they were pressed hard against the
Speaker 1: glass waiting to go through the court's routine security check.
Speaker 1: Every seat in the court was full. An indigenous artwork
Speaker 1: hangs from the wall above where the jury sits, a
Speaker 1: rare piece of color in a room that otherwise is
Speaker 1: filled with folders of paper, laptops, books and notes. So
Speaker 1: what happened in the stand today? We turned to Channel
Speaker 1: seven for their updates tonight.
Speaker 3: Aaron Patterson accepting there were death cap mushrooms in the
Speaker 3: beef wellingtons she prepared for four family members in twenty
Speaker 3: twenty three. Do you accept that there must have been
Speaker 3: death cap mushrooms in it?
Speaker 4: Yes?
Speaker 3: I do. Miss Patterson also admitted she owned a dehydrator
Speaker 3: and had used it to preserve wild mushrooms after learning
Speaker 3: to forage fungi during the twenty twenty COVID lockdowns. When
Speaker 3: asked what she did with the mushroom she picked in
Speaker 3: May twenty twenty three, the month of the fatal lunch,
Speaker 3: she said, I took them home, cleaned them, slice them.
Speaker 3: If I didn't think I wanted to use them that day,
Speaker 3: I would dry them and put them in the pantry,
Speaker 3: later explaining generally, I would put them in a container.
Speaker 3: I already had going with Wooly's mushrooms, so I would
Speaker 3: just dry them and put them in a container.
Speaker 1: There was plenty more, including remember these are questions being
Speaker 1: asked of the accused by her own lawyer. Prosecution will
Speaker 1: get a chance in a couple of days time.
Speaker 3: Juris have previously been shown the accused killer's record of interview,
Speaker 3: where she told police she'd never foraged for mushrooms and
Speaker 3: didn't own a dehydrator. Then, when asked, have you ever
Speaker 3: been diagnosed with ovarian cancer, she replied I have not.
Speaker 3: And have you ever had a needle biopsy on a
Speaker 3: lump on your elbow? She answered, I've never had a
Speaker 3: needle biopsy anywhere. The trial had earlier been told she'd
Speaker 3: been referred to a biopsy in a message to her
Speaker 3: mother in law, and she'd claimed a cancer diagnosis during
Speaker 3: the Beef Wellington lunch.
Speaker 1: And as they say, the trial continues. We have a
Speaker 1: system in Australia that no matter what job you do,
Speaker 1: no matter how had you work, a portion of it
Speaker 1: must be put aside for your retirement. The numbers started
Speaker 1: off relatively low. It's now what over ten percent. If
Speaker 1: you're in the public sector, it's close to twenty percent.
Speaker 1: Of course, I'm talking about superannuation. One company in particular,
Speaker 1: Australian Super, which is apparently the biggest of the funds
Speaker 1: in the country, has had a world of problems, the
Speaker 1: latest of which has been highlighted by the Australian Securities
Speaker 1: and Investment Commission, and apparently the allegation from ASSEK is
Speaker 1: that Australian Super has been charging dead people account fees.
Speaker 1: The three hundred and fifty five billion dollars Australian Super
Speaker 1: Industry Fund, so this is just one of them, has
Speaker 1: been accused of charging dead people account fees and excessive
Speaker 1: delays in paying out claims. The corporate regulator has alleged
Speaker 1: details about the superannuation's fund. Alleged contact comes after the
Speaker 1: Australian Securities and Investment Commission revealed that it was suing
Speaker 1: the company back in March, having claimed look it took
Speaker 1: between four months and four years to assess almost seven
Speaker 1: thousand death benefit claims in the five years to October
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four. A six full statement of claim revealed
Speaker 1: the corporate cop has argued that despite quote death claims
Speaker 1: backlog end quote, Australian Super continued charging monthly administration fees
Speaker 1: from deceased members accounts during the periods of unreasonable delay.
Speaker 1: For their part, the company has responded and have said
Speaker 1: that that particular practice is no longer happening. Previously, when
Speaker 1: a member passed away, administration fees were charged to provide
Speaker 1: the service of continuing to manage and a minister their account.
Speaker 1: Since October last year, once the fund was notified of
Speaker 1: a member's death, our policy is that their account is investigated,
Speaker 1: sorry is invested in the fund's cash option and administration
Speaker 1: fees are no longer charged now. None of this is
Speaker 1: news to those of you who have got a reasonably
Speaker 1: good memory and can remember back to earlier this year
Speaker 1: and the end of last year when the great Jonathan Lee,
Speaker 1: the boss of our investigations unit here at sky News.
Speaker 1: He's done a series of stories that are all available
Speaker 1: on YouTube, just putting Jonathan Lee superannuation sky News. You
Speaker 1: can find them through our website skye News dot com
Speaker 1: dot You were obviously over on the YouTube's and a
Speaker 1: perfect example of one of these couples after their son
Speaker 1: had died, the pain they went through of trying to
Speaker 1: finish out his super.
Speaker 5: We assumed it would take some time. That we thought
Speaker 5: weeks perhaps, but it just dragged on, and then once
Speaker 5: we got into the new year and there.
Speaker 2: Was these huge silences, it sort of felt like we've
Speaker 2: been purposely ignored. Because Soon made so many inquents out
Speaker 2: on that phone for so long that the battery would
Speaker 2: run flat in it. We felt at that stage that
Speaker 2: we've been deliberately installed.
Speaker 6: When I started trying to make contact again, it was
Speaker 6: sometime in March, and I remember writing in an email,
Speaker 6: we have heard nothing from you since twenty first of December.
Speaker 6: That's the last correspondence we've had.
Speaker 7: One week became twenty four weeks.
