Speaker 1: Late welcome the Late pay.
Speaker 2: Well, it's great to have your company on the Late Debate.
Speaker 2: I'm James Macpherson with Liz Staurer and Caleb Bond coming
Speaker 2: up tonight. Anthony Albanese's gaff when asked about power sharing
Speaker 2: with the Greens or was it a gaff? We'll look
Speaker 2: at that a little later. Plus when we look at
Speaker 2: the papers, the Canberra Times is all upset over Peter
Speaker 2: Dutton saying he would prefer, if elected Prime ministers to
Speaker 2: live in Sydney rather than Canberra. Another reason to vote
Speaker 2: for Peter Dutton. Clearly he's got common sense. Plus The
Speaker 2: Australian talking about Peter Dutton's latest policy idea to ease
Speaker 2: bank lending requirements in a bid to help ease the
Speaker 2: housing crisis. All of that when we get to the papers.
Speaker 2: But first, imagine you wanted to do something to help
Speaker 2: one of Australia's poor at nations, say Papua New Guinea
Speaker 2: becomes stronger and more prosperous.
Speaker 3: Well, here's an idea with merit.
Speaker 2: What if Australian taxpayers paid for p andng's youngest and
Speaker 2: brightest students to come here and study at our universities.
Speaker 2: Then they could go back home and implement what they'd
Speaker 2: learned to make their own country stronger, more secure, and
Speaker 2: more prosperous.
Speaker 3: It's a good.
Speaker 2: Idea, right, and it's been happening under the Foreign Affairs Department.
Speaker 2: Every year Papua New Guinea's brightest students are invited to
Speaker 2: apply for scholarships where taxpayers here in Australia would pay
Speaker 2: for their flights here, pay for their tuition, their living expenses,
Speaker 2: and even their health care. And it's pretty obvious the
Speaker 2: sorts of things we would train these young people from
Speaker 2: p and G in We'd train them in agriculture, in education,
Speaker 2: and in medicine, or at least you would.
Speaker 3: Think that's what we would do.
Speaker 2: The Albanize government, however, in their infinite wisdom, are now
Speaker 2: strongly urging these young people from p ANDNG to take
Speaker 2: up these scholarships not to study education nor medicine, but
Speaker 2: to study gender disabilities and climate. It's almost like the
Speaker 2: Albanese government leave P ANDNG needs less doctors, less farmers,
Speaker 2: less teachers, and a lot more unemployed activists. And I
Speaker 2: suppose if the goal is to help P and G
Speaker 2: people discover what it's like to be a modern Western
Speaker 2: nation that would.
Speaker 3: Fit the bill.
Speaker 2: I always thought foreign aid was about helping your friends,
Speaker 2: not destroying them. Now, Penny Wong's department, when asked about
Speaker 2: all of this, said no, No, they're still free to
Speaker 2: study education and medicine. It's just that we're broadening the
Speaker 2: opportunities for them live and they are and that says
Speaker 2: it in the handbook. They're strongly encouraging these young people
Speaker 2: to do gender studies, climate studies. How does that help
Speaker 2: Papua New Guinea progress as a nation?
Speaker 3: It's destroying Western nations. Why would P and G students
Speaker 3: want to study that.
Speaker 4: They've got to trust that any students who are hoping,
Speaker 4: obviously this is a massive opportunity for them to further
Speaker 4: indeed selves, they'll be smart enough to say no. But
Speaker 4: the fact that the government's trying this on is utterly disgusting.
Speaker 4: When we talk about P and G, we're talking about
Speaker 4: a country in which over forty percent of the population
Speaker 4: live beneath the internationally recognized poverty line of two dollars
Speaker 4: and fifteen cents a day, A whopping sixty seven point
Speaker 4: seven percent live below what's recognized as I couldn't believe
Speaker 4: this this is the middle class poverty line of three
Speaker 4: dollars and sixty five cents a day. And this is
Speaker 4: how our government is encouraging their young people to dig
Speaker 4: their country out of this massive generational poverty that's been
Speaker 4: the state of P and G for countless generations.
Speaker 1: It makes perfect sense, actually, I think, because of course,
Speaker 1: the issue is that we are worried as Australia that
Speaker 1: you know, China might start closing up to P and G,
Speaker 1: one of our closest neighbors, and so we must do
Speaker 1: something about it. And we've been providing them with aid
Speaker 1: and the scholarships, et cetera to bring students to Australia.
Speaker 1: So if you give them scholarships and things that are
Speaker 1: utterly useless, they won't be able to go back to
Speaker 1: their nation and improve their nation, which means they'll be
Speaker 1: joined at the hit to us. And if China ever
Speaker 1: decides to go down there and think about taking the place,
Speaker 1: they'll realize in five minutes flat that there's nothing worth
Speaker 1: taking there and they'll go straight back to China. That's
Speaker 1: the only thing I can think of as to why
Speaker 1: you would possibly be doing this, because surely it is
Speaker 1: in the interests of Australia. If we're talking about a
Speaker 1: close neighbor, to potentially create a great trading partner, to
Speaker 1: create a country next to us that is stronger and
Speaker 1: with us, not a country that's full of students who
Speaker 1: came to Australia and study gender studies and disability, et cetera.
