Speaker 1: Live on Sky News.
Speaker 2: This is Shari Good Evening. Calib Bond in for Shari tonight.
Speaker 2: Coming up on the program, Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek under
Speaker 2: more pressure over her dodgy decision to hold a billion
Speaker 2: dollar gold mine. Now one of the biggest labor affiliated
Speaker 2: unions has spoken out. Gary Hartgrave and Darren Barnett will
Speaker 2: join me to talk about that. Also on the show,
Speaker 2: a teenager who attacked the office of a Jewish MP
Speaker 2: won't be given a criminal record. Peter Wertheim from the
Speaker 2: Executive Council of Australian Jury will be on the show.
Speaker 2: And are you over the age of fifty and drive well,
Speaker 2: you might be in a bit of trouble because a
Speaker 2: new report is suggesting that you should be forced to
Speaker 2: refresh your memory with some mandatory lessons. Car Expert founder
Speaker 2: Paul Marrick. We'll discuss that with me later now. Tanya Plibiseik,
Speaker 2: of course, as I said before, pressure is mounting on her,
Speaker 2: the Environment Minister, over her decision to stop the mcphillamy's
Speaker 2: gold mine in New South Wales after the biggest union
Speaker 2: in the country sorry condemned her reasoning. The Australian Workers' Union,
Speaker 2: of course, inextricably linked to the Labor Party, has voted
Speaker 2: to censium as Plibasik for blocking the billion dollar min
Speaker 2: and over concerns its tailing dam would be detrimental to
Speaker 2: Aboriginal heritage. The Daily Telegraph reported today that the AWU
Speaker 2: members passed the motion at the union's national conference in
Speaker 2: Perth yesterday, accusing her of not providing any real evidence
Speaker 2: to support her decision. The motion read quote the minister's
Speaker 2: declaration relies on a little used provision that affords the
Speaker 2: Minister wide discretion to make a decision regarding an area
Speaker 2: after receiving a report seeking to preserve that area from
Speaker 2: injury or desecration. However, in issuing the declaration blocking the
Speaker 2: mcphillamy's mind, the Minister failed to produce any evidence used
Speaker 2: to justify their decision. This amounts to a lack of
Speaker 2: transparency transparency sorry, and gives rise to uestions around rigor
Speaker 2: and fairness in the decision making process. AWU New South
Speaker 2: Wales Secretary Tony Callanan also told The Daily Telegraph that
Speaker 2: the decision to block the mcphillamy's mine without a shred
Speaker 2: of evidence is an insult to the workers of Blaney
Speaker 2: and every community that depends on mining. When six hundred
Speaker 2: livelihoods are on the line, the least the government can
Speaker 2: do is be transparent. AWU members and the entire mining
Speaker 2: community deserve better than decisions made in the dark. The
Speaker 2: AWU stands with the people of Blaney and demands a
Speaker 2: fair process. The Minister should put all the evidence on
Speaker 2: the table for all to see. The workers of Blaney
Speaker 2: deserve far better. The AWU won't stand by while six
Speaker 2: hundred jobs are lost because of political games played behind
Speaker 2: closed doors. And that's the real point here. Was the
Speaker 2: decision to block a billion dollar mine on the Bay
Speaker 2: of Aboriginal Heritage, even though it wasn't opposed by the
Speaker 2: local Aboriginal Land Council a decision based in fact and
Speaker 2: what is best for the environment, or would it be
Speaker 2: because it would best appeal to the voters of miss Pipersix,
Speaker 2: inner city seat of Sydney. We know, as I just
Speaker 2: said that the local Aboriginal Land Council, the body authorized
Speaker 2: to advise on matters of cultural heritage and the like,
Speaker 2: was not opposed to the project. His former New South
Speaker 2: Wales Aboriginal Land Council Chairman Roy RC.
Speaker 3: Just for the record, PRIs the Orange Low Abage Land
Speaker 3: Council wasn't opposed to the mind exactly right.
Speaker 1: There wasn't opposed.
Speaker 3: So what that says to me is that obviously they
Speaker 3: were happy with the surveys, the side assessments, etc.
Speaker 4: Etc.
Speaker 3: So what's happened here is the Minister at the Commonwealth
Speaker 3: level as listened to another group and that's very very concerning.
