Speaker 1: From the Skying Center. This is Paul Murray life. They
Speaker 1: did it. Oh wow, how in seed inflation? Haha?
Speaker 2: Just soon knew I've sat here for How could I
Speaker 2: have doubted them? The lead story everywhere Celebrate Australia because
Speaker 2: everything is awesome.
Speaker 3: Inflation has hit a three year low.
Speaker 1: Inflation did move today down at.
Speaker 4: First glance, It's time for celebration.
Speaker 5: Headline.
Speaker 3: Monthly inflation has tumbled to two point seven percent.
Speaker 1: I was taking the piece with the celebration thing. They
Speaker 1: actually did that on Channel nine. They actually pretended that
Speaker 1: the back is broken, that everything is fine, everything is
Speaker 1: awesome now. Yes, the inflation rate is down. It is
Speaker 1: now finally somewhere between a two and a three. The
Speaker 1: treasurer is giving out gold stars to him.
Speaker 6: The new inflation numbers for August showed that headline and
Speaker 6: underlying inflation both went down substantially. These are very welcome,
Speaker 6: very encouraging, and very heartening numbers.
Speaker 1: But just like mission accomplished was not true when George W.
Speaker 1: Bush was on the aircraft carrier in about Iraq, mission
Speaker 1: is not accomplished when it comes to inflation. Can you
Speaker 1: believe that a major news organization would frankly lie to
Speaker 1: you like the one that you just saw in their
Speaker 1: six PM years so in abbot with the government that
Speaker 1: they would actually go mission accomplished. So let's actually have
Speaker 1: a look at all of the things that they count
Speaker 1: that went down in the past month. Now to get
Speaker 1: such a dramatic drop dairy, No, that wouldn't be it.
Speaker 1: What about furnishings about a point, it's okay, that's not
Speaker 1: that amazing. Yeah, good feels down. Okay, that's very very volatile.
Speaker 1: But you know, a couple of months it could be way.
Speaker 1: Oh that's what happened. Now they, by the way, of
Speaker 1: all of the things that they count, are the only
Speaker 1: four things that went down in the past month. The
Speaker 1: electricity thing went down because, as you know, you're paying
Speaker 1: for it. The government on budget night announced that there
Speaker 1: was going to be three hundred million or three hundred
Speaker 1: dollars each and every house, be it a mansion or
Speaker 1: a one bedroom unit in the bush, will come off
Speaker 1: your power bills. The reality seventy five dollars a quarter
Speaker 1: or twenty five dollars a month. Now, yes, as a
Speaker 1: big number, it's hundreds of millions of dollars. When it's
Speaker 1: an individual circumstance like yours. It doesn't touch the sides
Speaker 1: because even though the cost of electricity is down for
Speaker 1: one month, because it is artificially being pushed down, the
Speaker 1: cost of building the preferred version of the electricity grid,
Speaker 1: it continues. In fact, there are more renewables being about
Speaker 1: now than ever before. We all know why, and we
Speaker 1: all know who pays the price. Now the CSIRO tells
Speaker 1: us it could be half a trillion dollars. The CSIRO
Speaker 1: used to tell us it was a trillion dollars. Green
Speaker 1: energy groups tell us it's multiple trillion dollars, all of
Speaker 1: which eventually comes back to you as the person who
Speaker 1: pays the bill. So the cost of order is all continuing.
Speaker 1: You may still be much higher than you were twelve
Speaker 1: months ago, but because it's not continuously going up, they
Speaker 1: get the result that they did today. Now it won't
Speaker 1: surprise you that I will show you the devil that
Speaker 1: is in the detail, the reality of what is actually
Speaker 1: happening in the economy, and how this was something that
Speaker 1: will not convince the Reserve Bank to cut rates because
Speaker 1: four things came down, but more than a dozen things
Speaker 1: went up. Have a look in the past month, holiday
Speaker 1: travel and accommodation up by more than the headline number. Alcohol
Speaker 1: up by more than the headline number. You know, food,
Speaker 1: that pesky stuff still way above the headline number. When
Speaker 1: it comes to alcoholic beverages, new homes that people live in,
Speaker 1: health education, all of those cost to double the number.
Speaker 1: Then we start to get into our old mates. The
Speaker 1: insurance system rents fruit and vegetables. Now, fruit and vegetables
Speaker 1: and fuel have been incredibly volatile. Now, fuel has of
Speaker 1: course gone way up at different parts of this year.
Speaker 1: Fruit and vege has gone way down at parts this year.
Speaker 1: Fuel is now starting to come back down. Fruit and
Speaker 1: vege is starting to raw back up. And tobacco, well,
Speaker 1: it keeps going up because of this government's position when
Speaker 1: it comes to taxation, which is why Mission accomplished is
Speaker 1: so irresponsible. It is legitimately irresponsible to say because it's
Speaker 1: not natural, in the same way that George W. Bush
Speaker 1: found a way to say mission accomplished. But the war
Speaker 1: went on for another what ten and ten years? So
Speaker 1: will be the fight when it comes to inflation. The
Speaker 1: Reserve Bank tells us this thing doesn't actually get to
Speaker 1: where they believe it needs to be until maybe maybe
Speaker 1: the back end of not this but next year. And
Speaker 1: because all of those things keep going up while other
Speaker 1: things that they're able to either have the variability of
Speaker 1: things like fuel prices or they're able to buy their
Speaker 1: way through. When it comes to monthly electricity changes, it
Speaker 1: means there is no rate cut coming, okay, because the
Speaker 1: reduction in inflation is not real. So what does this
Speaker 1: all mean.
Speaker 7: Well, the recent data, I think you degree have been
Speaker 7: a little mixed, but overall they reinforce the need to
Speaker 7: maintain a restrictive monetary policy stance and remain vigilant to
Speaker 7: the upside risk to inflation. The Board needs to be
Speaker 7: confident that inflation is moving sustainably towards the target for
Speaker 7: any decisions are made about a reduction in interest rates.
Speaker 1: So there are over at Channel nine. They might be
Speaker 1: telling you mission accomplished, but the reality is until interest
Speaker 1: rates are cut. As I have shown you a few
Speaker 1: times this week, the total number of people who are
Speaker 1: paying off their house, the amount that they have to
Speaker 1: pay off, well, it's the best part of what sixty
Speaker 1: one percent more in the overall amount of money that
Speaker 1: we are spending on our home loans that we did
Speaker 1: two years ago. So forgive me if I am not
Speaker 1: actually celebrating and it's not mission accomplished, you know, and
Speaker 1: the show will often point out the each way elbow.