Speaker 1: I can't possibly see what it gives to us, let
Speaker 1: alone to them. And isn't that the whole point of
Speaker 1: making the investment.
Speaker 2: It's just another reason why we need a Doge style
Speaker 2: implementation here in Australia to go through all of our
Speaker 2: government spending, because I mean, this is just one example.
Speaker 3: I'm sure if you went through all of.
Speaker 2: Our aid programs, well, the Treasure Trove dozens and dozens
Speaker 2: of programs that taxpayers paying for that are not helping
Speaker 2: at all, not benefiting, but ideological fantasies enacted by public
Speaker 2: servants in camera.
Speaker 4: Indeed, and as we've talked about ad nauseum, China always
Speaker 4: has deeper pockets. So when it comes to us trying
Speaker 4: to cozy up by our friends, our neighbors, it doesn't
Speaker 4: work anyway, because China will always have far more money
Speaker 4: than us and get way further using the exact same
Speaker 4: mechanism that we're trying to use, which is basically buy loyalty,
Speaker 4: which is impossible. That will always go to the highest bidder,
Speaker 4: and the highest bidder will always be China.
Speaker 1: I'll tell you something that we spend money on the
Speaker 1: textpayer in Australia, but China does not spend money on.
Speaker 1: That's consultants. Because of course, if u jijinping, you don't
Speaker 1: need consultants. You just need people who say yes, comrade,
Speaker 1: if you're a consultant, I think you get bumped off essentially.
Speaker 1: If you dare to tell Gi that he is wrong
Speaker 1: about something, he doesn't need advice. He is the oracle
Speaker 1: of all wisdom. But we do it here in Australia
Speaker 1: because governments aren't confident that they can make decisions for themselves,
Speaker 1: or that the bureaucrats that they are paying hundreds of
Speaker 1: thousands of dollars to every year can't actually do the
Speaker 1: jobs for which they've been employed, so they keep going
Speaker 1: off to the private sector and paying people in companies
Speaker 1: like PwC and KPMG, et cetera to tell governments what
Speaker 1: should be done about various issues. Now, in New South Wales,
Speaker 1: the previous coalition state government paid more than a billion
Speaker 1: dollars for consultants over their terms. So the men's government said,
Speaker 1: we've got to do something about this, we need to
Speaker 1: rain this in. So today rightfully they announced what they
Speaker 1: call the Expert Advisory Network, which is a crazy idea
Speaker 1: where they're going to get bureaucrats who have expertise in
Speaker 1: things and get them together and essentially used them as
Speaker 1: in house consultants. Who would have ever thought that the
Speaker 1: people that you've got on the books, that you were
Speaker 1: paying with our money should be the ones looking into
Speaker 1: how things should be done in government or revolutionary But
Speaker 1: you know what else they've been doing. They thought, gee,
Speaker 1: we need to do an investigation into exactly what we're
Speaker 1: spending across the public service, what we're spending it on,
Speaker 1: who we're spending it on, and how we can reduce
Speaker 1: our alliance on consultants. So who do you think they
Speaker 1: got to do the job? Consultants? I'm not kidding. KPMG
Speaker 1: has been paid one hundred and seventy six grand by
Speaker 1: the new South Wales state government to put together a
Speaker 1: report on, amongst other things, how to cut consultants. This
Speaker 1: is from the Daily Telegraph today. They say that the
Speaker 1: New South walesh Treasury refused to say what KPMG was
Speaker 1: going to do to earn it one hundred and seventy
Speaker 1: six K, but said that the operational review would assess
Speaker 1: the current operating environment for New South Wales government procurement
Speaker 1: to ensure that it continues to support delivery of outcomes
Speaker 1: for the people of New South Wales. Whatever the hell
Speaker 1: that means. Well, I can't these people. You know, I've
Speaker 1: been a journalist my whole career and I read these things.
Speaker 1: I've dealt with these responses that my entire career. Can
Speaker 1: you just speak in a language that we can all understand?
Speaker 1: I mean, essentially, what they're saying is we paid consultants
Speaker 1: to tell us how to pay them less in future.
Speaker 1: It's like asking Johnny down at the tech shop what
Speaker 1: you can do to get people to buy fewer sausage rolls.
Speaker 1: He doesn't want you to buy a fewer sausage rolls,
Speaker 1: does he? He wants you to buy more of them.
Speaker 1: How stupid can we be? Mark Speakman, the opposition leader
Speaker 1: in New South Wales, said that labor spending one hundred
Speaker 1: and seventy six grand on consultants for report on consultants
Speaker 1: is like a scene out of Utopia. Yet sadly this
Speaker 1: farce is real life at the expense of taxpayers, not fiction.