Speaker 1: That's six long months. It's extraordinary. By law you are
Speaker 1: forced to put your money into superannuation. Of course, for
Speaker 1: most people they'll be able to draw down on it
Speaker 1: ever so slowly once you hit retirement age. But for
Speaker 1: those rare exceptions or increasingly significant number of exceptions where
Speaker 1: you die prior to or you've got a terminal disease,
Speaker 1: or of course you need to access the money for
Speaker 1: a collection of other legal reasons, seemingly it takes forever
Speaker 1: to get the money to come out. Now, if this
Speaker 1: is a system where it is up to the superannuation
Speaker 1: companies as to how quickly they end up flushing the
Speaker 1: fund and giving the person the money back or the
Speaker 1: person on their behalf the money back, that system needs
Speaker 1: to change. Let's see if any politician from any political
Speaker 1: party has the balls to start talking about this, let
Speaker 1: alone start moving laws if they need to be done.
Speaker 1: Because according to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, they've
Speaker 1: got a couple of examples here of clearly a system
Speaker 1: that needs to change. Now. Either side of Parliament seems to,
Speaker 1: of course believe one thing, and one thing has been
Speaker 1: proven out by elections, which you can't give the Australian
Speaker 1: public enough money. You may call it buying votes. Others
Speaker 1: may call it an investing in our future. But again,
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter who's in Parliament, you end up at
Speaker 1: a scenario where spending is the option. We know that
Speaker 1: when it comes to Jim Chalmers, he loves spending money.
Speaker 1: And we know that despite the fact that they got
Speaker 1: a couple of surpluses by luck, by the mining boom
Speaker 1: and buy some new accounting tricks, the reality is that
Speaker 1: the structural deficit means that we will have no budget
Speaker 1: deficits apparently for the next ten years. As I've bludgeoned
Speaker 1: you with this graphic, but I'll keep doing it until
Speaker 1: you see it in your sleep, there will be no
Speaker 1: budget surpluses for the next forty years. Why because the
Speaker 1: structural spend is that no matter how much tax they get,
Speaker 1: no matter how much more people they bring into the country,
Speaker 1: they will spend more than they get. This, of course
Speaker 1: produces debt. Where last year it was under one trillion,
Speaker 1: this year it goes to trillion dollars. Next year it's
Speaker 1: almost one point one, the next year it's one point one,
Speaker 1: and by the time of the next election will be
Speaker 1: at one point two trillion. Dollars debt. But if, of
Speaker 1: course you have a budget deficit every year for the
Speaker 1: next forty years, whether it be five, ten, fifteen, twenty,
Speaker 1: one hundred billion, you just add it to the previous tally.
Speaker 1: So one trillion dollars debt will become one point two
Speaker 1: will become one point five, one point seven two, two
Speaker 1: and a half. Who cares? And you see, there's actually
Speaker 1: a theory that this is a good way to run
Speaker 1: a country. It certainly seems to be the way that
Speaker 1: Jim Chalmers likes to fund the Australian economy, which is,
Speaker 1: rather than just balance things out and thank goodness for
Speaker 1: AI for giving us a snappy little cartoon image to
Speaker 1: show you here it's a money tree that basically countries
Speaker 1: like Australia, economies like Australian now, and we'll ever call
Speaker 1: in the debt, so who cares. Just keep running up
Speaker 1: the debt, keep running up the deficits. This is in
Speaker 1: a more complicated form called modern monetary theory. Say that
Speaker 1: three times when you're trying to add lib on TV,
Speaker 1: and as the ABC defines it, basically debt doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: Now this is worth having a look at. You say,
Speaker 1: the budget deficits, and this being the people behind the
Speaker 1: modern monetary theory. They say the budget deficits are not
Speaker 1: always bad. In fact, deficits are often necessary and beneficial.
Speaker 1: A budget deficit is merely evidence of extra government spending,
Speaker 1: and government spending boosts the wealth of the private sector,
Speaker 1: businesses and households. That's the theory. Now, you and I
Speaker 1: of course come from a different world where there isn't
Speaker 1: a money tree. You've got to pay these things off.
Speaker 1: But I continue reading. They say it depends on what
Speaker 1: deficit spending is being used for. Increasing the deficit to
Speaker 1: financial war not a good thing, or not the same
Speaker 1: thing as increasing the deficit to build more hospitals or schools.
Speaker 1: They argue that investments that will enhance productivity through better health,
Speaker 1: greater knowledge and skills, improve transport and the like are
Speaker 1: worth funding, even if it results in a budget deficit.
Speaker 1: But in Australia, we don't borrow money for all of
Speaker 1: those things. We borrow it for some of those things,
Speaker 1: But every dollar that we borrow goes in part to
Speaker 1: pay what I showed you last night. Thirty seven percent
Speaker 1: of the entire federal budget is for welfare. That's not
Speaker 1: an investment that is a social safety net. Fine, great, fine,
Speaker 1: fair enough, that's the way we run our country. But
Speaker 1: you can't tell me it's okay to run a deficit
Speaker 1: when I almost forty percent of your budget. You will
Speaker 1: never get back. You won't get it back via productivity
Speaker 1: because there's a new bridge, a new toll road, a
Speaker 1: new school or anything like that.
Speaker 8: No.
Speaker 1: Instead, effectively it just becomes dead money, or more importantly,
Speaker 1: vote buying money. So what is the way around having
Speaker 1: to justify spending more money than you have coming in? Well,
Speaker 1: the Prime Minister uses the keyword that is the giveaway
Speaker 1: of modern monetary theory invested invested, invested investment, invested investing.
Speaker 1: So if you just say invest, then in part some
Speaker 1: of this money goes off budget nobody sees it. But
Speaker 1: then of course you have a scenario where they turn
Speaker 1: around and they just keep racking up the debt. Perfect
Speaker 1: example Daniel Andrews the way he ran the Victorian economy. Well,
Speaker 1: it resulted in the credit agency is downgrading Victoria and
Speaker 1: its ability to pay back its debt, which means they
Speaker 1: have to pay more to pay off their debt, and
Speaker 1: the agencies are warning states like Victoria you've got to
Speaker 1: get on top of debt or the cost of paying
Speaker 1: off that debt will go higher. And this current Victorian
Speaker 1: Treasurer has just handed down a budget where how's this.