Speaker 1: In fact, I think we came up with the term.
Speaker 1: Now we know he hates it. We know that even
Speaker 1: his mates in the media turn around and say, oh,
Speaker 1: it's not catching on really really well, when you actually
Speaker 1: they said the same about airbas elbow. They didn't they Now,
Speaker 1: let's talk about the negative gearing thing. But I wanted
Speaker 1: to do this differently than everyone else has. Now, sometimes
Speaker 1: there are nights where sort of one big story is
Speaker 1: going to get all of our different opinions on it,
Speaker 1: and just like when there's a big news story that
Speaker 1: will be at each and every hour, the same will
Speaker 1: approach when it comes to opinion. But there's a couple
Speaker 1: of points I want to make about what I think
Speaker 1: is firstly really going on here, and secondly, why the
Speaker 1: negative gearing stuff is going to be a political problem
Speaker 1: rather than the one that the lefties think is somehow
Speaker 1: going to be a political solution to their fight with
Speaker 1: the Greens. Firstly, we know what he said about negative
Speaker 1: gearing after they lost in twenty nineteen, and he wanted
Speaker 1: to win in twenty twenty two. Gearing now gliding without
Speaker 1: help tobisky.
Speaker 8: Negative gearing is a good thing, but it wasn't there
Speaker 8: years negative gearing. We had a policy that we took
Speaker 8: to the election where we were not successful.
Speaker 9: Why was negative gearing and capital gains tax breaks a
Speaker 9: bad idea in twenty nineteen and a good idea in
Speaker 9: twenty twenty seven.
Speaker 8: Well we found a better idea a range of them.
Speaker 1: But we know that labor never gives up on an idea,
Speaker 1: literally if it includes giving the old Press secretary to
Speaker 1: Bob Hawk. Barry Cassidy used to be on the ABC
Speaker 1: a job taking care of the Museum of Democracy. Remember
Speaker 1: this was an appointment they made towards the end of
Speaker 1: the rudgullared Rudd era that was then canceled. But then no,
Speaker 1: we had to come back and do that. Remember forty
Speaker 1: five percent emissions, Well that was too much in twenty nineteen,
Speaker 1: but by twenty twenty two it became forty three percent.
Speaker 1: We all learned today that negative gearing is apparently back
Speaker 1: on the table.
Speaker 3: Confirmation and denial from the Prime Minister today over property
Speaker 3: investor tax rebates, Anthony Alberezi said modeling was being done
Speaker 3: over scaling back negative gearing that.
Speaker 6: Is, a routine Treasury assessment of negative gearing causes the
Speaker 6: government some political discomfort. Changes to negative gearing back on
Speaker 6: the table as the government tries to pass its housing bills.
Speaker 1: All right, stick with me again, a different take on
Speaker 1: all of this. Let's firstly work out why are we
Speaker 1: talking about this tonight? How did this become public because
Speaker 1: reporters at the Channel nine newspapers had an exclusive. Now
Speaker 1: whether the exclusive came from Treasury, whether it came from
Speaker 1: the treasurer, whether it came from the Prime Minister's office,
Speaker 1: whether they found some briefing notes on a bus stop,
Speaker 1: who knows, but they were the of why all of
Speaker 1: this was on today. It quoted multiple labour figures who
Speaker 1: thought this was a good idea. But then we had
Speaker 1: a scenario where the Prime Minister pretended that he had
Speaker 1: no idea what this was about. And that means one
Speaker 1: of two things. He's either lying about not knowing, or
Speaker 1: he has no idea what is going on inside his government.
Speaker 1: Both are terrible, both should be disqualifying. But I would
Speaker 1: imagine both will magically disappear by a press gallery that
Speaker 1: largely has always loved the idea of somehow raising the
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen election as the one where your bill should win.
Speaker 1: And let's just pretend he did win, and the policies
Speaker 1: that we know have been rejected will just repackage like
Speaker 1: they did around two hundred and seventy five dollars when
Speaker 1: it comes to power cuts to achieve basically the same result,
Speaker 1: a shortened when it comes to emissions, when it comes
Speaker 1: down to negative gearing. We're going to pretend that a
Speaker 1: never so slight change is apparently vastly different than what
Speaker 1: was rejected a couple of years is a go again
Speaker 1: Prime Minister interview this afternoon, and I'll tell you a
Speaker 1: little thing about how these interviews come about because I
Speaker 1: used to do radio in the afternoon. I've seen those reports.
Speaker 1: And what we do is we.
Speaker 8: Value the public service. So from time to time, I'm
Speaker 8: sure the public service are looking at policy ideas. Will
Speaker 8: you rule out.
Speaker 7: Changes to the getting hearing and property cases?
Speaker 10: This too?
Speaker 8: On East, Well, what we're doing is doing the legislation
Speaker 8: that we had before the Senate, So I talk about
Speaker 8: what we're doing, not what we're not doing. And what
Speaker 8: we're doing is trying to get through that legislation.
Speaker 1: Now, what's weird here is that if a story like
Speaker 1: this comes out in a newspaper and the government truly
Speaker 1: has no idea about this announcement, they'll generally hide someone
Speaker 1: like the Prime Minister so he could actually work out
Speaker 1: what's going on inside his own government. But the fact
Speaker 1: that he was in front of the cameras today kind
Speaker 1: of tells you that this is the balloon they're trying
Speaker 1: to put into the air. He also did not one,
Speaker 1: but two radio interviews in Sydney this afternoon. Now, I
Speaker 1: remember what it was like to do drivetime talkback radio
Speaker 1: in Sydney, and I know that the Prime Minister is
Speaker 1: not normally somebody who is booked in advance. Instead, generally speaking,
Speaker 1: the Prime Minister's office will reach out to said radio
Speaker 1: host just a couple of hours before due to interview
Speaker 1: because they want to get a message out because they
Speaker 1: expect good news has happened earlier in the day. Now,
Speaker 1: if both of those shows want to tell me differently,
Speaker 1: my guess is the Prime Minister was offered to about
Speaker 1: the ABC and t GB very late in the day
Speaker 1: to day. Why would they do that if they were
Speaker 1: trying to hide the story. Instead, they're trying to buy
Speaker 1: into the story. Instead, they're trying to spin the story,
Speaker 1: which is why again Jim Charmers answered the question like this.