Speaker 1: And it's interesting that he mentions that it's like a
Speaker 1: scene out of Utopia, because now I'm meeting this evening
Speaker 1: before we put this program to air, I said there
Speaker 1: must be a scene somewhere in yes, Minister, and Liz said,
Speaker 1: or there'd be one in Utopia that is exactly this
Speaker 1: when they have paid consultants to do a report into
Speaker 1: how to have fewer consultants and I went looking for
Speaker 1: it and I couldn't find one. So the New South
Speaker 1: Wales government has managed to beat even the best in
Speaker 1: the business at Lampooning. Government's unbelievable.
Speaker 2: I mean, KPMG, I've got a massive conflict of interest
Speaker 2: here right, because over the past five years they've gotten
Speaker 2: more than seventy million dollars from the New South Wales
Speaker 2: state government in consultancy fees. And so now they're going
Speaker 2: to advise how the government can use less consultants. I'm
Speaker 2: not sure how committed they'd be to that job. But
Speaker 2: this all arises out of an Order to General's report
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty three because of concerns about a billion
Speaker 2: dollars in consultancy fees over just five years in New
Speaker 2: South Wales. And what the Order to General found was
Speaker 2: that twenty percent of that billion dollars was spent on
Speaker 2: consultants who had no specialist skills.
Speaker 3: They were just being used because.
Speaker 2: Well, most government employee exactly anyone could have done it.
Speaker 2: And so they found there was no strategic approach to
Speaker 2: engaging consultants. Not only that, but when consultants were engaged,
Speaker 2: there was no management, there was no evaluation of the results,
Speaker 2: and oftentimes, can you believe this, there were conflicts between consultants,
Speaker 2: so two government departments would engage the same consultant to
Speaker 2: try and rule on a dispute. So the whole thing
Speaker 2: was a complete mess. So as crazy as this sounds, Caleb,
Speaker 2: it does seem like our public servants do need some
Speaker 2: instruction on how to engage consultants, when to engage consultants,
Speaker 2: and when not.
Speaker 3: To and that is what this is for. It's been
Speaker 3: such a mess.
Speaker 4: It's hardly reassuring when you've got a government who doesn't
Speaker 4: know how to save, Like, how can you not know
Speaker 4: how to save money, any flog off the street can
Speaker 4: be like, I've got some ideas about how you can
Speaker 4: cut spending and stop outsourcing the vast majority of the
Speaker 4: work that we pay you guys to do.
Speaker 3: But this is.
Speaker 4: Extraordinary timing for the Men's government because it was less
Speaker 4: than a month ago, on the second of February, they
Speaker 4: put out this massive announcement saying we have delivered on
Speaker 4: four hundred and fifty million dollars worth in savings on
Speaker 4: external consultants, on farming out our jobs to other people.
Speaker 4: And here we are less than a month later, and
Speaker 4: we find out that they're already chipping away at those savings,
Speaker 4: spending even more on consultants to be like, so, how
Speaker 4: do we cut down on these costs? I mean, was
Speaker 4: that just obviously it was just a headline like we
Speaker 4: had slash four hundred and fifty million dollars on external
Speaker 4: consultants and individual contractors in our first year of government.
Speaker 4: This is just the beginning, ladies and gentlemen. And then
Speaker 4: we find out that they're actually hiring more consultants to
Speaker 4: find out how to do the very thing that they've
Speaker 4: actually said they've already done.
Speaker 2: Condoms of slack if they saved four hundred and fifty
Speaker 2: million without consultants. Imagine how much they could save with
Speaker 2: we So we don't know.
Speaker 4: That they did that without consultative year.
Speaker 5: Maybe it wasn't KPMG.
Speaker 4: You've got to trust that KPMG are doing this going Uh,
Speaker 4: these guys have been our cash cow to the tune
Speaker 4: of seventy million over.
Speaker 5: The past five years.
Speaker 4: I'm sure we're not amongst the consultants that they're looking
Speaker 4: at cutting.
Speaker 5: I'm sure where safe.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 4: Peter Dutton has vowed that should you elect a coalition government,
Speaker 4: we will not be hosting COP thirty one in twenty
Speaker 4: twenty six. Now this was an Albanese government promise long before.
Speaker 5: They came to power.
Speaker 4: They were going to be hosting this the typical thing
Speaker 4: every single year where all the countries converge in one place,
Speaker 4: tens of thousands of people in the host country facilitates
Speaker 4: the negotiations between more than two hundred countries figuring out
Speaker 4: how do we that and survive the imminent doom from
Speaker 4: climate change. Well, Labor had its heartset that that place
Speaker 4: would be Australia in twenty twenty six. Here's Dutton saying,
Speaker 4: made under a government I lead, it's not going to happen.
Speaker 6: The government's planning to spend tens of billions of taxpayers
Speaker 6: dollars on hosting a cop process that's not going to
Speaker 6: bring down power prices, and is going to sign a
Speaker 6: labor government up to giving tens or hundreds of billions
Speaker 6: of dollars out to third party countries. I mean, it's
Speaker 6: just it's mad, So that's not something we're supporting.