Speaker 1: You are going to end up in a scenario where
Speaker 1: the total debt by twenty eight twenty nine in Victoria
Speaker 1: one hundred and ninety four billion, and that will cost
Speaker 1: ten point six billion dollars a year or twenty eight
Speaker 1: point nine million dollars a day to pay off ten
Speaker 1: billion dollars of your state budget just is on paying
Speaker 1: off debt. That means less money for a school, less
Speaker 1: money for a hospital, less money for the kids helpline,
Speaker 1: less money to help the farmers, but to their current
Speaker 1: situation of drought, and unbelievably, we have a situation where
Speaker 1: the Victorian Treasury has done no homework whatsoever on what
Speaker 1: it would do to the state budget if the credit
Speaker 1: rating is put down again because they keep racking up
Speaker 1: the debt. But they don't care, because again, you can
Speaker 1: just pay off a credit card with another credit card,
Speaker 1: with another credit card, with another crewded crowd, and then
Speaker 1: just go outside and grab money from the money tree.
Speaker 1: Emma Kiel is the shadow agricultural Minister in Victoria. I
Speaker 1: wanted to talk to her about what we mentioned at
Speaker 1: the start of the program, which is the concern of
Speaker 1: these areas in the hume of Victoria. Twelve different councils
Speaker 1: that have written to the Agriculture Minister saying, hey, what's
Speaker 1: going on? Emma joins us now of course from Victoria.
Speaker 1: Nice to see Emma. Give me an idea here. Where
Speaker 1: the Premier was out and about, you know, a couple
Speaker 1: of days ago, pretending that she was there to help.
Speaker 1: But are the concerns of this council they still remain.
Speaker 1: What is the golf between what the Premier is doing
Speaker 1: and what these councils need.
Speaker 9: Well, we've heard a lot from the Premiere saying she's
Speaker 9: a regional Victorian. We've got a Treasurer who's a regional Victorian,
Speaker 9: and so apparently this is the team that's going to
Speaker 9: deliver for regional Victoria. But we certainly haven't seen this.
Speaker 9: During this time of drought right across the state. We've
Speaker 9: had terrible low rainfall conditions, some of the lowest rainfall
Speaker 9: conditions we've seen on record, and yet we've got a
Speaker 9: government that isn't putting any money towards our farmers to
Speaker 9: provide a media on the ground support.
Speaker 7: We've seen the.
Speaker 9: Waving of attacks which hasn't even been introduced yet, three
Speaker 9: billion dollar additional tax on every single household of business
Speaker 9: and particularly our farmers. But when it comes to helping
Speaker 9: with fodder, with helping with water, helping with some great belief,
Speaker 9: or getting stock up to Queensland to protect their genetic lines,
Speaker 9: We're just not seeing anything. It's crickets from the labor
Speaker 9: government and people are feeling very ignored.
Speaker 1: Some of these councils that again wrote this letter was
Speaker 1: published in the Heilson this morning talk about drought declarations.
Speaker 1: What is the difference between again what locals are seeing
Speaker 1: as drought conditions and what the state government is well
Speaker 1: officially declaring to be.
Speaker 9: It becomes very Richard Paul, where it's about what we
Speaker 9: talk about two failed seasons. But the problem is the
Speaker 9: timing of the rainfall. So I was driving around Victoria
Speaker 9: Regional Victoria, not just today but on Friday, Saturday and
Speaker 9: Sunday as well, and the paddocks are just barren. There
Speaker 9: are crack dried jams everywhere, and when you see stock
Speaker 9: walking around in dusty and dusty landscape at start of June,
Speaker 9: end of May. It should be pouring with rain. Now
Speaker 9: we should have a huge amount of green pick if
Speaker 9: not grass through the air through all of our padigs,
Speaker 9: and we just haven't got it. It's just dire conditions.
Speaker 9: And when you speak to pharmacy, really hear how they're
Speaker 9: taking it quite personally. Our farmers are enormously proud people.
Speaker 9: They have often farm for generations upon generations, and they
Speaker 9: can't change these current conditions. But they're really tired anyway.
Speaker 9: They spent all summer fighting bush buyers with little support
Speaker 9: or thanks for that. We now get to this point
Speaker 9: where they need our help and the government is nowhere
Speaker 9: to be found, and they're simply heartbroken.
Speaker 1: But also it seems to be this scenario where, oh well,
Speaker 1: if the premiere turn release of press release, there you go.
Speaker 1: We've noticed, thanks very much. Again. She parades around and
Speaker 1: pretends to be a country Victorian. But the area we're
Speaker 1: talking about here, in the human substandive part of the
Speaker 1: state significant when it comes to agriculture, population, tourism, all
Speaker 1: the rest of it. But what everyone can see with
Speaker 1: their own eyes is that this will look no different
Speaker 1: in twelve months time. Yes, it will be worse, but
Speaker 1: it'll look exactly the same. It's still bone dry now
Speaker 1: in twelve months time and another failed season. They're in trouble. Now,
Speaker 1: give me an idea again about the idea that the
Speaker 1: premier will think all everything's okay because I turned up,
Speaker 1: I put out a press release, but clearly that's not
Speaker 1: good enough.
Speaker 9: No, And look, you'll map is fabulous because that's where
Speaker 9: the drought's heading into. But we're now heading to a
Speaker 9: period where about two thirds of the state is in drought.
Speaker 9: It is a significant low rainfall event and we need
Speaker 9: the government to step up, but they're just absent. In fact,
Speaker 9: they're more focused on putting a great, big new tax
Speaker 9: on our farmers and providing that immediate support that our
Speaker 9: farmers need. And this has a huge flow on effect, Paul.
Speaker 10: We know that if there is no food, it's just.
Speaker 9: Going to push out prices and every single Victorian will
Speaker 9: pay the price for Labour's failure to support our farmers
Speaker 9: in their time of need.
