Speaker 1: From the Skying Center. This is Paul Murray Live. Thank you, Roxbar.
Speaker 2: Happy Tuesday, so much, Telly. Let's make the most of
Speaker 2: the one hour that we have together. We have a
Speaker 2: country that, let's be honest, there's got some pretty average
Speaker 2: politicians in it, be it the Prime Minister or hapless ministers,
Speaker 2: or the silly teals or the green you know, there's
Speaker 2: just not that sense of jeez, we're playing with the
Speaker 2: first rung here. It feels like we're playing with the
Speaker 2: staffers of reserve grade.
Speaker 1: So they're not really up to speed. We know that.
Speaker 2: But there are politicians in and amongst that group who
Speaker 2: deserve to be singled out for how laser focus they
Speaker 2: are on the common values of everyday Australians. And I
Speaker 2: believe there is no bitter person in the Parliament than
Speaker 2: Senator just Into nampaging Price. She showed herself to be
Speaker 2: so fearless last year when every establishment figure, establishment media,
Speaker 2: establishment business, light society had its view about whether Australia
Speaker 2: should or shouldn't put something into the constitution. She disagreed,
Speaker 2: and she took the opposition from being a group of
Speaker 2: people too scared to say no to a group that
Speaker 2: profoundly said no, and her leadership in particular was why
Speaker 2: in part the country was able to be convinced sixty
Speaker 2: forty no.
Speaker 1: But that's old news.
Speaker 2: What I love about to sin her, and I loved
Speaker 2: before she came into the Senate, when we talked to
Speaker 2: her for years before all of that, and of course
Speaker 2: she was doing her best on the Council in Alice Springs,
Speaker 2: is that she will just find a way to explain
Speaker 2: complicated things in a fashion again that share the common
Speaker 2: values of decent and suburban Australia.
Speaker 1: She's giving blistering speeches.
Speaker 2: She's an incredible interview every time we get the chance
Speaker 2: to have her on the telling.
Speaker 1: But she is.
Speaker 2: Somebody who is an absolute star of the opposition, person
Speaker 2: who I hope at some point they find a way
Speaker 2: to get her into the Lower House and she gets
Speaker 2: to go up the batting order and there is no
Speaker 2: limit to how high she could achieve. And I think
Speaker 2: Australians would support her on that journey whenever she chooses
Speaker 2: to take it. And like many people, I keep an
Speaker 2: eye on her Facebook page and a social media and
Speaker 2: she puts out a newsletter to her supporters quite frequently,
Speaker 2: and she wrote in the past couple of days an
Speaker 2: extraordinary open letter about the way Australia is failing at
Speaker 2: the moment and the way this government in particular is failing.
Speaker 2: She didn't do an interview, she didn't do radio. So
Speaker 2: I'm just going to read directly from this. Does this
Speaker 2: not sound like exactly what we talk about each and
Speaker 2: every night and what you feel and have felt for years.
Speaker 2: Quote the Australian people exercise their democratic rights and put
Speaker 2: Anthony of an Easy in the latch under the impression
Speaker 2: that you deliver a two hundred and seventy five reduction
Speaker 2: power bills, lower the cost of living and leave families
Speaker 2: better off. But the results are clear. None of that
Speaker 2: has happened. Interest rates are even higher, in flotation has
Speaker 2: barely slowed, and there is no sign of that two
Speaker 2: hundred and seventy five dollar reduction under labor. The typical
Speaker 2: family with the mortgage is now thirty five.
Speaker 1: Thousand dollars a year worse off. What an astonishing failure.
Speaker 1: She goes on.
Speaker 2: But it gets worse because now the government is bringing
Speaker 2: in one point six seven million migrants over the next
Speaker 2: five years, right in the middle of a housing crisis.
Speaker 1: This is nation destroying stuff.
Speaker 2: Now, this was written up today in part by the
Speaker 2: Daily Mail, so their paragraph says that Senator Price finished
Speaker 2: the letter labeling mister Alberinezi.
Speaker 1: A creature of politics with misplaced priorities and no accountability.
Speaker 1: A back to Senator Price quote.
Speaker 2: Anthony Abernezi is obsessed with his legacy and his photo ops.
Speaker 2: He's a creature of politics who is already turning his
Speaker 2: focus to the election rather than focusing on the problems
Speaker 2: you're facing. That's been the pattern of the last two years.
Speaker 2: Misplaced priorities, no accountability and all politics all the time.
Speaker 2: She is one hundred percent. She has a spectacular ability
Speaker 2: to speak like we speak and to reach out beyond
Speaker 2: the people who would normally seek out programs like this
Speaker 2: and have the conversations that you have at home each
Speaker 2: and every day. She's a real credit to herself, her
Speaker 2: family and the opposition. And again I read you this
Speaker 2: because I want you to sign up to her newsletter
Speaker 2: at her website. I want you to follow her on
Speaker 2: social media. I want you to be right at the
Speaker 2: front lines of everything she does, every speech she makes
Speaker 2: in the Parliament, and every gesture that she makes in
Speaker 2: pursuit of a government that we know is all about
Speaker 2: lies and spin and gas lighting. She has a bright
Speaker 2: political future in front of her, and again the sky
Speaker 2: is the limit. Now, another person who I believe is
Speaker 2: a fearless politician is Holly Hughes. Holly Hughes is a
Speaker 2: person who has fought very hard to make her way
Speaker 2: into Parliament. She was incredibly patient, incredibly loyal to her
Speaker 2: party and guess what her party turned around and did
Speaker 2: to her on the weekend bang That put her in
Speaker 2: a position that is essentially the unwinnable spot due to
Speaker 2: all of the factional garbage inside the Nusipas Liberal Party.
Speaker 1: Now Holly is again one of those.
Speaker 2: People who just knows how to take up the fight,
Speaker 2: just one of those people who is willing to engage
Speaker 2: with you, to fearlessly stand in the Senate and take
Speaker 2: them all on. Yet the Liberal Party and its factional
Speaker 2: rubbish means that a person you've never heard of ends
Speaker 2: up in a position of greater prominence, and a politician
Speaker 2: who barely is seen in places like this because it's
Speaker 2: all a little bit too dirty, ends up with the
Speaker 2: top spot of the Liberal Party in New South Wales.
Speaker 2: Now you know that I am absolutely supportive of holding
Speaker 2: this government to account, and yes that.
Speaker 1: Would mean support for Peter Dutton.
Speaker 2: But I've got to say I cannot offer the same
Speaker 2: support for some of the garbage that is going on
Speaker 2: in the Senate. Some of the people that exist in
Speaker 2: the Senate in supposedly the name of the Liberal Party,
Speaker 2: the people who assume that you will just vote for
Speaker 2: them because what other options are there. Well, in twenty
Speaker 2: sixteen people saw other options in the Senate, the largest
Speaker 2: cross benches were elected as a result. In twenty nineteen,
Speaker 2: those people came back and they voted for Team Blue,
Speaker 2: and they won. When disappointments set in, people, of course
Speaker 2: in the Upper House vote they went in lots of
Speaker 2: other places, and the preferences never came back. Now Holly
Speaker 2: has every right to pack up her bag and not
Speaker 2: say anything in publicly. But more importantly, I know she won't.