Speaker 4: So to be clear, hosting it wouldn't cost that much.
Speaker 4: In twenty twenty, Madrid spent just one hundred million dollars
Speaker 4: and in the following year Glasgow forked out two hundred
Speaker 4: and fifty million dollars to host it, but that was
Speaker 4: because of all the COVID stuff at the time, so
Speaker 4: it made it significantly more expensive for them. And many
Speaker 4: of these countries say that it's a net economic gain
Speaker 4: when all these people pile into the country. So there's
Speaker 4: that green tick for us if it were to go ahead,
Speaker 4: which I think it will, because we'll still have an
Speaker 4: alb and eazy government. Of course, we won't find out
Speaker 4: until June of next year who's hosting it. The biggest
Speaker 4: steak is Turkey, who reckons it's going to have it
Speaker 4: at all costs. But what Dutton's talking about there is
Speaker 4: collectively countries do get together and commit tens of billions
Speaker 4: of dollars to Pacific island nations and other poorer countries
Speaker 4: to combat climate change, to which I.
Speaker 5: Say, Australia would be doing that anyway.
Speaker 4: Every year we send our contingent and every year we
Speaker 4: promise billions of dollars to this and I genuinely don't
Speaker 4: believe that that would be any different under a coalition government.
Speaker 4: It hasn't been in the past and it won't be
Speaker 4: under a Dutton led government.
Speaker 2: It seems to be the cost in hosting COP is
Speaker 2: not staging the event. That's just putting on an event.
Speaker 2: And sure you get there economic benefit of what thirty
Speaker 2: thousand people flying in in their jets using avgas and
Speaker 2: staying in all your best hotels and eating all your
Speaker 2: steak and so on. But the real cost is proving
Speaker 2: your climate credentials in order to be voted as the host.
Speaker 2: So Chris Bowen at the last COP conference committed two
Speaker 2: hundred million dollars US from Australia for climate financing. There
Speaker 2: was fifty million dollars for Australia Pacific Partnership for Energy Transition,
Speaker 2: another fifty million dollars for responding to loss and damage
Speaker 2: through climate change, and all of this was done to
Speaker 2: demonstrate that we are serious about climate change and therefore
Speaker 2: worthy as hosts in twenty twenty six, which will be
Speaker 2: a wonderful opportunity for Anthony Albanesi and Chris Bowen to
Speaker 2: grandstand on the world stage. But then the other cost
Speaker 2: is having been approved as a worthy host, then you've
Speaker 2: got to be a worthy example, right, So you can't
Speaker 2: really host KOP thirty one and not contribute above and
Speaker 2: beyond just the average amount of money. So the cost
Speaker 2: is not in staging the event, it's in winning approval
Speaker 2: to stage it and then providing an example as the
Speaker 2: host country that the government are going to blow huge
Speaker 2: amounts of money on this for a grand standing opportunity.
Speaker 2: It's not going to help Australians, as Peter Dutton said,
Speaker 2: it won't make a scrap of difference to our lives,
Speaker 2: except there will be more money going out the door.
Speaker 1: Well, just send him a copy of any Australian's power
Speaker 1: bill over the last couple of months. I think that
Speaker 1: or to show why we deserve to have it, or
Speaker 1: where we've done more for climate change than any other
Speaker 1: bugger on the face of the earth, haven't we. I
Speaker 1: think we should have it free of charge, given what
Speaker 1: we're paying through the nose to help climate change with
Speaker 1: renewable energy. I mean, you know, agent, it's all good
Speaker 1: will to have a laugh about these people who care
Speaker 1: on about climate change and then fly in on their
Speaker 1: private jets and talk about the carbon emissions of cows
Speaker 1: and eat the steak and whatever. But you know what,
Speaker 1: I don't really care if it's a conference that brings
Speaker 1: some economic benefit into the town, like government's pump money
Speaker 1: into sports or whatever other events. I couldn't really give
Speaker 1: a toss what it is. And you don't really have
Speaker 1: to prove how great your economic credential. You're non economic
Speaker 1: given some of the countries that have having it don't
Speaker 1: have to prove economic credentials, and nor does this government
Speaker 1: happening your environmental credentials because because you know, this year
Speaker 1: COP thirty is being held in Brazil and they're not
Speaker 1: entirely sure how to get all the attendees to the
Speaker 1: place where it's going to be held, So you know,
Speaker 1: what they're doing they're cutting down swathes of the Amazonian
Speaker 1: rainforest to build a highway so they can transport them.
Speaker 1: So if you can do that in the name of
Speaker 1: helping the environment by hosting COP thirty, that I can't
Speaker 1: possibly see how we need to spend a cent or
Speaker 1: do anything in order to deserve to get it. I
Speaker 1: think we should be issuing and good Honest, I just.