Speaker 6: Today we've got a housing policy and that's not in it.
Speaker 6: It's not unusual for governments to get advice from time
Speaker 6: to time from department on issues which are in the
Speaker 6: public domain.
Speaker 1: So is the Prime Minister truly clueless when he's doing
Speaker 1: press conferences and radio interviews today where he knows the
Speaker 1: front page of the paper that was in Sydney and
Speaker 1: Melbourne when the sun came up this morning would be
Speaker 1: what he talked about. Or are we doing exactly the
Speaker 1: same thing that when it came to the Stage three
Speaker 1: tax cuts, Pretend it's out there. See what happens to
Speaker 1: many people blow up? Okay, so we've got the ABC
Speaker 1: on board, we've got mission accomplished, a board on Channel nine. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we can probably push through here. And as you saw
Speaker 1: when it came to those tax cuts, despite the fact
Speaker 1: that we were right and it was too little, it
Speaker 1: was too late, it did not change things when it
Speaker 1: came to cost of living. All of those media organizations
Speaker 1: who liked the policy were the ones who told you
Speaker 1: not what would happen per week or by fortnite, and
Speaker 1: said they gave you the one big number, that was
Speaker 1: the annual number as they were doing the bidding of
Speaker 1: the government. They will now proceed to do the bidding
Speaker 1: of the government when it comes to negative gearing. That's
Speaker 1: point number two now to number three, the four D
Speaker 1: chess of the Prime minister. Even fiddling with this issue,
Speaker 1: well it boggles my mind. You see, he may think
Speaker 1: that there is absolutely no scenario under which he will
Speaker 1: not be the prime minister after the next election, even
Speaker 1: if he has to go into a minority government with
Speaker 1: less than seventy seats, because it's basically a left wing
Speaker 1: cross bench, they'll all back him in and there's no
Speaker 1: way he won't be the greatest prime minister of all
Speaker 1: time for as long as possible, bek as nobody will
Speaker 1: ever elect the Libs in his mind. But I want
Speaker 1: to show you just how bad this could be for
Speaker 1: the government if they keep the negative gearing question hanging
Speaker 1: and they let the opposition define what some of these
Speaker 1: changes may be. Have a look again the reporting of
Speaker 1: the second shooter drop at the Channel on newspapers today
Speaker 1: was they actually listed the number of seats that are
Speaker 1: the top seats in the country in terms of the
Speaker 1: percentage of taxpayers in that electorate have a negatively geared property.
Speaker 1: As you can see one, two, three, four, five, six
Speaker 1: are labor seats. Of those, a significant number are marginal
Speaker 1: seats or could become marginal if ten percent start to
Speaker 1: think that something is about to happen with their major
Speaker 1: financial investment. So I'll give you a tip about what
Speaker 1: I think is going to happen here. I think that
Speaker 1: they've put the balloon up and I think that they
Speaker 1: want to say that they're going to do something in
Speaker 1: and around negative gearing, because particularly with younger voters and
Speaker 1: people that are more Greens favored, this is one of
Speaker 1: sort of the big Uga boogers of the Australian property system.
Speaker 1: If they do anything, I don't think it'll be for
Speaker 1: anyone currently involved. They'll try to grandfather things and say
Speaker 1: everyone in the current agreements nothing will change, but that's
Speaker 1: what Shortened tried in twenty nineteen. They will also turn
Speaker 1: around and say it only applies to new people who
Speaker 1: have got three or more places. Well, I'll show you
Speaker 1: the numbers in a second about how little that will
Speaker 1: actually change. The picture. But above all the reason this
Speaker 1: is particularly stupid, no matter how many clever people say
Speaker 1: this is the smart thing to do. About one point
Speaker 1: two million people in Australia have a property that they
Speaker 1: have negatively geared. That means there's one point two million
Speaker 1: families in Australia where somebody is expecting as part of
Speaker 1: the inheritance that they will hand on to their child
Speaker 1: or their child to be able to hand onto their
Speaker 1: grandchild is the investment property that they currently own. If
Speaker 1: the system is grandfathered, the tax will only apply to you.
Speaker 1: Your kid or grandkid will not be able to inherit
Speaker 1: that system, which means one point two million property owners
Speaker 1: becomes two point four million kids. Potentially it becomes six
Speaker 1: eight minion grandkids. But this is genius politics, right because
Speaker 1: the ACT people love it, because the ABC people love it,
Speaker 1: because the Radio National crowd love it. Well. The suburbs
Speaker 1: in the multiple labor seats that would move as a
Speaker 1: result of this policy, as they did in nineteen well,
Speaker 1: I think it's going to happen. Fourth point, on this
Speaker 1: particular issue, the people who say get rid of negative
Speaker 1: gearing say it because it costs the federal budget something
Speaker 1: like twenty two billion dollars a year in the overall
Speaker 1: tax concessions when it comes to houses. But in and
Speaker 1: around that number is the number that negative gearing, meaning
Speaker 1: tax that is returned to the property investor. Again, it's
Speaker 1: about twenty two billion dollars, or that's the expectation of
Speaker 1: where it will be in a couple of years time.
Speaker 1: So hey, get rid of negative gearing because won't that
Speaker 1: mean there'll be more homes to buy? Or well, no,
Speaker 1: and let this opinion person in the Telegraph explain why.
Speaker 1: As much as we love to hammer landlords for being
Speaker 1: greedy and hiking rents and making families live in substandard
Speaker 1: properties because they have no other choice, the fact is
Speaker 1: that those landlords are the only ones who can deliver
Speaker 1: more supply. Make no mistake, messing with negative gearing rules,
Speaker 1: whether capping the number of properties per eligible person or
Speaker 1: taking away the tax benefit altogether, will deter landlords from
Speaker 1: entering the market, meaning there will be fewer properties that
Speaker 1: people will buy, not to live in but to rent out. Well,
Speaker 1: then again people say, no, no, you've got to get rid
Speaker 1: of negative of gearing because if there were no investors,
Speaker 1: then all of the homes that they currently invest in
Speaker 1: would suddenly become available for me and my mates to
Speaker 1: be able to bid for. Well, not necessarily, because you see,
Speaker 1: we have a little problem in Australia, which is, let's
Speaker 1: imagine there there's ten people that are going to be
Speaker 1: bidding for a house. Let's imagine two of those people
Speaker 1: are property investors. So okay, there's now just eight people
Speaker 1: that are bidding for the house. Great, I've got a
Speaker 1: better chance of winning. The only problem is during the auction,
Speaker 1: two new people are going to turn up, so the
Speaker 1: same number of people will still be bidding against you.