Speaker 2: I know that she'll sit back, be understandably mighty peed
Speaker 2: off at the people around her, but she would continue
Speaker 2: the fight all the way to the next election.
Speaker 1: She's always welcome here.
Speaker 2: There are good people in our Parliament, the people who
Speaker 2: sometimes wield the power inside the party not so.
Speaker 1: Good now, right now.
Speaker 2: Senate is in estimates, which means the politicians get to
Speaker 2: play prosecutor from time to time, and there are people
Speaker 2: that again are very good at and something they're pretty
Speaker 2: bad at it, but it's an opportunity to try to
Speaker 2: get some answers out of politicians who but otherwise not
Speaker 2: have to answer a question in the Parliament. Remember they
Speaker 2: really don't, and of course at a press conference where
Speaker 2: they just change the subject. So Senate estimates is that
Speaker 2: process which is taking place as we speak now. Often
Speaker 2: the politician is sitting next to a bureaucrat. The bureaucrat
Speaker 2: is of course supposedly subservient to the minister, but the
Speaker 2: reality is that the minister in a labor government is
Speaker 2: just basically an extension of the public service. So they're
Speaker 2: all on the same team about not embarrassing anything to
Speaker 2: do with a labor government.
Speaker 1: So you get stuff like this.
Speaker 3: Take on notice, take it, take it you take it
Speaker 3: on notice.
Speaker 4: You're taking it on notice.
Speaker 5: I'll have some more questions on notice for that, and it.
Speaker 2: Is something that all politicians at both sides have done
Speaker 2: for some period of time. But i'll take it on
Speaker 2: notice basically means I'll get back to you, and I'll
Speaker 2: get back to you in written form because I can't
Speaker 2: answer or won't answer the question in front of you
Speaker 2: right now. Well, a table document in the Senate has
Speaker 2: blown a massive hole in how this government hides accountability,
Speaker 2: how ministers and the public servants backing them up don't
Speaker 2: answer the questions. This is that document tabled in the
Speaker 2: Senate and done so a couple of weeks ago. It
Speaker 2: is in part advice which is coming directly from the
Speaker 2: highest office in the land about how do answer or
Speaker 2: more importantly, not answer questions. In fact, suggest a draft response,
Speaker 2: suggested draft response, suggest a draft response, lots of basically
Speaker 2: the script. And when, in this case the shadow ministers
Speaker 2: or the liberal senators start answering or asking tough questions,
Speaker 2: well you just consult to the script.
Speaker 1: And don't answer the question.
Speaker 2: Now, interestingly, this has actually been seen by the Clerk
Speaker 2: of the Senate or the Clerk of the Senate as
Speaker 2: not the way it's supposed to work. Now, of course,
Speaker 2: there'll be no sanctions because whatever they're in charge of
Speaker 2: the rules, they'll be able to overrule whatever the opinion
Speaker 2: of the clerk seems to be. But we literally have
Speaker 2: a script that is now being sent out. Now maybe
Speaker 2: this has happened for every government, but they've all been
Speaker 2: able to hide the script. This script is now available
Speaker 2: for all to see, and the senators, like the ones
Speaker 2: that I just showed you, are now the ones asking
Speaker 2: the questions. But because they have the script, they're able
Speaker 2: to say, is that your answer? Or are you just
Speaker 2: reading from the script? Perfect example of it was Matt
Speaker 2: Canavan asking questions today, where again big vague answers were
Speaker 2: being given because that's what the script says, rather than
Speaker 2: answer the damn question.
Speaker 6: Answer is a direct quote from page seven seven. Yet
Speaker 6: page seven of the PMO Manual, and I'll just read
Speaker 6: it out is a little lengthy, I apologize, but it
Speaker 6: shows the complete lack of answers here.
Speaker 2: Now again, I won't bore you with the super details
Speaker 2: of this, but it's about showing you the tactic, showing
Speaker 2: you how the sausage is made. And just like they
Speaker 2: always say, you don't want to see how the sausage
Speaker 2: is made. This is the example of the person being
Speaker 2: asked the question, who's following the script, who just repeats
Speaker 2: the script until they change the question.
Speaker 6: I mean, minister, do you consider that an answer to
Speaker 6: that question. Well, it was definitely an answer to the question.
Speaker 6: In what way you've just provided the answer provides a
Speaker 6: description of IDCs, which was not asked for. We know
Speaker 6: what an IDC is. How is that an answer to
Speaker 6: and it's a very simple question, how many IDCs are
Speaker 6: you a member of?
Speaker 4: Well an answer was provided, and obviously from your point
Speaker 4: of view, it's not a satisfactory as it were.
Speaker 2: Speaking the same language here, you see the game here
Speaker 2: is not just to rob the opposition of information. It's
Speaker 2: also because it's in front of cameras, a desperate attempt
Speaker 2: to not get caught in something that might become a
Speaker 2: story by tomorrow morning or the six pm news in
Speaker 2: a couple of days time. But this is the government
Speaker 2: that was supposedly about transparency. This was the government that
Speaker 2: was always going to be accountable. This was the one
Speaker 2: that wasn't going to play these types of games. But
Speaker 2: of course they are just like every other politician that
Speaker 2: has gone before them, interested in putting out fires or
Speaker 2: hiding fires than telling you the truth of what's going on.
Speaker 2: A perfect example of that, and let's see how this
Speaker 2: goes over the next few days.
Speaker 1: Is there is the federal.
Speaker 2: Budget that the media spends an awful lot of time
Speaker 2: looking at and literally gets locked behind closed doors to read.
Speaker 2: And it's about beating here a billion the air and
Speaker 2: tax cuts and you get all that, but that's not
Speaker 2: the full financial picture of how much the Australian government
Speaker 2: is spending. There are literally billions and billions and billions
Speaker 2: of dollars I would suggest hundreds of billions.
Speaker 1: Of dollars that are off budget.
Speaker 2: And yes every government has done it, but still this
Speaker 2: one that promised to be different is doing exactly the
Speaker 2: same thing.
Speaker 1: You see. You know how Chris Bowen has got.
Speaker 2: A slush fund basically sixty billion dollars of which to
Speaker 2: enter into commercial agreements that then we don't know about
Speaker 2: with people to help supercharge the building of the renewable
Speaker 2: energy network. Well, none of that is in the federal
Speaker 2: budget that is off budget. And with Australia having a
Speaker 2: very slender at this stage surplus built exclusively off things
Speaker 2: like petrol tax, cigarette tax and alcohol tax, the reality
Speaker 2: is that once you start to actually look at the
Speaker 2: money that is off budget, it pushes us deeper into deficit,
Speaker 2: which means it's borrowed money.