Speaker 4: Don't even know why we're even having these shindigs anymore.
Speaker 4: The Trump administration has pulled out of the Paris Agreements. Okay,
Speaker 4: nothing we do can possibly compare to the might of
Speaker 4: the Americans when it comes to but in climate change,
Speaker 4: they're the biggest emitter. For crying out loud, that're right
Speaker 4: up there with China and India.
Speaker 5: So when you've got America.
Speaker 4: Saying we're pulling the plug, we're not doing any of
Speaker 4: this crap anymore. We are simply putting America first. We're
Speaker 4: doing whatever it takes drill, baby, drill. We're doing whatever
Speaker 4: it takes yay fossil fuels to get cheap energy, to
Speaker 4: get manufacturing off the ground. We are going to be
Speaker 4: We're going back to the roaring days of American manufacturing.
Speaker 4: Once you've had that happen, it's like the penny hasn't
Speaker 4: dropped with anybody else. They are so committed to this
Speaker 4: ideology they can't even see that whatever you do from
Speaker 4: here on in is utterly useless.
Speaker 2: You mentioned one of the other great hypocrisies of climate policy,
Speaker 2: and that is China, of course, who are regarded as
Speaker 2: a developing nation, despite the fact they've got nuclear weapons,
Speaker 2: they've got a space station for goodness sake, and they're
Speaker 2: bullying first world nations, including Australia, and yet somehow they're
Speaker 2: developing and they still get exemption from a lot of
Speaker 2: the climate regulations that apply to US. China last month
Speaker 2: had three warships conducting live firing exercises off the coast
Speaker 2: of Sydney, and this month, in a story broken by
Speaker 2: our colleague Sharry Marxon on sky News dot com dot AU,
Speaker 2: the Chinese have got a research vessel off the coast
Speaker 2: of South Australia doing reconnaissance. Now, this ninety four meter
Speaker 2: research vessel can map the ocean floor, which would be
Speaker 2: very handy in the event of conflict if you needed
Speaker 2: submarines to traverse through that area of the ocean, if
Speaker 2: you wanted to cut under sea cables.
Speaker 3: Or even plant mines. But don't worry about it.
Speaker 2: Anthony Albanesi, just as he was all over the low
Speaker 2: firing exercise, is all over this one as well.
Speaker 3: Here he is speaking today.
Speaker 7: What we have done is we continuing to monitor it.
Speaker 7: We won't, for obvious reasons, broadcast everything that we're doing,
Speaker 7: but we're keeping an eye on this as we do.
Speaker 1: As we do well, what does monitoring actually mean?
Speaker 7: What it means is that the Australian Defense Force are
Speaker 7: monitoring what is happening. It's going from New Zealand. We
Speaker 7: expect it to go around to China, around that way.
Speaker 5: Australia.
Speaker 1: Of course, what it's doing.
Speaker 7: I would prefer that it wasn't there, But we live
Speaker 7: in circumstances where just as Australia has vessels in South
Speaker 7: China Sea and vessels in the Taiwan Straight and a
Speaker 7: round of a range of areas, this vessel is there.
Speaker 3: I'll tell you what it's got to fit you with confidence?
Speaker 3: Doesn't it about our national security?
Speaker 2: When asked what does monitoring mean, Anthony Albanesi replies, monitoring
Speaker 2: means monitoring, so that's encouraging.
Speaker 4: Does that mean we've led the domestic Virgin Airline pilots
Speaker 4: for cheap and I.
Speaker 3: No, no, we're doing better than Virgin Airline pips. We've
Speaker 3: got a piano.
Speaker 2: Cruse okay, monitoring and keeping the ADF informed.
Speaker 3: And then of course asked if he was concerned, he's
Speaker 3: I'd prefer it wasn't there.
Speaker 2: And as for Australia having vessels in the South China Sea, yeah,
Speaker 2: but they're not spying on the Chinese.
Speaker 3: And if they were, do you think.
Speaker 2: That the the Jiji pig would say, well, I'd prefer
Speaker 2: the Australians weren't there, honestly, and these guys do not
Speaker 2: have a clue.
Speaker 1: And do you think we're floating boats into China's Exclusive
Speaker 1: Economic zone because that is where this boat has gone.
Speaker 1: It's in Australia's waters, they're not in international waters.
Speaker 2: It's worth the Australian reporting just in the last hour
Speaker 2: or so that they contacted Richard Marlessey's the Defense Minister
Speaker 2: wanting comment on this right, well, that would be reasonable
Speaker 2: fair and the Defense Office referred them to Tony Burke,
Speaker 2: he's responsible Home.
Speaker 3: Affairs and Border Force.
Speaker 2: Because it's in Australia's Exclusive Economic zone. So it's a
Speaker 2: border force issue, not a defense issue.
Speaker 3: Can you believe.
Speaker 1: I'll tell you one thing though, It proves once again
Speaker 1: that South Australia is the jewel in the crown of
Speaker 1: this country because that's the first place they've gone to
Speaker 1: go monitoring, because they know, if whatever comes to it,
Speaker 1: that's the territory they want to take.