Speaker 1: Because there's this thing called immigration. You see, one point
Speaker 1: two million people who currently own a negatively geared investment
Speaker 1: property would be replaced within four years under the current
Speaker 1: immigration system, as we've shown. Now take out the COVID
Speaker 1: anomalies of twenty twenty twenty twenty one. Essentially over four years,
Speaker 1: you'd get to one point three million people who come
Speaker 1: into the country. Now, yes, some are old, some are kids,
Speaker 1: but you get the point I'm making here, which is,
Speaker 1: if you've got every property investor to not be able
Speaker 1: to continue to invest in the properties in which they
Speaker 1: invest and then negatively gear it would be completely wiped
Speaker 1: out within four years by all of the people that
Speaker 1: are coming into the country. Oh what you see. That's
Speaker 1: the problem with the policy is that it sounds like
Speaker 1: it is the absolute solution. But if you've got as
Speaker 1: many people coming through one door as you're trying to
Speaker 1: push out another door, it doesn't actually change the number
Speaker 1: of people who are trying to buy the same number
Speaker 1: of houses. And if all of those people are just
Speaker 1: trying to buy houses for them to be able to
Speaker 1: live in, what happens to the thirty percent of people
Speaker 1: in this country who are trying to rent a property.
Speaker 1: You see, they don't have enough money for a deposit,
Speaker 1: and if somebody doesn't own the property and then rent
Speaker 1: it out and yes, potentially use negative gearing to help
Speaker 1: keep that going so that one day they play financial coplunk.
Speaker 1: In twenty years, all of that manner gets put together
Speaker 1: and then upon their death it gets handed over as
Speaker 1: an inheritance. You get my point. That's why the politics
Speaker 1: of negative gearing is as dangerous as it is now.
Speaker 1: You'll get many pointy headed people, most of the media,
Speaker 1: most of the social influences saying this is absolutely the
Speaker 1: way to go. If only there was a recent referendum
Speaker 1: where exactly the same thing happened, but sixty percent of
Speaker 1: the country voted no. Also worth nothing here tonight, and
Speaker 1: there's plenty of information. Again, I could go through all
Speaker 1: of this stuff right about how many and how much,
Speaker 1: and I'll get to that a little bit later. Now,
Speaker 1: Tanny plibisic. We know that she's making some weird decisions
Speaker 1: when it comes to resources projects. At the moment. We
Speaker 1: know the gold mine that she's holding up in and
Speaker 1: around Bathost. We know the gas spasin in the Beeloop
Speaker 1: that is currently also about to be held up. But
Speaker 1: a decision which has happened in the past couple of
Speaker 1: days is not one, but three coal mines have been extended.
Speaker 1: Environmental groups are losing their brain. But I wanted to
Speaker 1: talk about it Andrew Forrest for a second.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 1: Andrew Forrest is, of course a billionaire. For some reason,
Speaker 1: the media think he is Australia's greatest billionaire because he's
Speaker 1: always been interviewed, he's always giving speeches. He's alway telling
Speaker 1: us about how everything in the world should change. But
Speaker 1: you know where I draw the line. I really draw
Speaker 1: the line is when a bloke who is a billionaire
Speaker 1: because of mining that continues to pollute because of mining,
Speaker 1: is given an interview on a television show this morning
Speaker 1: to oppose an extension of somebody else's mind, not his,
Speaker 1: but somebody else's mine. That's what happened on the Today Show.
Speaker 1: I think.
Speaker 9: I don't really mind if you love your kids or
Speaker 9: not mate, but f kerm, if you love your kids,
Speaker 9: I would not be approving coal mines.
Speaker 1: Sorry, just one more time, Okay, the billionaire who is
Speaker 1: a billionaire because of mining, mining that pollute, let me
Speaker 1: double check. Two point five million tons of CO two
Speaker 1: into the atmosphere according to the Fortescue Climate Report of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty three. The millionaire, the bidionnaire who made billions
Speaker 1: out of mining that pollutes the planet, is telling you
Speaker 1: somebody else's mind should not extend. One more time.
Speaker 9: I don't really mind if you love your kids. Are
Speaker 9: not mate, but fair inkerm If you love your kids,
Speaker 9: I would not be approving cold minds.
Speaker 1: Well, I hope that he's consistent about this, because that
Speaker 1: would mean he's about to sell his business, right, He's
Speaker 1: about to shut down his own business because of no
Speaker 1: no plans for that. Instead, I keep being the billionaire
Speaker 1: because of mining that by his own report, two point
Speaker 1: five metric tons two point five yeah, metric tons of
Speaker 1: CO two are going to end up in the sky
Speaker 1: to see here. I also know that he's particularly close
Speaker 1: at times to the Chinese government. Remember when he brought
Speaker 1: along the Chinese ambassador to a COVID thing at the
Speaker 1: height of the pandemic, when you know China was the
Speaker 1: source of the pandemic. That certainly they canceled their domestic flights,
Speaker 1: but they kept the international ones going and that's fine.
Speaker 1: He can be a close business associated who understands the
Speaker 1: relationship on the trade level between China and Australia, But
Speaker 1: does he deliver the same message actually, can we plan
Speaker 1: that for a third time? Does he say this in
Speaker 1: the meetings with anyone that he talks to from China
Speaker 1: as a billionaire who is a billionaire because of mining.
Speaker 9: I don't really mind if you love your kids or not, mate,
Speaker 9: But Kim, if you love your kids, I would not
Speaker 9: be approving coal mines.
Speaker 1: See, they're probably the ones that need to hear it,
Speaker 1: because according to Reuters, the International News Service, China has
Speaker 1: more than a billion tons a year in brand new
Speaker 1: coal mines that haven't even opened yet. And those of
Speaker 1: you that are eagle eye, not once, not twice, but
Speaker 1: three times way may well have noticed that there was
Speaker 1: a bloody big truck behind Andrew Forrest as he was
Speaker 1: telling us, if you love your kids, no more coal
Speaker 1: mines when he was on the Today Show today And
Speaker 1: here I am in Las Vegas, and how great is
Speaker 1: Las Vegas? Guess where he actually is? At a mining
Speaker 1: exhibition from the National Mining Association in the United States.