Speaker 1: Let's find out in this Senate estimate.
Speaker 2: So my challenge to everyone asking questions is to ask
Speaker 2: the department how much of their spending is off budget
Speaker 2: and can we please have a list of it, because
Speaker 2: why don't it be fascinating to see if the transparent
Speaker 2: government that's got a script about how you don't answer
Speaker 2: the questions. We'll also find a way to not tell
Speaker 2: you how much money they are spending off the budget
Speaker 2: that requires us to borrow from overseas, which in part
Speaker 2: is how our debt under this government gets to one
Speaker 2: point two t for trillion dollars. And that's just for
Speaker 2: the stuff that's on budget off budget I think is
Speaker 2: going to make our toes curl anyway.
Speaker 1: Challenge to everyone asking the questions now.
Speaker 2: Meantime, Immigration Minister Andrew Giles, we're all on the same ticket. Goodbye,
Speaker 2: see you, ladder punt. This bloke go away useless, terrible
Speaker 2: because he does not view his portfolio as one that
Speaker 2: is about booting people out of the country. Instead, it
Speaker 2: is about well finding any excuse to possibly keep people
Speaker 2: in the country because then they'll vote for you.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 2: It's real insight into morality, and the morality is all
Speaker 2: exactly the opposite of what has previously been the way
Speaker 2: this country does things. But again, just as it was
Speaker 2: after the Howard government with Rudd, where they thought, oh well,
Speaker 2: we can let the boats back in, and then eventually,
Speaker 2: after a few years and a thousand people dying, they
Speaker 2: have to recognize that their version of good is actually worse.
Speaker 1: And this government is learning.
Speaker 2: Day by day that there's a reason somebody who's the
Speaker 2: Immigration Minister or the Home Affairs Minister has to be
Speaker 2: a tough nut, has to be somebody willing to look
Speaker 2: even weeping people in the eye and say sorry, no,
Speaker 2: see you later. And they would have bipartisan support if
Speaker 2: they wanted to push legislation through to try and close
Speaker 2: all of the gaps, to make sure that there was
Speaker 2: absolute ministerial responsible ability, but of course they don't want that.
Speaker 2: Instead they've tried to find lots of ways to send
Speaker 2: subtle smoke signals to the people who make the decisions
Speaker 2: of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, or they send smoke signals
Speaker 2: to the board of people who decide whether or not
Speaker 2: the people who were let out as a result of
Speaker 2: an overreaction to the High Court, whether these people should
Speaker 2: be wearing ankle bracelets or not. But of course, as
Speaker 2: you know by now, one in five of the people
Speaker 2: that have been brought out of detention by the High
Speaker 2: Court by this government have gone on to commit crimes,
Speaker 2: most famously pretty you have examples like the person in
Speaker 2: Western Australia is being accused by police there have been
Speaker 2: responsible for an alleged attack on a woman in the seventies.
Speaker 2: You know that case very well well. As the cases
Speaker 2: continue to pile up, the government clearly thinks that they
Speaker 2: can just ignore the issue or pretend that it's one
Speaker 2: that only people like you and I care about because
Speaker 2: you and I are going to vote for them any way.
Speaker 1: Just so what.
Speaker 2: But the Opposition is doing an excellent job in question
Speaker 2: time today of lining up a series of horrific failures
Speaker 2: of this bloke where his judgment or the smoke signal
Speaker 2: that he is sent to other people involved in the
Speaker 2: system is just wrong.
Speaker 7: Greation detainer referred to as cohc Y had his visa
Speaker 7: canceled after he was convicted of raping his fourteen year
Speaker 7: old stepdaughter whilst his wife was in hospital giving birth.
Speaker 8: Sudan Is National Emmanuel Sarki's visa was canceled after he
Speaker 8: was convicted of serious domestic violence offenses and threats to
Speaker 8: kill with a knife. He's now been charged with the
Speaker 8: stabbing murder of twenty two year old Bosco Minorano in Brisbane.
Speaker 7: Saki's visa was reinstated by the AAT as a direct
Speaker 7: result of the watering down of the law by the
Speaker 7: Albanezi government and the issuance of Direction ninety nine.
Speaker 4: A Kenyan national known as xl FM had his visa
Speaker 4: canceled after he was convicted of raping the seventeen year
Speaker 4: old sister of the mother of his child and then
Speaker 4: robbing a petrol station with a meat cleaver.
Speaker 9: The Congolese national known as HWGF had his visa canceled
Speaker 9: after being jailed for aggravated assault and repeated breaches of
Speaker 9: domestic violence orders. HWGF has been convicted of a total
Speaker 9: of twenty seven separate offenses, including multiple counts of violent
Speaker 9: assault against two former partners. They are extended families as
Speaker 9: well as police.
Speaker 10: And Afghan national referred to as z JFQ had his
Speaker 10: visa canceled after being convicted of both raping a sixteen
Speaker 10: year old girl and intercourse with a disabled fourteen.
Speaker 1: Year old child.
Speaker 10: The Albanesi Labor government's watering down of the law has
Speaker 10: allowed this criminal to stay in Australia, making our country
Speaker 10: less safe. When will the Albanesi Labour government apologize for
Speaker 10: this catastrophic mistake and reverse its direction ninety nine?
Speaker 2: It's wild right now, we can't deport people that are
Speaker 2: born here, but the people who weren't born here we
Speaker 2: have the legal right to be able to say sorry,
Speaker 2: visa canceled.
Speaker 1: Punt goodbye. Why wouldn't any of those scenarios result in
Speaker 1: somebody going well, of course, the minister says, not his fault.
Speaker 3: This was a visa that was canceled and remained canceled
Speaker 3: under ministerial direction ninety nine. Now it was a decision
Speaker 3: of the aat an independent tribunal to overturn to overturn
Speaker 3: the cancelation of the visa. Now, a number of cases
Speaker 3: were not raised with me by my department, and I've
Speaker 3: asked my department for an explanation why my department is now.
Speaker 7: Looking at all these cases as a priority for pain that.
Speaker 3: They are all under cancelation consideration.
Speaker 2: Now again he can say I tried to do the
Speaker 2: right thing that I was overruled by somebody else. But
Speaker 2: the group who overruled are the ones who are acting
Speaker 2: in part on the advice that you've seen, which is
Speaker 2: er on the side of caution. If somebody has a
Speaker 2: connection here in Australia, they should stay in Australia. And
Speaker 2: a perfect example of that is one that Nick Kata
Speaker 2: was talking about in the Australian newspaper today. This one
Speaker 2: is a bloke about a bloke who has a record
Speaker 2: of knife crime and car theft, serious driving offenses that
Speaker 2: could have proved fatal in twenty fourteen.