Speaker 1: Exactly. Farmers are not tax pignadas that you can just
Speaker 1: keep whacking and money comes out. They're real people, real families,
Speaker 1: real businesses, real people helping the Victorian economy. Thank you
Speaker 1: so much, em I really appreciate it. Look forward to
Speaker 1: more chats into the future. Keep us plugged in on
Speaker 1: what locals need in that area. All right, quick break
Speaker 1: back with more lots of debate, and the great Nigel
Speaker 1: Farage is on the show as well tonight. Remember the
Speaker 1: only place you get to see the potential future Prime
Speaker 1: ministry of the UK each and every week, Sky News
Speaker 1: Tuesday Night, Paul Murray, Life Hortes, thank you so much. Hey,
Speaker 1: the King's Birthday long weekend. This is the start of
Speaker 1: the snow season and I can tell you I was
Speaker 1: having a look at Sconey's weather before big dumps coming
Speaker 1: this weekend, So enjoy yourself. If you happen to be
Speaker 1: way more coordinated than me. If you remember a show
Speaker 1: from Threadbow a couple of years ago, Hey, if you've
Speaker 1: got suggestions of where we could do in ourtown, send
Speaker 1: me an email. All right, it is outsound at schonies
Speaker 1: dot com dot au. With me here in the man
Speaker 1: cave is none other than the wonderful Linda Scott joining
Speaker 1: us from his part of beautiful Coinsland, where we had
Speaker 1: outound a bit earlier this year. And the around to
Speaker 1: Wimber to Womber is Garth Hamilton, the member four groom.
Speaker 1: Love you to see you, mate, love you to see
Speaker 1: you lead here all right? So today a little bit
Speaker 1: of movement when it came to the superannuation fight, particularly
Speaker 1: the bit about whether long term politicians that have been
Speaker 1: around under the old scheme, whether they will or won't
Speaker 1: have to end up paying the increased tax on people
Speaker 1: have got more than three million dollars in superinnuation. The
Speaker 1: Greens say that that is not going to happen, but
Speaker 1: we'll all find out together. But Garth, we also see
Speaker 1: that the opposition is willing to talk if there are
Speaker 1: certain red lines that the government's not willing to cross.
Speaker 1: So where are we on this fight?
Speaker 4: Well, first off, I can't believe I'm agreeing a little
Speaker 4: bit with the Greens here. I don't know if I'm
Speaker 4: greened fully with them, but I think perfectly reasonable in
Speaker 4: saying everyone should be treated the same. I think that's
Speaker 4: a pretty standard sort of position and most Australians would
Speaker 4: agree with that. They've been struck by a fit of sensibility.
Speaker 4: The Greens, who would have thought. So there's that piece
Speaker 4: I leave to the side. The second one just a
Speaker 4: really clear marker I think for everyone out there asking
Speaker 4: where the Liberal Party will be, we are the party
Speaker 4: of lower taxes. We won't be supporting higher taxes, and
Speaker 4: that's the position I think we.
Speaker 7: Can all trust party will take.
Speaker 4: Who knows where it's going to play out, Paul, I
Speaker 4: think you've got to see a theme on this though.
Speaker 4: The story of this Parliament is going to be how
Speaker 4: to take bad legislation and make it worse because we've
Speaker 4: got Labor in the lower House and they've got to
Speaker 4: go and.
Speaker 7: Deal with the Greens in the Upper House.
Speaker 4: That's what's going to happen over and over again this
Speaker 4: Parliament and it's going to be a really tough job
Speaker 4: for us to hold them to account.
Speaker 7: But that's what we've got to do.
Speaker 1: This is what the Treasurer has had to say when
Speaker 1: he was an otherwise picking on hundred dollars bills off
Speaker 1: the money tree. As we showed via chat GPT tonight.
Speaker 11: So will the likes of Peter Dutton and Andy Albernezi,
Speaker 11: you both end in Parliament before two thousand and four,
Speaker 11: be subject to these super tax increases?
Speaker 12: Yes, and we've made that clear. You read from time
Speaker 12: to time on social media that somehow politicians on the
Speaker 12: old scheme before two thousand and four have somehow been exempted.
Speaker 12: That's not the case about politicians on defined benefit will
Speaker 12: be impacted if they've got some very substantial balances by
Speaker 12: the changes we're proposing now.
Speaker 1: Linda, I'm sure we could have a ding dong, but
Speaker 1: of course you serve on the board of one of
Speaker 1: these superannuation funds. So moved to something else, which is
Speaker 1: the battle that local council. This, of course was a
Speaker 1: great part of your political and professional experience, the role
Speaker 1: in local councils of being able to say yes to
Speaker 1: certain developments and no to other developments. Apparently, part of
Speaker 1: the housing conversation in Melbourne is that basically locals objections
Speaker 1: are being steamrolled in favor of we need places for people.
Speaker 1: The Age was writing about this today. It seems that
Speaker 1: the state government and particularly also maybe into places like
Speaker 1: New South Wales where in and around that edge of
Speaker 1: I'm just mentioning last night in and around Glebe and
Speaker 1: the Glee Island Bridge. If there's a place to build something,
Speaker 1: they will build it, and they will build it bloody high.
Speaker 1: But many of the homes around it. Of course there's
Speaker 1: still the sort of two story terraces. So how does
Speaker 1: one manage this and what side of the fence do
Speaker 1: you prefer to be on? The local council or the
Speaker 1: state government that says, bugger and it's happening.
Speaker 11: Oh look, I think you respectfully oversimplify the will of councils, right.
Speaker 10: Because I do.
Speaker 1: I have a television host.
Speaker 11: You know, there's so few councils that don't want more housing,
Speaker 11: and of course more affordable housing in their local government areas.
Speaker 10: They recognize it's good for people, it's good for.
Speaker 11: Businesses to have affordable housing for workers. So I think
Speaker 11: councils are very on board with the idea that Australia
Speaker 11: needs more affordable housing and more housing overall to deliver that.
Speaker 11: Planning laws are complex. They're different in every state and territory.
Speaker 11: When I was a former counselor in the City of Sydney,
Speaker 11: there were different planning laws, sometimes on different.
Speaker 10: Sides of the block.
Speaker 11: Gleebe Island is a great example of that because they're
Speaker 11: owned and governed by different parts of the planning laws.
Speaker 10: So it is really tricky and complex.
Speaker 11: But here's what I want to say, because planning laws
Speaker 11: are so complex.