Speaker 1: The speakers at this convention, well, okay, they've got to
Speaker 1: be a bunch of left wingers, right, who are really
Speaker 1: there to talk about sustainable green energy. No, the guy
Speaker 1: from Dirty Jobs is going to be there, Darnaka Patrick,
Speaker 1: who was of course a race car driver and recently
Speaker 1: came out as be pro Trump, is there. Oh, mister
Speaker 1: wonderful from Shark Tank is going to be there. He's
Speaker 1: got a very anti Trump, pro environmental message that no
Speaker 1: doubt he will be delivering on stage two. Among others,
Speaker 1: billionaires who are billionaires because of mining, who were invited
Speaker 1: by Australian television shows to do a live cross to
Speaker 1: have a go at other people's minds whilst standing in
Speaker 1: front of mining trucks. I don't get it. I don't
Speaker 1: know what secret source, but he has a secret source
Speaker 1: that for some reason means even when all of this
Speaker 1: is pointed out, I'll be the one they'll have a
Speaker 1: go out in the next week or so. Now. Doctor
Speaker 1: Nick Coatesworth, of course, was the Deputy Chief Medical Officer
Speaker 1: during the height of the COVID issues. Now he works
Speaker 1: over at channeline and mentioning him a lot tonight, Jeez,
Speaker 1: I expect Okay, I'm here. Don't worry. I'm here for life,
Speaker 1: here for life. Now we've got doctor Nick Coatesworth who
Speaker 1: works over at Channel nine now, which means he popped
Speaker 1: up on channel and radio today where he was talking
Speaker 1: about the misinformation laws. He believes that this is the
Speaker 1: wrong thing, the censoring of the Internet. And this is
Speaker 1: what he said on to GB today.
Speaker 4: Anything that's misinformation and disinformation that affects preventive healthcare or
Speaker 4: for example, public health or pandemic response.
Speaker 5: And I just looked at that and thought, Gee, after
Speaker 5: what we've been through and all the uncertainty about what
Speaker 5: misinformation and disinformation was, how can we actually have a
Speaker 5: law that starts to define those sort of things in
Speaker 5: a way that can be contested in a sort of
Speaker 5: legal sense.
Speaker 1: Now, what about this from Victoria. How dirty is Victoria?
Speaker 1: It desperately needs a new government, but it doesn't need
Speaker 1: in a new government. It kind of needs a whole
Speaker 1: by to new systems. You see the iback the Corruption Commission,
Speaker 1: it's said multiple times that there is a very fine
Speaker 1: line between some people who are allegedly public servants i e.
Speaker 1: Not labor operatives, but they end up doing things that
Speaker 1: are very favorable to the Labor Party or some of
Speaker 1: its key supporters. Now, this is institutional corruption. This is
Speaker 1: the stuff I've talked about a lot. It's about one
Speaker 1: of the many reasons why the queens At government has
Speaker 1: to go. Any government that's been around for too long
Speaker 1: has got too many people with too many tentacles in
Speaker 1: lots of different places. That's why you need the pipes
Speaker 1: to be flushed out every now and then. Well, the
Speaker 1: pipes in Victoria are clocked because a story that involves
Speaker 1: the fire chief of Victoria and the fire Union in
Speaker 1: Victoria was the focus of a report from the Corruption Commission. Today,
Speaker 1: it has concluded that allegedly Victorian public servants found that
Speaker 1: they hacked the fire chief's emails to help the union boss.
Speaker 1: Corruption watchdog has found the emails of Victoria's fire chiefs
Speaker 1: were hacked not once, not twice, but five times and
Speaker 1: the hackers were public servants who were motivated to misuse
Speaker 1: the information to further the interests of the firefighters union
Speaker 1: and its state secretary. Anyone lost their job as a
Speaker 1: result of this. I'll have to get back to you.
Speaker 1: And it's raining on the rock, that beautiful and wonderful
Speaker 1: song that John Williamson and many others have sung over
Speaker 1: the years, while it is doing so right now. In fact,
Speaker 1: some record rain has been falling in and around the
Speaker 1: Northern Territory, particularly the Red Center. The footage is beautiful
Speaker 1: and here's some of it that was I think up
Speaker 1: on the ABC's Facebook page in the past couple of days.
Speaker 1: In fact, about thirty four millimeters has landed in that
Speaker 1: part of Australia, which is a record when it comes
Speaker 1: to September. So the rain bomb is on its way
Speaker 1: east now finally before we get into our discussion tonight,
Speaker 1: and it's going to be a great one of course,
Speaker 1: Stephen Conry carry ot cha bromibition we all know. Be
Speaker 1: it a family barbecue, a dinner party. If you're the
Speaker 1: type of person who ends up going to those, maybe
Speaker 1: just mates at the pub or certainly kind of an
Speaker 1: informal ish thing at work. Most of us pull our
Speaker 1: punches when it comes to our opinions because we know
Speaker 1: if you're going to say the wrong thing, then you're
Speaker 1: out the door and formal warnings and all the rest
Speaker 1: of it. And you didn't mean to be offensive. You
Speaker 1: say something that, again is just today considered the hanging
Speaker 1: offense that two weeks ago was what people said to
Speaker 1: each other. Again, I'm not talking about harassment stuff, you
Speaker 1: talking about opinions, right. Well, there's a new survey which
Speaker 1: has come out from the United States. It's not a survey, actually,
Speaker 1: it's a serious academic work which actually shows us the
Speaker 1: difference between what people say in public versus what they
Speaker 1: actually believe in private. Now, I won't bore you with
Speaker 1: how they did this, but it's really really interesting because
Speaker 1: a majority of Americans fifty eight percent believe that most
Speaker 1: people cannot share their honest opinions about sensitive topics in
Speaker 1: society today. Not only but sixty one percent of Americans
Speaker 1: admit to self silencing private opinion and that's really fascinating
Speaker 1: to see. Okay, so I want to show you how
Speaker 1: this works. What you're going to see is you're going
Speaker 1: to see an issue and then you're going to see
Speaker 1: two dots. That one that's got to star in it
Speaker 1: is the private opinion, So publicly what the best part
Speaker 1: of twenty two percent of people say I trust the government?