Speaker 1: I'm reading directly here from what nickroa, which is he.
Speaker 2: Caused an accident that resulted in the victim having life
Speaker 2: threatening injuries.
Speaker 1: However, under the.
Speaker 2: Direction ninety nine, that's the smoke signal advice being sent
Speaker 2: from the Minister to the people. At the Administrative Appeals Tribunal,
Speaker 2: this bloke convinced the tribunal that his ten year relationship
Speaker 2: with the same partner and three children that he has
Speaker 2: fathered in this country is the grounds on which he
Speaker 2: can stay.
Speaker 1: So because his kids are here, he gets to stay.
Speaker 2: But what about this he self identifies as an Aboriginal
Speaker 2: person and consider Australia to be my country. So what
Speaker 2: he wrote in a submission to the tribunal, I have
Speaker 2: been accepted by the indigenous people of this country through
Speaker 2: its customs and in a traditional smoking ceremony.
Speaker 1: Again who cares.
Speaker 2: I also learned a lot about Aboriginal culture, was taught
Speaker 2: how to paint Aboriginal art, and have also played the
Speaker 2: digiido in the past. Again who cares? How is this
Speaker 2: bloke able to stay in the country. Not because he
Speaker 2: ended up forming a partnership and having kids and because
Speaker 2: those kids should have a father.
Speaker 1: Then therefore, yes, you can stay.
Speaker 2: But what about the knife crime, the car theft, the
Speaker 2: driving that could have killed people. It's up to the
Speaker 2: minister to write the rules, the Parliament to pass those rules. Yes,
Speaker 2: the courts too have checks and balances, and that's exactly
Speaker 2: what we saw the High Court saying that indefinite attention
Speaker 2: isn't legal and therefore those people came out. But the
Speaker 2: capacity to say that when the minister says on these
Speaker 2: grounds goodbye.
Speaker 1: You should have.
Speaker 2: The highest possible standard is not the lowest ones as
Speaker 2: to whether that person stays in the country or is
Speaker 2: able to appeal. Now, of course, We live in a
Speaker 2: country where eventually you can appeal all the way to
Speaker 2: the High Court, but at some point in time there
Speaker 2: is a final say. And generally speaking, when you appeal,
Speaker 2: you don't appeal on the right and wrong. You appeal
Speaker 2: on the errors of law, the errors of the decision
Speaker 2: that was made. And in this case, the minister's word
Speaker 2: should be final. The minister should have every opportunity to
Speaker 2: say sorry, power out you go. If you want to
Speaker 2: go and apply for a visa on the other side
Speaker 2: of the world, good luck to you.
Speaker 1: I play the ditchery, dude, please.
Speaker 2: Now, it is very rare in the news that you
Speaker 2: see like a slow train coming to towards you, a
Speaker 2: massive world event. Now normally with things like a terrorist
Speaker 2: attack or a natural disaster, it starts as breaking news,
Speaker 2: one line, something you've never heard of, something you didn't
Speaker 2: think of, it just happened, and then of course our
Speaker 2: news becomes dominated by it for weeks and times. History
Speaker 2: is written by those events. But there are sometimes events
Speaker 2: that you do see coming and you know are going
Speaker 2: to be calamitous. You know we're going to be impactful
Speaker 2: rather than calamitus, I should say, like the death of
Speaker 2: Queen Elizabeth.
Speaker 1: We all knew it was coming.
Speaker 2: Everyone had a level of planning in and around how
Speaker 2: that news event would work. And we are now coming
Speaker 2: to that moment when the trial of Donald Trump this
Speaker 2: week is going to move to the jury phase, where
Speaker 2: it doesn't matter anymore about the mugshots, It doesn't matter
Speaker 2: anymore about the what's said inside the court. It doesn't
Speaker 2: matter what the porn star says, it doesn't matter what
Speaker 2: the form a lawyer who admitted.
Speaker 1: To stealing from Trump says.
Speaker 2: It comes down to twelve people who will decide whether
Speaker 2: a president of the United States, a former president of
Speaker 2: the United States, is going to be found guilty of
Speaker 2: a crime, and a crime that could result in.
Speaker 1: Being sent to jail.
Speaker 2: Now again, I have spent many sleepless nights and I
Speaker 2: will again tonight watching every little incremental moment.
Speaker 1: Of this trial.
Speaker 2: And yes, of course, as somebody who would much prefer
Speaker 2: Donald Trump to be the next president than Joe Biden,
Speaker 2: you can say, well, of course, you're just cherry picking
Speaker 2: the information.
Speaker 1: No, I think if you actually look at this thing,
Speaker 1: that there's.
Speaker 2: A lot of noise and a lot of smoke, and
Speaker 2: some dots that are really close together. But I don't
Speaker 2: believe that they have been pushed together or they have
Speaker 2: been joined. They have not proven that Donald Trump knowingly
Speaker 2: knew how the Trump organization was going to write down
Speaker 2: the payments to Stormy Daniels instead. All of the coverage
Speaker 2: is about, well, clearly the money was for storming, That's
Speaker 2: not the point. It's about how it was written down
Speaker 2: in the accounting ledgers of the Trump organization. And there
Speaker 2: is one person who could have come forward and said
Speaker 2: Trump told me write it down as a legal expense,
Speaker 2: and he knew it was an illegal expense, by the
Speaker 2: name of Alan Weiselberg. Alan Weiselberg was the financial boss
Speaker 2: of the Trump organization, and he was not called to testify.
Speaker 2: Let me read from the New York Times, believe it
Speaker 2: or not about why. In closing arguments on Tuesday, mister
Speaker 2: Trump's lawyers are expected to cast mister Weiselberg as the
Speaker 2: prosecution's missing peace, an elusive central.
Speaker 1: Player in the case. They will likely try to argue
Speaker 1: to the jury that the case.