Speaker 10: The hold up is also.
Speaker 11: Complex, and I'll give you an example from New South Wales.
Speaker 11: Last time I looked, and it was a little while ago,
Speaker 11: the agency holding up development application times was actually not
Speaker 11: local governments. It was the fire and rescue agencies because
Speaker 11: their main job rightly is fighting fires, but they also
Speaker 11: had to tick off a huge number of das to
Speaker 11: say yeah, this is safe, right, And so that hold
Speaker 11: up from another agency funded by the state government or
Speaker 11: in this case probably underfunded, was the one holding up
Speaker 11: the development applications. So I do think it's really easy
Speaker 11: to chuck a stick at councils and blame them for everything,
Speaker 11: when actually when you look at it, it's far more complex.
Speaker 11: I think everybody is on the same page though. We
Speaker 11: need more housing, and we do need more affordable housing.
Speaker 1: So what about places like to Woomba Garth. Obviously when
Speaker 1: we were there, we saw a development that was happening.
Speaker 1: We saw a big scale, smaller scale. We also know
Speaker 1: that the price just a little bit cheaper because you're
Speaker 1: that little bit further away from Brisbane. But with a
Speaker 1: whole series of technologies, you can work a couple of
Speaker 1: days from the office you're sitting right now and you
Speaker 1: don't have to go into Brisbane or anything else. Places
Speaker 1: like to Woomba. Are they more up for development or again,
Speaker 1: people want to keep the height of it in a
Speaker 1: block at a certain level because they want to keep
Speaker 1: to Womba to Womba.
Speaker 4: I think we do have the balance of both of
Speaker 4: those views. But from the federal point of view, I
Speaker 4: do tend to throw that stick at the councils, and
Speaker 4: most of the time it's usually the right stick to
Speaker 4: throw off from blood we look, the deployment of Green's
Speaker 4: policies at local council level is holding up supply across Australia.
Speaker 4: It's a fact everywhere you go. It's a fact here
Speaker 4: as well. And the sathing that we have to get
Speaker 4: over and we have to get up really quickly. The
Speaker 4: one thing I want to push back on too is
Speaker 4: the idea that local councils somehow represent local people better
Speaker 4: than their state or federal members. They're the same people
Speaker 4: voting for us, bringing the same concerns forward. I hear
Speaker 4: housing concerns every day.
Speaker 7: Paul.
Speaker 4: I'm sure you coat to torm you see the opportunity
Speaker 4: we have to grow up here. And all those things
Speaker 4: you talked about. We need every city like to Wombo
Speaker 4: being able to grow. We've got a terrible problem with
Speaker 4: housing in Australia right now and we just need to
Speaker 4: address it.
Speaker 11: Well, gard I say this respectfully. I do hope that
Speaker 11: if the Albanesi Labor government does put forward some more
Speaker 11: proposals to federally fund more public housing, than your party
Speaker 11: will get behind those ideas.
Speaker 10: Pretty cool, Well that's not true.
Speaker 11: Actually, so much housing is not connected to drains. So
Speaker 11: much housing is not connected to infrastructure. The schools, the hospitals,
Speaker 11: the roads. You know, these things are actually really critical.
Speaker 11: And so I hope you found that infrastructure and vote
Speaker 11: to support it.
Speaker 1: Can I talk about it?
Speaker 7: I will support it.
Speaker 1: Correct. Let's talk here about Durinda A. Cox, so will
Speaker 1: The problems are inside the Greens leaves the Greens to
Speaker 1: join the Labor Party. I do love when it was
Speaker 1: Fatima Payment who was leaving the Labor Party. Oh you
Speaker 1: know terrible. She's been elected as a Senator from the
Speaker 1: Labor Party Western Australia. They essentially give the seat back,
Speaker 1: but they get the seatback ya taking one off the Greens. Now,
Speaker 1: people inside the Greens dumping the dirt file now on
Speaker 1: their former colleague. I noticed this evening a story has
Speaker 1: dropped on the Channel nine news websites where the Greens
Speaker 1: affect used a slur against a fellow senator. Now, of course,
Speaker 1: a fellow senator. Let's actually get to the actual story here,
Speaker 1: which was Senator Derinda Cox called One Nation leader pulling
Speaker 1: hands in an effing retard. I apologize for the use
Speaker 1: of both words in a text that has now been
Speaker 1: leaked after she defected. Now speaking again about local councils here, Linda,
Speaker 1: I remember there was a movie back I think late nineties,
Speaker 1: early two thousands, Rats in the ranks. It was all
Speaker 1: about Bradon film in and around the leich Art Council
Speaker 1: and labor people that were turning on the Labor Party.
Speaker 1: And there was a bloke who you can never see
Speaker 1: on camera, but you could hear his voice trying to
Speaker 1: pull people back to the Labor Party. Ended up being
Speaker 1: the Prime Minister, of course, who at the time had
Speaker 1: a significant role inside the new sop Wall's Labor Party.
Speaker 1: So how does it work? You blow up when Fatima
Speaker 1: payment leaves, but it's open arms if a Green wants
Speaker 1: to come. How does this work.
Speaker 11: Look, I think that Senator Cox has today publicly said
Speaker 11: that she supports labor values, wasbviously a member of the
Speaker 11: Labor Party some time before she was a member of
Speaker 11: the Greens by her own admission, and I think that's
Speaker 11: been on the public record for the long time. And
Speaker 11: she's talked about her need to promote reconciliation Affair Australia
Speaker 11: and those are very clearly Labor value the big projects
Speaker 11: that Labor has worked on. So I think it's wonderful news.
Speaker 11: It obviously is off the back of the Greens losing
Speaker 11: three out of their four seats in the House of Representatives.
Speaker 11: They've gone now from eleven Senate.
Speaker 10: Seats to ten. That will make life a bit trickier.
Speaker 11: You know, they'll still, i'm sure, continue to try and
Speaker 11: negotiate with the government, but I think it is important
Speaker 11: to recognize that she's committed to the values that Labor
Speaker 11: proudly stands for. And you know, good honor for being
Speaker 11: honest and open.