Speaker 3: We're going to go to a break.
Speaker 2: When we come back, we'll look at what's making news tomorrow,
Speaker 2: including Peter Dutton under fire because he doesn't want to
Speaker 2: live in Cambre rather live in Sydney. Okay, let's take
Speaker 2: a look at what's making news tomorrow. We'll start with
Speaker 2: the Adelaide Advertiser. As we were talking about before the break.
Speaker 2: The story there is all about this Chinese research ship, which,
Speaker 2: according to the advertiser, is following communications lines the cable
Speaker 2: spy says the headline, a Chinese spy ship is following
Speaker 2: the path of a critical underwater internet and communication cable
Speaker 2: off the South Australian coast and threatens the nation's security,
Speaker 2: according to a senior national defense and analyst. Meanwhile, Anthony
Speaker 2: Albanizi says, yes, this ship can map the ocean floor.
Speaker 2: It's an interesting time for this research vessel to be
Speaker 2: off the coast because, of course, if China want to
Speaker 2: help Anthony alban Esi when the election, which you imagine
Speaker 2: they probably would, Peter Dutton would be much harder, you
Speaker 2: would hope on foreign policy towards China. This comes at
Speaker 2: a really bad time for Albanesi because it brings to
Speaker 2: the for the coalition's strength, which is national security to
Speaker 2: some degree.
Speaker 1: But something makes me think that maybe they're testing Albanesi
Speaker 1: a little bit just to see how much of a
Speaker 1: friend he actually is at this particular time and what
Speaker 1: he's willing to say or not say in the midst
Speaker 1: of an election campaign. And they know what they would
Speaker 1: get from Dutton, so it doesn't really matter what he says.
Speaker 1: I think they're trying to test him a little bit.
Speaker 1: And you've got to ask the question, for what purpose
Speaker 1: would China be doing this other than to gather intel
Speaker 1: for potential conflict. There is no other reason that you
Speaker 1: would be following with a vessel that can map the
Speaker 1: seabed where there are communications cables, and this is of
Speaker 1: course how wars will be fought in future. If you
Speaker 1: want to bring down a country, you want to bring
Speaker 1: a country to its knees. You cut off its communications
Speaker 1: because then people can't spend money because everyone's got to
Speaker 1: credit cards, but not many people have cash. They can't
Speaker 1: use the internet. That is the thing that will prime
Speaker 1: a country for invasion. That's why they want to know
Speaker 1: where these cables are. There's no other explanation for it.
Speaker 4: But if Duds wants to show off his strong suit,
Speaker 4: he should come out and say what he'd do differently,
Speaker 4: because at the end of the day, every time we
Speaker 4: have one of these run ins with China doing stuff
Speaker 4: that it shouldn't be doing, I feel like our PM,
Speaker 4: no matter who they are, is just like pretty much helpless.
Speaker 5: Even if the rhetoric is.
Speaker 4: Different and more forward and will punch them in their face,
Speaker 4: they're not really going to do it.
Speaker 5: What are you going to do? It's China, what are
Speaker 5: you going to do?
Speaker 3: To be fair.
Speaker 1: Exactly, and we saw what happened that. That's why they're scared,
Speaker 1: because China turned around and slap the tariff's on them.
Speaker 5: That's what I mean.
Speaker 4: So again, as if another PM is going to make
Speaker 4: that mistake, I don't think so. To the front page
Speaker 4: of the Canberra Times, now five fo worker reads the Splash.
Speaker 4: Peter Dutton wants public servants back in the office five
Speaker 4: days a week, but says he will live in Sydney
Speaker 4: and commute to Canberra if he becomes Prime minister. Obviously,
Speaker 4: the Canberra Times has taken great umbrage to this. Peter
Speaker 4: Dutton is quoted on the front pages saying, when you've
Speaker 4: got a choice, I think you'd take Sydney any day
Speaker 4: over Canberra. As someone who lived in Canberra for two years,
Speaker 4: I say here here, buddy, I wouldn't recommend Canberra to
Speaker 4: a dog I didn't like. It is the armpit of Australia.
Speaker 4: The summers are sweltering, the winters.
Speaker 5: You feel like you're in the Arctic.
Speaker 4: Whether you're talking weather or demographics. It's just full of
Speaker 4: bureaucrats who are only there for a year or two.
Speaker 5: So even the community wise is really weird.
Speaker 4: It's flooded with people during sitting weeks, it's a ghost
Speaker 4: town during non sitting weeks. It is the worst place
Speaker 4: to live in Australia my humble opinion. And they wanted
Speaker 4: to take a digit in for stating the obvious.
Speaker 5: Yes, Sydney over Camera any day.
Speaker 2: To my good friend Sean and Linda Stanton, who live
Speaker 2: in the finest of camera and watch the show regularly.