Speaker 2: Depends on mister Cohen, whose testimony provided the only evidence
Speaker 2: that mister Trump had direct knowledge of the plot to
Speaker 2: disguise the hush money reimbursement as legal fees. I'll jump
Speaker 2: out of the Times for a second him, and obviously,
Speaker 2: if you're paying attention to what was being said, he
Speaker 2: admitted that he's lied in every other place. But please
Speaker 2: believe me now, he admitted to stealing money from the
Speaker 2: very payments because he wanted a bonus. Yet he was
Speaker 2: still ultra loyal and carrying out the evil work of
Speaker 2: Donald Trump. All Right, the closest the prosecution can get
Speaker 2: is Cohen. No one, even a Trump hater, could believe
Speaker 2: what Cohen was saying. You can't be lying nine times
Speaker 2: out of ten, but that one time he's absolutely telling
Speaker 2: the truth, when, by the way, he's admitted to lying
Speaker 2: previously in legal proceedings. Okay, so this bloke, Alan Weisselberg
Speaker 2: is the only guy. If the prosecution could flip him,
Speaker 2: if they could prove Trump knew what was going on,
Speaker 2: then banged case over guilty, guilty, guilty, We continue. A
Speaker 2: New York Times examination, based on court records and interviews
Speaker 2: with a dozen people close to the case, explains that
Speaker 2: mister Weisselberg's absence and reveals a portrait of him as
Speaker 2: a company man who had a hand in some of
Speaker 2: mister Trump's shadiest dealings. Okay, still doesn't prove anything. He
Speaker 2: could have traded his knowledge for freedom because he's currently
Speaker 2: in jail, by the way, but he's decided to keep
Speaker 2: his mouth shut. Instead, he signed a multi million dollar
Speaker 2: severance deal which basically said I'll never say anything bad
Speaker 2: about Trump. He signed that, now, of course, he would
Speaker 2: have been able to the prosecution, would have said, dont worry
Speaker 2: about all. That will give you the protection. You can
Speaker 2: come and say whatever you want, sing like a bird.
Speaker 2: But he's not doing it now he's in jail. He
Speaker 2: could get out of jail early, but he won't do it.
Speaker 2: He's the only one who can actually prove the case.
Speaker 2: The rest of it is all lots of noise and
Speaker 2: pushing dots as close together. But anyone who knows how
Speaker 2: these things works knows you can't push the dots together
Speaker 2: unless they're actually connected last one. For years, the Manhattan
Speaker 2: District Attorney's office had sought to turn mister Weselberg against
Speaker 2: his boss. When he refused, prosecutors indicted him, so they
Speaker 2: sent him to jar because he wouldn't turn on them,
Speaker 2: And he still won't turn on him even though he's
Speaker 2: in jail. So ultimately decision was made by the prosecution. No,
Speaker 2: they will not bring him to the stand now the
Speaker 2: defense did neither. But this is going to be the
Speaker 2: central focus of closing arguments. And tonight at about eleven
Speaker 2: thirty Eastern time is when they start to make their
Speaker 2: way into the court. The defense will give its closing arguments,
Speaker 2: then the prosecution will give its closing arguments. That's the
Speaker 2: way that it works for all state based trials in
Speaker 2: New York. Nothing different about it, I think, specific when
Speaker 2: it comes to Trump. And then perhaps as early as tonight,
Speaker 2: while you are sleeping, the jury will start its deliberations.
Speaker 2: Could be slammed unk guilty, could be fifty to fifty,
Speaker 2: could be one person who says are not really And
Speaker 2: that process drags on for a while, and if it
Speaker 2: continues to drag on, there would ultimately be a mistrial,
Speaker 2: and that's not innocent. It would just mean we go
Speaker 2: around again. But of course that won't happen before November.
Speaker 2: And but if he is found guilty, perhaps as soon
Speaker 2: as a quick deliberation tonight or by this time in
Speaker 2: a couple of days time, think of that as a
Speaker 2: news story, that train coming towards you. Of something that
Speaker 2: people will learn about in generations to come. So make
Speaker 2: sure that you are front and center tomorrow morning, first
Speaker 2: edition here on Sky News, and Pete Stefanovic and Ales
Speaker 2: Nielson and everyone else is across everything we're doing in America,
Speaker 2: will bring you the very latest information. But literally there
Speaker 2: is a chance quick summation from the defense, quick summation
Speaker 2: from prosecution, quick decision from a jury. He could be
Speaker 2: found guilty by the time we wake up tomorrow, and
Speaker 2: this judge who hates him could decide to sentence him
Speaker 2: in a couple of weeks. But until he gets sentenced
Speaker 2: off to jail, that's how much could happen tonight or
Speaker 2: tomorrow or the day after. But it's definitely happening this week.
Speaker 2: Meghan Kelly will join us tomorrow night to discuss all
Speaker 2: of that, and it's going to be huge, all right,
Speaker 2: quick break back with more, plenty of debate, plenty to discuss,
Speaker 2: plenty to fire up about in a moment of two's
Speaker 2: time here on Paul Murray Live. It is a strange feeling,
Speaker 2: isn't it when as opposed to big news.
Speaker 1: Jeez, did you hear? You can see it coming?
Speaker 2: It's why I wanted to explain it to you, and
Speaker 2: why the one bloke who could prove or disprove the case,
Speaker 2: for some reason is not giving evidence at all.
Speaker 1: It's going to be an amazing time.
Speaker 2: The start a debate about a lot of other stuff
Speaker 2: in a moment of two's time here and a reminder,
Speaker 2: Josh Fridenberg's going to be on the late debate tonight.
Speaker 1: After that exceptional bit of Telly a bit earlier this sevening,
Speaker 1: thank you so much.
Speaker 2: The host of the US Report Outsiders and now different
Speaker 2: from the Daily Telegraph, none another than my fellow cigar
Speaker 2: accidental user.
Speaker 1: None of that in the wonderful changemorrow. I'm just terrible.
Speaker 1: Don't do it. It's evil, It's awful. I slipped and
Speaker 1: fell out a roboosto.
Speaker 2: I can't Oh sorry, boss, all right Lydia Scott, who
Speaker 2: was of course representing a local government at national Cabinet.
Speaker 2: She's a counselor on the City of Sydney Council. Oh
Speaker 2: we'll get to clover more in a moment or two times.
Speaker 2: But she's in Melbourne right now because you know, she
Speaker 2: just wanted to feel the lefty love and I understand.
Speaker 2: So let's talk about a couple of things here. I
Speaker 2: think that the conversation in and around hate laws, which
Speaker 2: supposedly are about trying to go after forms of antisemitism,
Speaker 2: all the rest of it. But when you actually look
Speaker 2: at who's been negotiating some of this stuff, it seems
Speaker 2: like it's going to be used as a trojan horse
Speaker 2: for vilification laws that have existed in Victoria for a
Speaker 2: couple of years, very lefty, very punitive. But also there's
Speaker 2: the religious discrimination stuff where today they were negotiating, but
Speaker 2: basically Michauliacash just went up and out and walked out
Speaker 2: of the negotiations.
Speaker 1: What have you heard more about this job?