Speaker 1: About it, right Darth, I just love that, you know,
Speaker 1: Labor and Greens are now officially interchangeable. Literally, I mean,
Speaker 1: we know there were some candidates which were former Greens
Speaker 1: who ran ended up running for Labor, I think ended
Speaker 1: up winning. And now we have this scenario where again
Speaker 1: you know, on there watch when somebody left from Western Australia.
Speaker 1: Worst thing ever, when somebody joins from Western Australia. Fine
Speaker 1: and fair enough. Of course, it doesn't change anything in
Speaker 1: the Senate because that block now has the control, and
Speaker 1: even if the Greens don't end up voting, the cross
Speaker 1: bench isn't big enough to make up those numbers. So
Speaker 1: it comes down to one of two choices, negotiate with
Speaker 1: the coalition or negotiating with the Greens. But what about
Speaker 1: the PM I mean talk about each way elbow here.
Speaker 4: Well, look, you know there's two parts here. One I
Speaker 4: think you should stay with the party who brings you
Speaker 4: to the dance. You know, I think that's a pretty
Speaker 4: clear position in groom here. We once had some conversations
Speaker 4: about that aether we liberal or national, But look, your
Speaker 4: point's absolutely right.
Speaker 7: There's nothing it's a Labor and a Greens member.
Speaker 4: In fact, there's actually a couple of Teals as well
Speaker 4: who are former Labor members. Maybe one of them will
Speaker 4: go across as well. Who knows, looks like a good
Speaker 4: party at Labor at the moment, they're in some good
Speaker 4: times and I'm sure there's a big honeymoon period coming
Speaker 4: to follow as well.
Speaker 11: Correct, Look, just as you sort of fall from that
Speaker 11: towering ivy tower you've got there, I mean, of course.
Speaker 10: Price, Senator Nampa, Prices obviously.
Speaker 1: Switched apart, room not follocked.
Speaker 10: Well, you know, I say, it's the.
Speaker 1: Same thing as going from the green.
Speaker 11: You're on some pretty high, tenuous moral ground there.
Speaker 1: Okay, all right, now I want to get to something
Speaker 1: far more substantive in a moment of two time, including
Speaker 1: a frightening inside into younger people and their sense of
Speaker 1: their ability to literally track their partners. This is looney stuff.
Speaker 1: We'll get to that in a moment of two time.
Speaker 1: But first before we head off to break, can we
Speaker 1: talk about tobacco taxes? And it feels like a one
Speaker 1: man band, but it's not. The reality is that I
Speaker 1: showed last night the smoking rates in Australia have basically
Speaker 1: leveled off. Now, we went from about twenty percent smokers
Speaker 1: to about ten percent smokers. The taxation has just gone
Speaker 1: absolutely through the roof in terms of what's charged, but
Speaker 1: what's coming back is going down. But it's not because
Speaker 1: of those lack of smokers. It's because those smokers are
Speaker 1: going off and buying the chop chop, which of course
Speaker 1: is available from the criminal market. Garth, do you think
Speaker 1: that there has to be a conversation to try to
Speaker 1: make the legal product more price competitive with the illegal product?
Speaker 1: And again, as a smoker, dumb decision should give up.
Speaker 1: It's not about the health conversation, it's about do you
Speaker 1: think that the tax on the legal product is helping
Speaker 1: fuel the black market?
Speaker 4: Look, I absolutely do. I've been having a couple of
Speaker 4: conversations with economists about this, and to be really clear,
Speaker 4: I'm not taking a partisan position here. Both parties have
Speaker 4: played a part in this over a long period of time.
Speaker 4: But if you look at the simple economics, what we've
Speaker 4: done is create a situation. If you want to design
Speaker 4: a system to create a black market, this is how
Speaker 4: you design it.
Speaker 7: This is exactly it.
Speaker 4: And I'm seeing it into one break and walk through
Speaker 4: the streets and see those boxes that illegal tobacco on
Speaker 4: the ground that have been used.
Speaker 7: And we hear about in the capital cities.
Speaker 4: Where there's violence and gain associated activities following behind this,
Speaker 4: we do have a problem. What was designed a very
Speaker 4: good intent reduced smoking rates in Australia. Unfortunately, now we've
Speaker 4: created this black market and we're seeing that come back in.
Speaker 4: We can't deny that.
Speaker 7: It's a fact. It's in front of us and we
Speaker 7: have to deal with it.
Speaker 4: I stress this again, this has plaid out over a
Speaker 4: long period of time. It's some very good intentions, but
Speaker 4: what we've done is create a situation where it's very
Speaker 4: profitable to bring us cheap tobacco in now.
Speaker 1: Well, and we also have this ridiculous situation that the
Speaker 1: enforcement at the responsibility at the state level, total number
Speaker 1: of people whose job it is to double check what
Speaker 1: is being sold in these things in New South Wales
Speaker 1: is twelve people. Twelve people across the entire state and
Speaker 1: the the best part of what twenty thousand different retailers
Speaker 1: right now? Do you agree that tax is part of
Speaker 1: this that we are at that precipice now where we've
Speaker 1: pushed it as far as we can go. It's easy
Speaker 1: money because small amount of people whack them as hard
Speaker 1: as you can. But we're now starting to see the
Speaker 1: consequence and it is, among other things, tobacco shops being
Speaker 1: blown up. Yeah.
Speaker 11: Look, I mean tax is a very effective leaver, as
Speaker 11: we all know, through very strong evidence for behavior and
Speaker 11: in this case reducing the impact of smoking and if
Speaker 11: you've ever had a loved one you know diagram cancer.
Speaker 10: We all know how awful that is.
Speaker 11: But I do want to say I think there is
Speaker 11: a very important piece around the regulation of this. I
Speaker 11: was walking along the street the other night with my kids,
Speaker 11: I obviously live in a city, Sydney, and there was
Speaker 11: just out the front of a kind of convenience store,
Speaker 11: which in New South Wales is not able to sell
Speaker 11: vabes with this sort of giant.
Speaker 10: Light on the footpath that was like we sell vegs.