Speaker 1: Really four percent? And this, by the way, isn't just
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of maga people, because once you have
Speaker 1: a look here, every one of these questions is Democrats, Republicans, independence,
Speaker 1: It's broken down by race, it's broken down by finances,
Speaker 1: and literally thirty grand, sixty grand, one hundred grand, one
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty grand all of them are four percent
Speaker 1: or less when it comes to trusting the government. Is
Speaker 1: society better off when individuals will experts are the ones
Speaker 1: that are making the decisions for everyone? Sixty seven percent
Speaker 1: of people say, oh no, probably, you know, maybe experts
Speaker 1: are In reality, seventy five percent of people say, let
Speaker 1: me do me, and thank you for the advice, but
Speaker 1: let me do me. And this isn't just a right
Speaker 1: wing thing, because you know how lefties are like a revolution, man,
Speaker 1: we're going to change the system man. Well, twenty percent
Speaker 1: of people publicly say that it's okay to resort to
Speaker 1: violence in order to save the country, when actual opinion
Speaker 1: is just four percent of people believe it. The government
Speaker 1: should restrict to the expression of views deemed discriminatory offensive
Speaker 1: at a dinner party, like a quarter of people and say, yes,
Speaker 1: we should shut it down, censor it, clothes that get
Speaker 1: rid of that post reality, five percent of people actually
Speaker 1: think that's what we should do. All of this is
Speaker 1: important because it's it's it's again a little reminder about
Speaker 1: the great difference between the opinion columns in The Guardian,
Speaker 1: the polite chat are on Q and A, and the
Speaker 1: reality of where people are left, right, center, rich, poor
Speaker 1: and all in between. Now, obviously you can't do a
Speaker 1: survey on each and every issue, which is why you
Speaker 1: shouldn't just let the loud lefty voices be the only
Speaker 1: ones that can be heard. It's why you should be
Speaker 1: here each and every night. It's why you should share
Speaker 1: the content of this and all the other shows. It's
Speaker 1: skynews dot com dot au. Go to the YouTube page,
Speaker 1: find it and share it as far and wide as
Speaker 1: you can, because that's the stuff they want to shut
Speaker 1: down when it comes to the misinformation or censoring of
Speaker 1: the internet. Laws on censorship, by the way, the government
Speaker 1: should restrict the expression of views that are deemed to
Speaker 1: be discriminatory or offensive. Again, I just showed you that
Speaker 1: number is down at five percent. My apologies. Should you
Speaker 1: be able to use your religion as an excuse to
Speaker 1: disobey the law? So I don't want to serve those
Speaker 1: two people there, you two blokes getting married? Well that
Speaker 1: again thirteen percent say that's the case, but it's actually
Speaker 1: two percent. A couple of dollars before we're done, Is
Speaker 1: American society fair? Thirty seven percent? And publicly would say yes,
Speaker 1: seven percent is the reality. Forty three percent of people
Speaker 1: say that other people can be trusted, but the actual
Speaker 1: opinion is less. And finally, the media, This is a
Speaker 1: huge worry for America, America's democracy, presidential campaigns, all the
Speaker 1: rest of it. Twenty four percent of people say they
Speaker 1: trust the media left right, center, rich, poor, white, black, Hispanic.
Speaker 1: It's actually seven percent. In fact, as you can see,
Speaker 1: thirteen percent of young people, four percent of millennials, seven
Speaker 1: percent of genics, five percent of boomers, and just four
Speaker 1: percent of people older than that, there is a gulf
Speaker 1: between what we say publicly and what we feel privately.
Speaker 1: So every now and then let you in a opinionated
Speaker 1: self fly because otherwise the only voices that get heard
Speaker 1: are the loonies all day, every day. But that's why
Speaker 1: we push back here each and every night. And I'm
Speaker 1: so glad that the watching sec here on Paul Murray
Speaker 1: live into the debate standing by Bromen, Bishop Stephen Conroy,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for watching. The man who's always
Speaker 1: here to help Stephen Conroy, and of course the lady
Speaker 1: who's more than happy to let him do what he wants.
Speaker 1: He's none of them to carry over trem problem and Bishop,
Speaker 1: so I'm going to start for let me first start
Speaker 1: with you, Stephen, about negative gearing. So you saw what
Speaker 1: happened to Bill Short in twenty nineteen. You also saw
Speaker 1: what I just had to say, particularly about the number
Speaker 1: of labor seats that sit in the top ten of
Speaker 1: negative gearing. You also know that the people that are
Speaker 1: rah rah for this don't quite understand that the people
Speaker 1: who currently have it in part have it so they
Speaker 1: can have an inheritance for their kids. Right. So let's
Speaker 1: not get too into the weeds about the ideas in
Speaker 1: and around negative gearing. Let's talk about whether this is
Speaker 1: the idea that say, Leeves Labor or kinda is going
Speaker 1: to hurt them until they come up with the position
Speaker 1: which Shortened actually had, which was everyone who's currently in
Speaker 1: the system, nothing's going to change. But by the time
Speaker 1: people actually heard that, they had already completely rejected any
Speaker 1: idea of the changes. Well, look a little bit of history.
Speaker 11: When we went to the twenty sixteen election under Bill Shorten,
Speaker 11: and I was still in polmed at the time, and
Speaker 11: we had proposed capital gains tax changes, and we almost
Speaker 11: won that election. We came from Awes came to almost
Speaker 11: when the election. He certainly was a contributor. Then in
Speaker 11: nineteen we piled and doubled down and tripled down with
Speaker 11: a few other changes as well, and so we left
Speaker 11: ourselves open and vulnerable to a much broader attack, and
Speaker 11: the words franking credits became part of the political discussion,
Speaker 11: and almost nobody'd ever heard of a frankin credits until
Speaker 11: almost near the election. Man Labor decided to move down
Speaker 11: that path. So I don't think capital gains tax changes
Speaker 11: are as electorally damaging as was proven in twenty sixteen
Speaker 11: versus twenty nineteen. Sure the opposition will try and cover it. Yeah, sorry,
Speaker 11: So negative dearing wasn't as damaging in sixteen, but a
Speaker 11: pile on a whole ranging issue is left in vulnerable
Speaker 11: and night.
Speaker 1: That's because but also you had Turnbull who was knocking
Speaker 1: off at midday. He didn't he probably agreed with it
Speaker 1: to some degree, versus Morrison who absolutely went all points
Speaker 1: of the compass to make the point.
Speaker 11: And so I think Dunton will run a Morrison style.