Speaker 11: Yeah, look, I mean this is all very dramatic, but
Speaker 11: apparently things got so heated with Mark Dreyfus, the Attorney General,
Speaker 11: and Dreyfus was apparently, from the reports, you know, was
Speaker 11: not exactly you know, chivalrous and polite show I say
Speaker 11: in this meeting, and I think we would all say
Speaker 11: that Mark Crafis has been a form on this on
Speaker 11: this sort of issue, and michelay Cash quite credit to
Speaker 11: you know, I'm not going to take the same I'm
Speaker 11: not going to copy it and left now. I mean
Speaker 11: these religious rule laws are really disturbing because you know,
Speaker 11: when you twin them with what you're talking about. Where
Speaker 11: I think you're going with the speech and the vilification
Speaker 11: thing is is that both of them seem like efforts
Speaker 11: to limit people's freedom of speech and association. And while
Speaker 11: we absolutely want to crack down on anti Semitism, and
Speaker 11: John Fried an excellent job tonight with that, an amazing,
Speaker 11: amazing job on that tonight, but let's just be really
Speaker 11: really clear here that you have to be very careful
Speaker 11: about making any law to restrict something a that could
Speaker 11: be used and turned around to do something be that
Speaker 11: you might not be so happy about.
Speaker 2: Well, also, don't forget you know, Dreyfus himself. And remember
Speaker 2: the way this government does its negotiating is basically our
Speaker 2: way or the highway. We won't show you the documents.
Speaker 2: If we do show you the documents, you're not allowed
Speaker 2: to tell anyone about the documents, and then the legislation
Speaker 2: just turns up in the Parliament. Again, no one likes
Speaker 2: seeing how the sausage is made, and this particular sausage
Speaker 2: not great. Linda, Again, this is always a really difficult
Speaker 2: conversation to have because the easiest thing to turn around
Speaker 2: and say, here is Paul Murray, how can you dare
Speaker 2: fight for greater opportunities for people to be hateful? I don't,
Speaker 2: but we've got a whole bunch of legislation that exists
Speaker 2: about discrimination in the country, about defamation in the country.
Speaker 1: There's all of that absolutely clear, right.
Speaker 2: But what's your sense when government starts to get into
Speaker 2: this new area where okay, they might be being pushed
Speaker 2: by one group, but then it ends up affecting a
Speaker 2: lot more groups and it ends up in the general
Speaker 2: public in a very different place than they thought this
Speaker 2: conversation was.
Speaker 1: Going to go.
Speaker 12: I think, Paul, that we can be very conspiratorial about
Speaker 12: these stories about what's happening in Parliament. But what's important
Speaker 12: when we're thinking about hate speech is to bring it
Speaker 12: back to what it looks.
Speaker 5: Like in people's lives.
Speaker 12: And that's what, of course we have to do in
Speaker 12: local government in the city of Sydney right now, sadly,
Speaker 12: on a regular basis, I'm getting reports of graffiti that
Speaker 12: is so hateful, it is so awful. Of course I'm
Speaker 12: not going to repeat it on television, but it is
Speaker 12: the kind of thing that whomever you show it to agrees.
Speaker 12: We don't want that up on a public wall under
Speaker 12: any circumstances.
Speaker 5: This is not what Sydney or Australia is about.
Speaker 12: And I think we can all agree that that is
Speaker 12: the kind of hate speech when it's in the public
Speaker 12: domain or when it's said.
Speaker 5: Can cause harm to people.
Speaker 12: It can cause hurt and damage, and that is the
Speaker 12: kind of thing that should be allowed. Now we are
Speaker 12: at a particular historical moment globally where there is a
Speaker 12: lot of division, a lot of unrest, and we're seeing that,
Speaker 12: unfortunately also play out in hate towards particular groups in Australia.
Speaker 5: That's awful, that's wrong.
Speaker 12: We should come together as Australians and condemn that, and
Speaker 12: we should try to find a set of laws that
Speaker 12: ensure that Australia can continue to be the rich, wonderful,
Speaker 12: multicultural place that it is. So I don't think there's
Speaker 12: disagreement about what hate speech is that it should.
Speaker 5: Not be allowed.
Speaker 12: But what we do need is the opposition to come
Speaker 12: together with the government and find a bill that people
Speaker 12: can agree on and to stop arguing, to stop debating.
Speaker 12: I've obviously put forward this proposition in the City of
Speaker 12: Sydney to try and have.
Speaker 5: Hate speech graffiti removed within an hour.
Speaker 12: The Lord Mayor voted that proposition down, but they're doing
Speaker 12: it with Nicholas Reese and Sally cap in the city
Speaker 12: of Melbour.
Speaker 5: It's a great idea.
Speaker 12: These are the things that local governments can unite, so
Speaker 12: too should our parliamentarians.
Speaker 1: And I'm cool with all of that.
Speaker 2: The pin I want to put in the chat, the
Speaker 2: little sort of underline in the conversation about just the
Speaker 2: asterisk about what we're getting ourselves in for here is
Speaker 2: that James, a lot of people have seen things like
Speaker 2: silence is violence, or criticism or observation is vilification, and
Speaker 2: that's hate speech. And that's what I'm talking about here,
Speaker 2: which is again I want to create None of us.
Speaker 2: Do there anyone who's about to run off to the
Speaker 2: umpire right. None of us are trying to find ways
Speaker 2: for hate to still live. But when the modern interpretation
Speaker 2: can be some of the nuttiest definitions from the worst
Speaker 2: of the activists, I'm concerned if they're the ones that
Speaker 2: get to write the rules.
Speaker 11: Well, the thing that concerns me is, you know, obviously,
Speaker 11: you know, people grafiting horrible things on the walls. Absolutely,
Speaker 11: that should be taken down in twenty seconds flat. There's
Speaker 11: just there's no question about that. You don't have that society.
Speaker 11: But we're not talking about anonymous criminal vandals, hatefully tagging
Speaker 11: a wall. We're talking about you know, individuals discussing sometimes
Speaker 11: and talking about things. And there has to be a clear,
Speaker 11: I think distinction here, Linda, between the question of what
Speaker 11: is hate speech you know, that might make somebody feel uncomfortable,
Speaker 11: and what might be inciting. And I think the real
Speaker 11: issue here is about incitement. Is it going to incite hate?
Speaker 11: Is it going to incite people to go and do
Speaker 11: something bad. It's what we talk about in America in
Speaker 11: our tradition where I come from, you know, shouting fire
Speaker 11: in a crowded theater, you know, this is the This
Speaker 11: is I think we need to be really careful because,
Speaker 11: as Paul I think correctly said, here, you get these
Speaker 11: situations where activists will weaponize, you know, hurt feelings, and
Speaker 11: then suddenly the way you have conversations in this country
Speaker 11: becomes very limited, and it will become more limited because
Speaker 11: of course, so much of this eighty seventis we're talking
Speaker 11: about comes from some communities and if we can't talk
Speaker 11: about that, then we're nowhere.
Speaker 2: Well also, also we're in this scenario nowhere where we're
Speaker 2: discussing this on multiple fronts.
Speaker 1: Right, misinformation.
Speaker 2: Right, You've seen how that term has become this cudgel
Speaker 2: for the left to be able to go after and
Speaker 2: eventually I want to censor the Internet from it.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: I just think that all of these things are all
Speaker 2: going to point in one direction and everyone's going to
Speaker 2: wake up and be all annoyed about it.