Speaker 2: I does want you to know we still love you
Speaker 2: and all your other Cambrians.
Speaker 3: I'll go out to you despite everything Liz has just said.
Speaker 3: They know that what I said is but they're allowed
Speaker 3: to say it. They live there. We don't.
Speaker 2: You know, if Peter Dutton wants to be more cognizant
Speaker 2: of what the everyday man is thinking, it makes sense
Speaker 2: for the PM not to live in the bubble but
Speaker 2: to live outside.
Speaker 3: Plus he's got a young family.
Speaker 2: Unlike Anthony Albans, he wouldn't want your kids growing up
Speaker 2: in Canberra. If they could grow up in northern Sydney
Speaker 2: overlooking the harbor, why wouldn't you live in I.
Speaker 1: Mean Canbra gets pretty bloody cold for an rpit, I
Speaker 1: have to say. And there's a distinct whiff of cologne
Speaker 1: and money in the air as opposed to bo when
Speaker 1: you go over there. But I love that they're trying
Speaker 1: to make this point about you know, he's so the
Speaker 1: public servants have to go back to the office. Bird
Speaker 1: here doesn't want to be in camera. You do realize
Speaker 1: he has an official the Prime Minister not Dutton because
Speaker 1: he ate PM yet has an official residence in Sydney.
Speaker 1: It's not like he's just saying, well, I'm just going
Speaker 1: to live in the middle of Timbuktu somewhere. That doesn't
Speaker 1: make any sense. He has an official residence in Sydney,
Speaker 1: and you know what the PM will be doing whoever
Speaker 1: it is on sitting weeks when he is required to
Speaker 1: be in Canberra, he will be in Canberra. What a
Speaker 1: strange idea. And you know what, He's still got an
Speaker 1: electorate in Queensland, so you're tell him he's got to
Speaker 1: be in Canberra all the time. But he's got an
Speaker 1: electric in Queensland that he has to look after, and
Speaker 1: an official residence in Sydney. But he's got to be
Speaker 1: in Candra because all you schmacks have to live there
Speaker 1: will if you don't like it, perhaps he shouldn't have
Speaker 1: taken a contract that required in a live in Canberra,
Speaker 1: should you. Let's go to the front of the odds
Speaker 1: tomorrow where lo and behold another problem with these n
Speaker 1: z YQ detail. This time Detaneese walked to freedom through
Speaker 1: mandatory sentence loophole. Give me strength. Anthony Alberanese's mandatory minimum
Speaker 1: sentencing laws threatening twelve months jail for hundreds of dangerous
Speaker 1: n zed Yq non citizens who breach visa conditions have
Speaker 1: been bungled. How many times have we heard that word
Speaker 1: with a loophole allowing offenders sorry to remain free. Department
Speaker 1: of Home Affairs officials have confirmed that laws passed in
Speaker 1: November twenty twenty three do not require judges to impose
Speaker 1: one year jail sentences and acknowledge the Parliament would need
Speaker 1: to amend laws to remove the judicial flexibility. I mean,
Speaker 1: is there anything in relation to this in zed Yq
Speaker 1: case that the government got right? And who would have thought,
Speaker 1: after going through all of that pain that here, you know,
Speaker 1: thirty odd days out from an election, that it would
Speaker 1: be rearing its head again.
Speaker 2: That The craziest part about this story is the revelation
Speaker 2: came at a Senate Estimates Committee hearing. Under questioning, a
Speaker 2: public servant just lets loose, Oh yeah, there's a bit
Speaker 2: of a loophole with the legislation. And then when James
Speaker 2: Patterson asked, well, could that loophole be changed by the Parliament,
Speaker 2: the public servant said, oh yeah, which makes a question,
Speaker 2: why does that loophole still exist. Why hasn't it been closed?
Speaker 2: Why are we hearing about it in senate estimates when
Speaker 2: a public servant just happens to mention it as an
Speaker 2: offhanded comment.
Speaker 4: Indeed, and this was like a casual So there was
Speaker 4: Stephanie Foster. The article says she revealed the government didn't
Speaker 4: anticipate the risks associated with the laws. Since the release
Speaker 4: of the three hundred detainees, including murderers, pedophiles and rapists,
Speaker 4: more than a third have reoffended. But despite the fact
Speaker 4: that they knew that these guys were murderers, rapists and pedophiles,
Speaker 4: they they didn't see this being an issue that judges
Speaker 4: weren't even required to be like, oh, at least a year,
Speaker 4: but how.
Speaker 5: Could you not foresee this?
Speaker 4: Over a third of them have reoffended and they're just like,
Speaker 4: who could have seen this coming? These criminals are committing crimes.