Speaker 1: Came one hundred percent, which is why on this issue. Yeah,
Speaker 1: which is why if they're going to do something on this,
Speaker 1: so do it quickly, because if they're going to let
Speaker 1: it swing around for weeks before it becomes months before
Speaker 1: it I'm telling you, I'm telling you how this is
Speaker 1: going to be interpreted. And then Stephen in I would
Speaker 1: describe you want to give us the history lesson.
Speaker 11: Today is ordering messy and tidy, bordering on messy.
Speaker 1: Yes, you're correct, well, but again right someone intentionally puts
Speaker 1: this into the paper.
Speaker 3: Absolutely.
Speaker 1: The Prime Minister doesn't disappear today. He does a press
Speaker 1: conference and then rings in to radio shows in the afternoon. Again,
Speaker 1: I remember when I hosted one of them. Generally speaking,
Speaker 1: it's the breakfast show of the morning show that books
Speaker 1: those things. When you hear the Prime Minister in the
Speaker 1: afternoon anywhere, it's because it's been offered and you go, yeah,
Speaker 1: of course, so he wanted to be heard today. But
Speaker 1: what he said today was I don't know. I'm not
Speaker 1: in charge. I'm not really, I'm not I'm not applying
Speaker 1: for this information anywhere, which either means he's lying or
Speaker 1: is incompetent earth because you think by three o'clock you've
Speaker 1: wrung the treasurer. Oh no, he's on a plane to China. Sorry,
Speaker 1: I'm pretty sure they've got WiFi. Look the bottom larties.
Speaker 10: What about the history lesson Paul Keating abolished negative goearing
Speaker 10: back in the eighties, reenterprises went through the roof and
Speaker 10: you had to bring it back and the snake charmers. Well,
Speaker 10: he got his doctorate, didn't he, and studying Keating. I
Speaker 10: wonder if he looked at that part of the history.
Speaker 10: But this again is desperation politics on behalf of the
Speaker 10: Prime Minister and the Treasurer first of all as a minister,
Speaker 10: and Steven will remember this I used to have a
Speaker 10: rule that nobody starts in a new work in the
Speaker 10: department unless I personally know about it and you get
Speaker 10: a port lightly report about it, so you don't get
Speaker 10: any nasty surprises. So nobody can suddenly come out and say, oh,
Speaker 10: we're going to have negative geary without you.
Speaker 1: And you also know, if anything's on the front page
Speaker 1: of the newspaper, if it's not the Prime Minister themselves,
Speaker 1: it's somebody on their behalf who's ripping you a new
Speaker 1: one because you didn't tell them what's happening, which to
Speaker 1: me makes it seem like this is the soft launch
Speaker 1: of the idea.
Speaker 10: Let me tell you when Shorten lost the election in
Speaker 10: twenty nineteen, I was actually the next day I was
Speaker 10: out collecting for the Salvation Army in a shopping center.
Speaker 10: And I can't tell you that people who came up
Speaker 10: with relief all over their face because they knew what
Speaker 10: those tax proposals meant to them and they're saving. So
Speaker 10: when you're desperate, and you'll know in the negotiations on
Speaker 10: this proposal that the government can own forty percent of
Speaker 10: your house, which is a ridiculous policy. The thing that
Speaker 10: the Greens are saying we will only agree to that
Speaker 10: if you get rid of negative queering and you get
Speaker 10: rid of the deduction with regard to capital gains tax.
Speaker 10: So this is part of that debate as well. Now
Speaker 10: you've heard me say before it's going to be an
Speaker 10: early election. They're doing all things that governments do. They're
Speaker 10: cleaning up the number of bills they've got before the hearts,
Speaker 10: they're cleaning off the barnacles. They're trying to get to
Speaker 10: a position where they've got some open aired go with
Speaker 10: whatever the thrust is going to be. So this policy,
Speaker 10: and I agree with you, they've just run it up,
Speaker 10: runned up the pole and let it fly for a
Speaker 10: bit and let's see what the reaction is. And I
Speaker 10: think some of the old ads that we use by
Speaker 10: Morrison would be very effective again. And I think that
Speaker 10: the same arguments that we used. And let me explain
Speaker 10: this bit. There are people who are waging towery illness.
Speaker 10: They don't get any opportunity to have tax reductions, they
Speaker 10: don't have any opportunities to try.
Speaker 1: For everything else.
Speaker 10: Seeing it, these are the people who say I want
Speaker 10: something for my kids or something for my grandkids, and
Speaker 10: so they can get into the business of having a
Speaker 10: little business themselves, and that's exactly what it is.
Speaker 1: And also steven thirty seconds in response to this right,
Speaker 1: which is essentially property investment or shares. But let's just
Speaker 1: talk about property investment is generally speaking, the only way
Speaker 1: that you are able to create a level of intergenerational
Speaker 1: wealth that means you or your kid will not be
Speaker 1: where you started out in life. All right, you might
Speaker 1: be able to with the cost of the house you
Speaker 1: own and the house you invest in, hand over hundreds
Speaker 1: of thousands of dollars that your parents never gave you.
Speaker 1: You would think the Prime Minister, who is literally in
Speaker 1: this system, who is from where he was, would at
Speaker 1: an absolute fundamental level understandard. Instead, where I think they're
Speaker 1: going to land is multiple properties. But I've done the
Speaker 1: numbers and all of that. That's fewer than like one
Speaker 1: hundred and twenty thousand people that are currently in the system.
Speaker 1: So it doesn't actually solve all of the other problems
Speaker 1: because the migration question that I showed before means that
Speaker 1: all this greater at a dinner party, But the dinner
Speaker 1: party has already contradicted itself. Yeah.
Speaker 11: No, Look, I've found fascinating that report cited earlier about
Speaker 11: public and private part of always understood that people's public
Speaker 11: expressions and polling does not match.
Speaker 1: Their private views.
Speaker 11: If they did, Labor would have won every single election
Speaker 11: for the last years. The public always say education and health,
Speaker 11: they're the issues that we're are casting our vol but
Speaker 11: we all know it's their pockets.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, we just don't want to say that. I
Speaker 1: just don't want to pay for it. I want to
Speaker 1: dealve into that because I know you've both read it
Speaker 1: all and have the same view that I do. Let's
Speaker 1: take an earlier break so we can come back and
Speaker 1: have that chat and a whole bunch of other things,
Speaker 1: including banning Chinese cars. Apparently it may will be happening
Speaker 1: in the United States, but not under racist Trump, under
Speaker 1: racist Biden. I want to see. Yes, just as you
Speaker 1: expect from Bishop and I. We solved the world's problems
Speaker 1: during the breaks as well. Stephen Conroy is always welcome
Speaker 1: in the man Cave, but we know it's Grand Final
Speaker 1: week and he loves a public holiday on a Friday.