Speaker 1: It's being debated. Now, let me just be a very
Speaker 1: quick point on that.
Speaker 11: You know, the other week we had this whole thing
Speaker 11: in Western Sydney where a library band a book about
Speaker 11: same sex parents, right, And what was really interesting to
Speaker 11: me was that was I don't think they should have either.
Speaker 11: But what was really interesting is the band was arguing
Speaker 11: against not on the base of free speech, but because
Speaker 11: it might hurt some people's feelings. And the key is,
Speaker 11: I think you need to in these things, have the
Speaker 11: first principles be about the free speech, not about the
Speaker 11: hurt feeling.
Speaker 2: No agree, all right, So, extending on from what I
Speaker 2: said at the start of the show about those moments
Speaker 2: when history is coming towards you, and it's been moving
Speaker 2: slowly and then it's very quick.
Speaker 1: And that's where we are right now with the Donald
Speaker 1: Trump trial.
Speaker 2: Linda, obviously you know fan of the president, but let's
Speaker 2: just acknowledge this moment, right whether it is the fitted
Speaker 2: up trial or somebody being held to account. Closing arguments,
Speaker 2: they'll take a couple of hours and then we're off
Speaker 2: to a jury room. If they're going to make a
Speaker 2: decision quickly one way or the other. By the time
Speaker 2: we wake up tomorrow a president of the United States, well,
Speaker 2: adjudication will have been made potentially in a court if
Speaker 2: not a day later, if not a day later, But
Speaker 2: we are there right now, no more debating, no more.
Speaker 2: Did you see the mugshot guilty, not guilty, hung jury
Speaker 2: this week? How do you feel about this moment in time?
Speaker 12: Look, there's no doubt it is historically significant to see
Speaker 12: an American president and potentially a future American president on trial,
Speaker 12: and so just being hours away from a possible deliberation
Speaker 12: is of course a.
Speaker 5: Very significant moment.
Speaker 12: I think also, I know you've discussed this at length, Paul,
Speaker 12: is just the possibility of a hung trial. What that means,
Speaker 12: you know, there really are so many outcomes that we
Speaker 12: could see where there's any.
Speaker 5: Division, it's a hung trial.
Speaker 12: You know, that delay over the next few months, and
Speaker 12: what that means, for example, in the outcome of this
Speaker 12: year's presidential election in the United States. You know, this
Speaker 12: is just absolutely an incredibly historic event. I also think,
Speaker 12: and I will continue to call it this out that
Speaker 12: former President Trump's behavior during the trial has been really remarkable.
Speaker 5: You know, his.
Speaker 12: Ability to continue to have commentary about the trial, continue
Speaker 12: to be admonished by the judge about this, you know,
Speaker 12: just some absolutely remarkable behavior from Donald Trump as the
Speaker 12: defendant in the face of the criminal justice system. It's
Speaker 12: so fascinating to me to see how American electors will
Speaker 12: judge his behavior with respect to the prospect of him
Speaker 12: potentially running again for the US presidency.
Speaker 2: That's true, but James, and again, we could spend the
Speaker 2: rest of the show on this, the behavior of the
Speaker 2: judge where literally the jury was never sequested, which means
Speaker 2: they can sit there and watch things in the court
Speaker 2: and then watch MSNBC at night to be told why
Speaker 2: the prosecution has made its case. The delay in closing
Speaker 2: closing arguments was pushed off for a few more days
Speaker 2: meaning again they marinate in in amongst a pretty anti
Speaker 2: Trump populace. I understand that after closing arguments, they are off,
Speaker 2: they locked in the hotel and they make their decisions
Speaker 2: from there. But just again, as a bloke who would
Speaker 2: like to see Trump as the next president, no doubt,
Speaker 2: I mean, this is no more maybes.
Speaker 1: This week we find out, well this week we find out.
Speaker 11: But I mean, you know what we've seen here over
Speaker 11: and over again is that these attempts to play Garcha
Speaker 11: with Trump. You know, and I'm sorry, Lindina, Oh, he
Speaker 11: was badly behaved. He tweeted about the case.
Speaker 1: Who cares?
Speaker 11: Nobody cares because the fact is, this whole trial is
Speaker 11: a stitchump. It's been coordinating the timing of it with
Speaker 11: these other trials which have been falling apart through the
Speaker 11: White House. I'm sorry it has happened that way. And
Speaker 11: you know, the idea that people are going to hold
Speaker 11: it against him for you know, signing a non disclosure
Speaker 11: agreement and oh the bookkeeping wasn't done right. Hillary Clinton
Speaker 11: paid a fine for you know, paying for the steel
Speaker 11: doarsier which actually accused Trump of being a Russian agent.
Speaker 11: That's a lot more serious. He destroyed evidence well with
Speaker 11: a cloth, with a cloth Pollion know, and so this
Speaker 11: thing is a nonsense.
Speaker 5: It's ridiculous.
Speaker 1: It's not I ever had.
Speaker 12: Honestly, Donald Trump has been accused of so many crimes.
Speaker 11: A trial that we're talking about right now.
Speaker 12: He's legitimately being trialed in the United States in front
Speaker 12: of a legitimate case that has been found by a
Speaker 12: court to be able to be perceived. I don't think, sorry,
Speaker 12: this constice system into question here.
Speaker 11: This case has no one has ever been charged with
Speaker 11: this book keeping offense. Nobody has ever know this is
Speaker 11: a misdemeanor that they spun together with a bunch of
Speaker 11: others and then use that to con cact this idea
Speaker 11: that it was a felony.
Speaker 1: To enforce federal law, which he's already been exonerated.
Speaker 11: In exactly right. So I mean this is legally everybody
Speaker 11: is seeing. This is legally novel.
Speaker 2: But my point, lind at which I will probably end
Speaker 2: up agreeing with you here on which is I think
Speaker 2: all of us have seen plenty of major failures of
Speaker 2: the American legal system in many states, many years, many races.
Speaker 1: Many cases.
Speaker 2: So again, when everyone just sort of leans in one
Speaker 2: direction to get somebody into the dock, and then they
Speaker 2: present the case in a certain fashion.
Speaker 1: It leads to a certain result.
Speaker 2: We've seen that in lots of other things, and I
Speaker 2: think that's what's happening here. But we will discuss more
Speaker 2: as it all comes through again, details through the night,
Speaker 2: and then again Petter Stephan, I think in the morning,
Speaker 2: quick break back here on Paul Murray Live. Let's keep
Speaker 2: the debate going plenty more before Josh Bridenberg joins the
Speaker 2: Lake Debate in fourteen minutes from now.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: I've been mentioning all light because I want you to
Speaker 2: stick around. I want you to watch it. Josh Fridenberg
Speaker 2: on the Late Debate a couple of minutes after his
Speaker 2: spectacular documentary. Congratulations everyone involved in putting it together. It's
Speaker 2: an amazing piece of television which you can see right
Speaker 2: now at sky news dot com. That you sign up
Speaker 2: for the sky News app, which just five bucks a month,
Speaker 2: is how you can do that, and it's a great
Speaker 2: way of being able to carry sky News in your pocket,
Speaker 2: spread it around to your friends, all the rest of
Speaker 2: it right follow that QR code because also extended interviews
Speaker 2: with a lot of people, including a pretty surprising Julia Gillard.