Speaker 10: You know, you could not read a.
Speaker 1: Kind of red lacence in writing.
Speaker 11: It's astonishing anyway, and I do think that the Commwealth
Speaker 11: and the States have to come together and have a
Speaker 11: conversation about this because the other thing that disappoints me,
Speaker 11: being from formerly local government, is it's destroying main streets
Speaker 11: right Like you're seeing all the beautiful local businesses that
Speaker 11: used to make up these wonderful main streets being replaced
Speaker 11: with kind of these dodgy convenience stores.
Speaker 1: That if it's not a convenience store selling tobacco or
Speaker 1: it's a flashing light legally.
Speaker 11: Yeah, behind the store, behind the canter, so like we
Speaker 11: should also be kind of supporting these small businesses.
Speaker 1: All in all right, quick break back with more. I'm
Speaker 1: going to extend your time, lady and gentlemen, because Nigel
Speaker 1: Ferras is stuck on a plane somewhere. We're in a
Speaker 1: secure and Portnbury life. Now, whale watching if it's your thing,
Speaker 1: what about this? This was photos that were taken of
Speaker 1: Wales bouncing around in Sydney Harbor. Of course is the
Speaker 1: whether it gets a little bit cooler, they start to
Speaker 1: heading north south, whatever they start going, whatever direction they're.
Speaker 10: In Sydney Harbor, that's all that matters.
Speaker 1: Beautiful, thank you, Linda, thank you. Yes, no, they are
Speaker 1: beautiful and gorgeous and they give us a chance. So
Speaker 1: pretty pictures on the television. I'm just trying to work
Speaker 1: out whether where they want to be at this time
Speaker 1: of year. My apologies didn't read the full briefing note
Speaker 1: on this one, but anyway, pretty pictures, thank you. You
Speaker 1: will not be going while watching anywhere near to Womba.
Speaker 1: But there's lots of other things that are fun to
Speaker 1: do there and colluding that to Woomba show. We remember,
Speaker 1: we've got that best in that sits on the set
Speaker 1: each and every night there, which was given to us
Speaker 1: by Garth and the people at the Tawomba show. There
Speaker 1: we go prior to place. Linda Scott is here. Niger
Speaker 1: Farasha wants you to be here right now. But plain
Speaker 1: problems blah blah blah. We'll do them again a bit
Speaker 1: later in the week. Now, I want to talk about
Speaker 1: some research which came out today that I find frightening,
Speaker 1: which is one in three people in a relationship. Young
Speaker 1: people in a relationship think it is completely okay to track,
Speaker 1: monitor the movements, use a device to work out where
Speaker 1: their partner is at all times, suggesting that it is
Speaker 1: their right to know where their partner is. Now, let's
Speaker 1: say the obvious upfront. Anyone involved in domestic violence is
Speaker 1: a dog right, not acceptable, not okay, not finding any
Speaker 1: way to make an excuse for any of such behavior.
Speaker 1: The thing I wanted to focus in on in this
Speaker 1: conversation with you, Garth and with you Linda, was there's
Speaker 1: a confusion here and a juxtaposition, right, which is very
Speaker 1: little kids these days are used to being tracked with
Speaker 1: a mobile phone find my iPhone with an air tag
Speaker 1: in their school bag. That sort of stuff. So how
Speaker 1: do we expect the kid that has been followed like
Speaker 1: that to then miraculously turn around it in their teenage
Speaker 1: years or a little bit later, to somehow develop an
Speaker 1: absolute respect for somebody else's independence. Again, Linda, this stuff
Speaker 1: matters because we know what the consequences are of surveillus, intimidation,
Speaker 1: all of those things. But this is one of those
Speaker 1: moments where, dare I say, two truths start bashing into
Speaker 1: each other, and those of us who remember a world
Speaker 1: before this stuff don't quite know what to do.
Speaker 11: Look, I think it's great that our watch is doing
Speaker 11: this research and publishing this and having this conversation because
Speaker 11: I think it's a really important conversation for children and parents.
Speaker 11: And there is this generational divide. I mean, I want
Speaker 11: to say, honestly, you know, my teenagers have mobile phones.
Speaker 11: I absolutely have a kind of you know, find everyone
Speaker 11: they know where I am, So you know there is
Speaker 11: this going on in my family.
Speaker 10: But this research did make me rethink that.
Speaker 11: It made me think about what kind of message, you know,
Speaker 11: I'm sending to my children, And so I think it's.
Speaker 10: A really good discussion it is.
Speaker 11: I think we should also be very honest about these
Speaker 11: very different between you know, tracking your child and controlling
Speaker 11: a partner in a relationship. You know, coercive control is
Speaker 11: so terrible and quite different. But I also wanted to
Speaker 11: highlight that really great article by should Tell Conscious this week,
Speaker 11: just talking about what do we do with men who've
Speaker 11: been charged with these kinds of offenses and found guilty, Like
Speaker 11: what is it that victims want?
Speaker 10: What should society do?
Speaker 11: And I think actually having these kinds of public conversations
Speaker 11: about the crimes, how they're wrong, but also if someone
Speaker 11: commits them, what is right for victims? What is going
Speaker 11: to make them feel better? How do we to educate
Speaker 11: to prevent which is of course the main goal here,
Speaker 11: And I think this kind of research is really helpful
Speaker 11: as part of that broader discussion.
Speaker 1: Yeah again, Garth, I don't expect you to have the
Speaker 1: position that you can take into the parliament pass the
Speaker 1: law this way or that way, but it is it
Speaker 1: is very complicated. It is one of these things where
Speaker 1: you know, our generation, everyone was aware of a time
Speaker 1: when you had your own space. We remember our parents,
Speaker 1: you know, the only time you knew if mum or
Speaker 1: dad was coming home. Was when the phone rang with
Speaker 1: her when the door opened. All right. We then moved
Speaker 1: to people like us that have moved into this new
Speaker 1: technological age. But then our kids will they end up
Speaker 1: in a scenario where it's very different. And we're starting
Speaker 1: to see now younger people coming out of childhood not
Speaker 1: needing to be observed by their parents, but starting to
Speaker 1: view the person they love as a person that they
Speaker 1: should have constant contact. And I don't just mean texting,
Speaker 1: but knowing where they are all the time. And to me,
Speaker 1: that ain't cool. What do you think?