Speaker 2: For no apparent reason. The Games the next time and
Speaker 2: no one and you're not going to parade, all right, So.
Speaker 1: Yeah, China, So the United States knows that when it
Speaker 1: comes to electric cars, China's capacity to build more of
Speaker 1: them for less because of course slave labor et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera, means that that market is currently being flooded. Australia,
Speaker 1: by the way, I'll double check this for tomorrow, but
Speaker 1: now Chinese cars and Japanese cars are basically the same
Speaker 1: in terms of how many years old. In Australia, the
Speaker 1: Chinese ones are now, of course cheaper versions of petrol,
Speaker 1: but more likely to be any type of electric car. Well,
Speaker 1: the Biden administration is getting a little trumpy here, Broman,
Speaker 1: because they're saying that the remote control factors that do
Speaker 1: exist in some of the technology some of the time
Speaker 1: is a national security risk because guess what, China ain't
Speaker 1: their friend.
Speaker 10: Well, nice, you woke up to it. Yes, I mean
Speaker 10: we woke up to that fact with Whilwei, but we
Speaker 10: didn't say the same lesson to the rest of the
Speaker 10: stuff we import, like solar panels, like wind turbines, and
Speaker 10: a whole heap of other stuff. And I think we
Speaker 10: are in serious trouble because I remember, if my memory
Speaker 10: serves me, before the end of the Bilton Road initiatives
Speaker 10: with the.
Speaker 1: Old and yes, he was.
Speaker 10: Going to bring in money to build with this railway thing.
Speaker 10: He's doing Chinese technology, of course, and I got sent
Speaker 10: to me very good information. It said he could stop
Speaker 10: the trains China, to stop the chains. Absolutely, And I
Speaker 10: think we have been very naive allowing someone who's a
Speaker 10: potential enemy to have the ability to shut down our
Speaker 10: entire electricity guid to stop cars dead in the street,
Speaker 10: to be spying on us to seek information.
Speaker 1: Well, don't forget.
Speaker 10: I just find the naivety that we've gone into these
Speaker 10: relationships quite stunning.
Speaker 1: Literally again, go check these videos out on YouTube. Right,
Speaker 1: I'm not talking about bitchu and sort of weirder stuff, right,
Speaker 1: I'm talking about people that can tell you about the
Speaker 1: type of surveillance information that may well be in certain
Speaker 1: cars right about. You know, the geo tagging where they
Speaker 1: know where you are all the time, the microphone that's
Speaker 1: on all the time. And I'm getting conspiratorial about it,
Speaker 1: but that's a reality of everything that is listening to
Speaker 1: us while we are doing nothing or right, Former Communications Minister,
Speaker 1: are we off with the pixies here or is there
Speaker 1: an actual issue here that when you end up with
Speaker 1: your market being overly penetrated by a product that you
Speaker 1: kind of don't really have a full chain of custody
Speaker 1: idea about that. That's where you draw the line.
Speaker 11: Okay, it's absolutely something that we should have a good
Speaker 11: hard look at. I mean, I know a bram and
Speaker 11: I'll have to pretend the Liberal Party broke the mold
Speaker 11: on banning Ghiwei first. But when I banned them in
Speaker 11: a twenty eleven twelve from being part of the National
Speaker 11: Broadband Network, it was based on security intelligence, the blow
Speaker 11: information and when you understand, particularly where you have software
Speaker 11: upgrades that get pumped through the system, it is very
Speaker 11: very hard to keep track of what is being put
Speaker 11: into your vehicle or into any of the other things
Speaker 11: our infrastructure. It's why you can't let the Chinese own
Speaker 11: a whole range of important infrastructure now in this country,
Speaker 11: because you just can't guarantee its security. At least make
Speaker 11: them work harder and try and hack our infrastructure where
Speaker 11: we don't try and defend they's just hand it over
Speaker 11: to them. So I think this is one that we
Speaker 11: should take genuine advice on. Look at what's happening around
Speaker 11: the world, look at what the Chinese have the capacity
Speaker 11: to do so. I think it's absolutely something that needs
Speaker 11: to be put on the table a serious discussion. It's
Speaker 11: not a part of an issue anymore. It's become core
Speaker 11: value issue, protecting integrity a whole range of structures.
Speaker 10: And what happened in the Middle East, Stephen, is a
Speaker 10: wake up call for everybody.
Speaker 1: On the pages. Yeah, yeah, the weaponars or I've literally
Speaker 1: got a minute. I'm sorry to do so. A bumper
Speaker 1: sticker from both of you. In that report that I
Speaker 1: mentioned before about the difference between public and private opinion,
Speaker 1: which one surprised you the most or didn't really surprise
Speaker 1: you the most?
Speaker 10: Problem Well, the one for me was statement four. Society
Speaker 10: is better off when individuals get to make decisions for
Speaker 10: themselves rather than having experts make decisions for everyone. And
Speaker 10: I found that, I'm absolutely fascinating.
Speaker 1: So publicly, seventy five percent sorry, sixty seven percent would
Speaker 1: think that, but seventy five percent privately. And you know,
Speaker 1: the biggest jump it was actually in millennials. Fifty nine
Speaker 1: percent becomes seventy seven So they're a lot more free
Speaker 1: to me than you think. For you, Stephen, was there
Speaker 1: a particular moment an item in that report.
Speaker 11: Look, I thought the one a our media and you
Speaker 11: highlighted the dangers as for our society as a whole
Speaker 11: as very disturbing, and I think that we've all got
Speaker 11: to have a conversation about how we can establish trust
Speaker 11: in the mainstream media, otherwise our society is.
Speaker 1: Going to disintegrate. I'm with you. Thank you, guys, do
Speaker 1: appreciate it. Thank you very much. We will see you
Speaker 1: again next Wednesday night. Now I'll be here tomorrow night
Speaker 1: spending time with the family. And also it's going to
Speaker 1: be my beautiful bride's birthday, so happy birthday. ESK see
Speaker 1: you tomorrow Caleb's here. Then I'll see on Sunday.