Speaker 1: Columny shop Dank have another story on the front of
Speaker 1: the Olds tomorrow. We're getting into the nitty gritty of
Speaker 1: the election campaign now. We're finally starting to see some
Speaker 1: policies drop from the coalition, one of which, it says,
Speaker 1: Dutton's bid to be the Home loan ranger fire off
Speaker 1: the William tell overture, Peter Dutton will direct the Financial
Speaker 1: Regulator to these onerous home lending rules that are considered
Speaker 1: to be locking Australians out of the market and creating
Speaker 1: a class of mortgage prisoners. As the Liberal leader goes
Speaker 1: into bat for young bars who don't have access to
Speaker 1: the bank of Mum and Dad, declaring that the housing
Speaker 1: market has become biased in favor of inherited wealth, that
Speaker 1: he's not wrong in saying that. Opposition Housing spokesman Michael
Speaker 1: Suka has pledged to rewrite the rule book for borrowers
Speaker 1: to allow greater access to home ownership if the Coalition
Speaker 1: is elected on May three. And I see the merit
Speaker 1: in what is being suggest here. But surely when you
Speaker 1: already have all these extra margrants who are swimming around
Speaker 1: looking for homes, who've come in a lot of them
Speaker 1: with a lot of money to begin with, if you
Speaker 1: say it's easier to get alone, it means there are
Speaker 1: even more people vying for homes and that increases the
Speaker 1: value of properties. I understand what they're trying to achieve,
Speaker 1: but I'm not sure that it actually in the long
Speaker 1: term helps that many people apart from those who already
Speaker 1: own the property.
Speaker 2: Well, we'll see over the next five weeks whether Dutton
Speaker 2: starts to cut through with some of these policies. We're
Speaker 2: going to go to a break when we come back.
Speaker 2: Speaking of the election, Anthony Albanesi with an absolute clangt
Speaker 2: today when asked whether he would be interested in sharing
Speaker 2: power with the Greens, will show you that.
Speaker 3: In just a moment. Welcome back.
Speaker 2: Well, the election campaign is well and truly underway, and
Speaker 2: liz anthe Albaneze he didn't have a great moment today.
Speaker 4: No, it's only day three and this guy has committed
Speaker 4: a most embarrassing gaff. Of course, everyone wants to know,
Speaker 4: in the case of a huh parliament, will you get
Speaker 4: into bed with the Greens?
Speaker 5: This is his response today.
Speaker 7: If you ask me, do you rule out governing and
Speaker 7: coalition with the Greens? He answered that is no, no, no,
Speaker 7: I don't negotiate with the Greens. I'm about my campaign
Speaker 7: team in Green Life is about campaigning against the Greens
Speaker 7: and I'm very confident that will be successful.
Speaker 5: Well, was that a Freudian slip? Prime Minister?
Speaker 4: We all know you do anything to hold on to
Speaker 4: powerk come on, it's somewhat reminiscent of one Stephen Marshall
Speaker 4: back in twenty fourteen he was a South Australian opposition leader.
Speaker 5: On the eve of the election.
Speaker 4: The following day, this is what he had to say
Speaker 4: to South Australians.
Speaker 8: It's been grueling, there's no doubt about it. But we're
Speaker 8: only a few short hours now away from when the
Speaker 8: polls open, and I think if people in South Australia
Speaker 8: won't change they want a better future, grower economy, than
Speaker 8: they need to vote labor tomorrow.
Speaker 5: And they did. They voted labor tomorrow and.
Speaker 4: That guy didn't become premier until another four years later,
Speaker 4: and then, of.
Speaker 1: Course he lasted one term. So they voted labor on
Speaker 1: many occasions under the tutelage of Stephen Marshall. But there
Speaker 1: you go. Let's take the Prime Minister at his word.
Speaker 1: Has he ruled out doing a deal with the Greens?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 1: I think that's probably the truth. Before we go tonight,
Speaker 1: how about this cat down in Melbourne. It got on
Speaker 1: a train at Saint Albans, went all the way into
Speaker 1: the Flint Street station. In the CPD you can see
Speaker 1: the cat jumping on board the doors open, he walked
Speaker 1: straight through. Didn't have a Mikey pass on him apparently,
Speaker 1: so he's a fair of vader. And what's about a
Speaker 1: twenty kilometer trip he's taken. You can see him there
Speaker 1: looking cute as a button the Premier Center. Allen posted
Speaker 1: about it and said that he didn't have a Mikey
Speaker 1: to touch on her off, but some kind passengers took
Speaker 1: care of him. But you know, for all of his adventuring,
Speaker 1: and you can imagine Matthew Flinder's cat would be very
Speaker 1: proud of this young fella. He's now been taken into
Speaker 1: custody and they haven't just put him. I mean you'd
Speaker 1: think like a cat home or something. They put him
Speaker 1: in the lost dogs home. I mean for being such
Speaker 1: an adventurous fella going where no cat has gone before.
Speaker 1: On the train to Flinders Street station from Saint Albans.
Speaker 1: He's been punished with custodies, been locked up. I think
Speaker 1: it's a disgrace.
Speaker 2: That's because he didn't have a Micy. That's it from us.
Speaker 2: Stick Around.
Speaker 3: Coming up is the readA Penney show Goodn't