Speaker 7: Look, I agree it ain't cool.
Speaker 4: And saying Linda said is really true that the gap
Speaker 4: between generational understanding of what this is. I talked to
Speaker 4: my kids about this. We went through a lot of
Speaker 4: stuff about social media in the last term of government.
Speaker 4: In fact, it's been building for quite some time. Anyone
Speaker 4: who wants to really look at this space. Andrew Wallace,
Speaker 4: member for Fisher, has been begging into this for a
Speaker 4: long time and he's a good man for doing so.
Speaker 4: But there's apps out there that don't just enable this.
Speaker 4: It's not just so that you can track it. You
Speaker 4: can find things. It's encouraged. You're literally always showing each
Speaker 4: other where you are. At any point in time, you
Speaker 4: can find each other. This study starts with kids, I
Speaker 4: think as young as fourteen, So these are children. These
Speaker 4: are kids who have they're not mature. Their understanding of
Speaker 4: mature relationships isn't there. But what we've given them is
Speaker 4: a tool to a very poor start to a relationship.
Speaker 4: This idea of being able to track people, to be
Speaker 4: able to know where people are, the sense the words
Speaker 4: we're used in this study around feeling jealousy as to
Speaker 4: where your partner was. This is a really different world, Paul,
Speaker 4: from what we grew up with. I mean, I remember
Speaker 4: sitting by the phone, You're hoping the girl would call
Speaker 4: me Forday, happily ever after. But yeah, just such a
Speaker 4: completely different world to what our kids are growing up in.
Speaker 4: And I think there are some dangers there that we
Speaker 4: didn't foresee, and we do have to walk our way
Speaker 4: through those, I think for the betterment of all of us.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and again, remember, as a parent, if you are
Speaker 1: and you know I'm focused on this because my goals
Speaker 1: are as little as they are, right, we are making
Speaker 1: the choices all right that help tell people and expose
Speaker 1: about what normal terrible word but still is when it
Speaker 1: comes to relationships. And it's not just modeling good behavior
Speaker 1: when you're sitting next to each other, modeling it about
Speaker 1: how you disagree. It's about modeling it when you give
Speaker 1: the other person space as well. And technology kind of
Speaker 1: takes away the capacity sometimes for people to have their
Speaker 1: own space. All right, quick break back with more here
Speaker 1: in a moment on Paul Murray Live. Thank you very
Speaker 1: much to Linda and a Garth. Will see you again
Speaker 1: very soon. You know, Torquay in Victoria started the Great
Speaker 1: Ocean Road or end of it, depending on which way
Speaker 1: you travel. Area is next to it. Just ran from Fishow's,
Speaker 1: that great fish and chip shop in Turquy place called
Speaker 1: jan Juck. Bloke got stuck. The tide came in rather
Speaker 1: fast and he needed to be rescued. He's twenty and
Speaker 1: no doubt embarrassed. Now. In Tasmania, something very weird's about
Speaker 1: to happen. Their government was re elected last year, but
Speaker 1: as a minority government, the Labor Party did not have
Speaker 1: enough seats to get anywhere near it being the minority government,
Speaker 1: so it was the Liberal Party plus the Cross benches
Speaker 1: and Jeremy Rockcliffe, the Premier of Tasmania, was able to
Speaker 1: go to the government and say where the government for
Speaker 1: the next few years. Well, with the unstable nature of
Speaker 1: minority government, we are about to see whether Labor is
Speaker 1: probably going to pull the trigger, maybe as early as tomorrow,
Speaker 1: on a no confidence motion. The reason for all of that,
Speaker 1: I'll explain in a moment's time. The conquence is that
Speaker 1: if the Greens back Labor and the Independents who have
Speaker 1: said they are going to back Labor, if all of
Speaker 1: that happens, well the Premier will either have to resign,
Speaker 1: Libs will find a new leader and they'll still be
Speaker 1: in the mathematical miss that the minority government is or
Speaker 1: tas Money it could be off to its second election
Speaker 1: in as many years. He's the premier today because.
Speaker 8: He's wrecked the budget, because he's planning to sell our
Speaker 8: power companies, our ports and our public transport, and because
Speaker 8: no one can trust him after handling of the Spirit
Speaker 8: of Tasmania fiasco.
Speaker 2: The opposition leader throughout the challenge.
Speaker 8: This is my message to the cross Bench, the self
Speaker 8: described true opposition, if they really are opposed to the
Speaker 8: Premier's agenda of debt, deficit and debarcle as they claim,
Speaker 8: then tell the House you've.
Speaker 1: Lost confidence in this premier. To threaten the cross bench
Speaker 1: in such a nasty way, in such a nasty and
Speaker 1: bullying way, is extraordinary. Now, I've got to say that
Speaker 1: while this is a tradition of the Westminster system, that
Speaker 1: you have to be able to control the numbers on
Speaker 1: the floor, and if you don't control the numbers on
Speaker 1: the floor, then either the premier has to resign or
Speaker 1: you have to go off to an election. What exactly
Speaker 1: is the giant scandal that is the reason for the
Speaker 1: potential falling of the Tasmanian government. Well, the answer is
Speaker 1: the budget, and not because a money bill can't pass
Speaker 1: and all the rest of it. It's just they didn't
Speaker 1: like some of the things that have been done in
Speaker 1: the budget. They also don't like some of the things
Speaker 1: that have happened when it comes to the ferry service
Speaker 1: between Victoria and Tasmania. Hardly high crimes, Hardly you would
Speaker 1: think a reason to bring down a government, a government that,
Speaker 1: by the way, today said no to a twenty two
Speaker 1: percent pay rise for all MPs. I hope by this
Speaker 1: time tomorrow night the government is still in place and
Speaker 1: Jeremy Rockcliffe remains the Premier no matter what disagreements we've
Speaker 1: had in the past, said tomorrow,