Speaker 1: I won't lie her.
Speaker 2: Position about anti Semitism. It is a very moving bit
Speaker 2: of television. Please download the app. You do that by
Speaker 2: pausing the telly right now, take a photo of that
Speaker 2: QR code. Well remember QR codes, and it'll take you
Speaker 2: where you need to go. And then josh up in
Speaker 2: a few minutes time. In the meantime, here with the
Speaker 2: James Morrow, who loves QR codes.
Speaker 1: I mean you've got so familiar with it.
Speaker 7: Yeah, oh yeah.
Speaker 1: And Linda Scott no, I did.
Speaker 2: And Linda Scott who went putting around the city of
Speaker 2: Sydney for a while. And I'll get to make clover
Speaker 2: more in a moment. But ed Husy the industry minister.
Speaker 2: He says the company tax is potentially something that could
Speaker 2: change under this government as a way of firing up investment.
Speaker 1: Now, great, hallelujah.
Speaker 2: I would think that company tax should be a little
Speaker 2: closer to Singapore than it is currently to Canada. But
Speaker 2: James again, interesting that the industry ministers openly talking about it,
Speaker 2: which means tomorrow the Treasurer gets asked a question and
Speaker 2: the Treasurer will either swack the idea out of the
Speaker 2: way or they will show a little bit of ankle
Speaker 2: and maybe company tax gets cut.
Speaker 11: No, they just swack that one out of all. There's
Speaker 11: no way they go to cut cut COVID tax. They
Speaker 11: should cut coveany tax. They should cut income tax. They
Speaker 11: should change the level of which income taxcott. Sydney pay
Speaker 11: insane rates of tax and it drives investment away. But
Speaker 11: also it also drives productive people out of the country.
Speaker 2: So my suggestion is I'm one of these loans who
Speaker 2: thinks massive drop in income tax, increase in the GST
Speaker 2: and some of the compensation for people in and around it,
Speaker 2: that's the way for government. But of course the reason
Speaker 2: federal governments won't do it is because all the GST
Speaker 2: money goes to states. So that's why they keep putting
Speaker 2: up taxes like petrol and booze and cigarettes and you know,
Speaker 2: all that really durable stuff. Now let's talk Linda about
Speaker 2: a political opponent, but Clover Moore, she's been the Lord
Speaker 2: Mayor of Sydney for twenty years. She would like another
Speaker 2: four years in the job for very obvious reasons. I
Speaker 2: would love to see you in that job because I
Speaker 2: think you've got way more common sense than she does,
Speaker 2: and I particularly think that your advocacy for all parts
Speaker 2: of a pretty diverse city, I think would be amazing
Speaker 2: to see you get business and you get the lefties
Speaker 2: in new Town.
Speaker 1: But give me an idea.
Speaker 2: You see her up close, all right, she says, she's
Speaker 2: invigorated all the rest of it.
Speaker 1: Twenty years at the top.
Speaker 2: Is she really the top of a game after twenty
Speaker 2: years running a city?
Speaker 12: Well, look, here's the choice that Sydney Siders are faced
Speaker 12: in this September's local government elections in the City of Sydney.
Speaker 12: The Lord Mayor Clovermore has been in office for forty
Speaker 12: four years twenty as City of Sydney Lord Mayor. And
Speaker 12: let's look at what Sydney looks like now. It is,
Speaker 12: of course the best city in the world.
Speaker 5: But what do we have.
Speaker 12: We have parks closed off for months with deadly contaminated asbestos,
Speaker 12: literally parks boarded up.
Speaker 5: So you can't get in.
Speaker 12: We've got Oxford Street, our glittering global diamond that should
Speaker 12: be showcased to the world, with city owned properties that
Speaker 12: have been boarded up for years, with construction delays, not
Speaker 12: open to the public, and other private businesses around their
Speaker 12: shut Marti Gras concerned about how best to proceed to
Speaker 12: be financially.
Speaker 5: Viable as street smells again.
Speaker 12: For years of places like Oxford Street. You know, is
Speaker 12: this the kind of future that Sydney siders want? Well,
Speaker 12: A slow and steady decline. Further, is what Sydney siders
Speaker 12: will get if they support Clovermore for another term this September.
Speaker 5: That's their choice.
Speaker 12: But I think it is very difficult for her at
Speaker 12: this time to ask, after forty four years in office,
Speaker 12: twenty as Sydney's Lord Mayor, to ask the people, on
Speaker 12: the basis of her record to support her again. And
Speaker 12: let's just be clear about the city's financial position.
Speaker 5: We've got a really tough.
Speaker 12: Set of cost of living pressures in Sydney, of course,
Speaker 12: right across the world right.
Speaker 5: Now, but particularly in Sydney.
Speaker 12: We've got affordable housing almost invisible in Sydney, such a challenge.
Speaker 12: And yet the City of Sydney has three quarters of
Speaker 12: a billion dollars in cash in the bank and a
Speaker 12: budget coming back to council next week next month, sorry,
Speaker 12: with almost.
Speaker 5: No cost of living relief. You know, these are the.
Speaker 12: Kinds of perverse economic settings that she has governed now.
Speaker 5: For twenty years. In the city of Sydney.
Speaker 12: It's just quite wrongheaded and riders are calling out for change.
Speaker 2: Okay, now we've got the campaign here, right, you've heard
Speaker 2: a maga. Right, what about Misska So make Sydney great again?
Speaker 2: You don't go for the red hat, rainbow hats, rainbow hats?
Speaker 2: MSG eight, What do you reckon?
Speaker 1: Are you going to do it?
Speaker 11: I reckon, Linda, here's your winning campaign slogan, rip up
Speaker 11: the bike leads, all the bike leads in Sydney.
Speaker 1: You want to know why.
Speaker 11: Shot on the border name because nobody can drive.
Speaker 5: To the border lane.
Speaker 2: I love you both, Thank you, We're done. That's our
Speaker 2: show for tonight. Thank you very much for watching. Josh
Speaker 2: Brodenberg standing by for.
Speaker 1: The late debate Megan Kelly tomorrow night.
Speaker 2: And could we be talking about a jury making its
Speaker 2: decision on Donald Trump closing.
Speaker 1: Arguments That takes a couple of hours and then what
Speaker 1: are they going to do?
Speaker 2: We'll all find out together tomorrow