Speaker 2: We know that one of the indigenous people whose submission
Speaker 2: helped inform Miss pliber SC's decision, artist Nai Reynolds, sent
Speaker 2: in a series of her own paintings to explain why
Speaker 2: the mine should not be allowed to go ahead. We
Speaker 2: know that the artists who painted the blue Banded Bee
Speaker 2: Dreaming story mural that was used in Miss Plibertsex's evidence
Speaker 2: to halt the mine was a member of the main
Speaker 2: group that fought against the mine, and that the Orange
Speaker 2: Local Aboriginal Land Council had never previously heard of this story.
Speaker 2: Miss Plibersek, in her reasons, said she was satisfied that
Speaker 2: the proprietary and pecuniary impacts to the proponent and others
Speaker 2: do not outweigh the irreversible damage and permanent loss to
Speaker 2: the Aboriginal cultural heritage in the declared area, despite the
Speaker 2: fact that supposed cultural heritage is disputed. She also said,
Speaker 2: as I'm sure you know that the mining company Regis
Speaker 2: should just find another way to do the project.
Speaker 5: I haven't blocked a gold mine. I've said that the
Speaker 5: tailing stam that's proposed for the Goal mine can't be
Speaker 5: built on the headwaters and springs of the Belubula River.
Speaker 5: My decision applies to sixteen percent of a two and
Speaker 5: a half thousand hectare site, and I've made very clear
Speaker 5: that if the company goes ahead and moves the tailing stam,
Speaker 5: and they've said they've investigated thirty different design options for
Speaker 5: the tailing stam, then the project can go ahead.
Speaker 2: But Regis has now gone to the federal court to
Speaker 2: have the decision overturned because it says the mine is
Speaker 2: now unviable. MSS Blibisk still hasn't truly answered why this
Speaker 2: decision was made. She hasn't given any real evidence. She
Speaker 2: hasn't answered the competing stories between Aboriginal groups, or why
Speaker 2: she took the word of artists over the local Aboriginal
Speaker 2: Land Council and now the biggest union in the country,
Speaker 2: Labor Aligned Union says that she is playing political games.
Speaker 2: Is she the environment minister or the Minister for sandbagging
Speaker 2: life votes against the Greens. Well, it's now been confirmed
Speaker 2: that next year cigarettes will need to have a health warning,
Speaker 2: not only printed on the packet with that lovely baby
Speaker 2: pooh green color, but on the cigarettes themselves. By April,
Speaker 2: every cigarette has to have a warning on it. This
Speaker 2: is some of what you can expect.
Speaker 6: Some examples of the messages that might be used or
Speaker 6: that are open for public consultation are toxic addiction poisons
Speaker 6: in every puff causes sixteen cancers, damages your lungs.
Speaker 2: Can we just take a moment to acknowledge just how
Speaker 2: stupid that is? Does anyone in government, in public health
Speaker 2: anywhere believe this is actually going to stop anyone from smoking? Seriously,
Speaker 2: if you've managed to get past the decades of public
Speaker 2: health education, the anti smoking ads, the fact that cigarette
Speaker 2: adds are banned, the brow beating from the health teachers
Speaker 2: at school, the concern chats from friends and family, Oh,
Speaker 2: I think you should give up? Have you tried giving up?
Speaker 2: That's bad for you? You know? Of course, you know
Speaker 2: there's the dirty looks from busybodies on the street, the
Speaker 2: lecture every time you go to the doctor, the fact
Speaker 2: that you have to huddle in some hidden corner somewhere
Speaker 2: to smoke in public, and of course those graphic warnings
Speaker 2: on the front of the packet. And somehow, if you've
Speaker 2: managed to get past all of that, you open up
Speaker 2: the packet, you pull out a diarry, You see a
Speaker 2: trite slogan written on the side of the filter, and
Speaker 2: you go, that's it. I can't smoke. I've just realized
Speaker 2: that it's bad for me. I mean, there are only
Speaker 2: two reasons anyone is still smoking. They're either thoroughly addicted
Speaker 2: and no matter how hard they try, they can't give
Speaker 2: it up, or they thoroughly enjoy it, and no matter
Speaker 2: how hard you try to make them give it up,
Speaker 2: they won't. No one is sucked into smoking anymore, a
Speaker 2: minority activity hated by most people. Writing that death is
Speaker 2: near on the side of a cigarette isn't going to
Speaker 2: turn the dial. Honestly, how can anyone with even half
Speaker 2: a brain think that this is actually going to do
Speaker 2: anything except perhaps drive even more people to the illegal
Speaker 2: tobacco market, which is huge. It's about a third of
Speaker 2: the entire tobacco market in Australia on current estimations. Now,
Speaker 2: that's tax that the government misses out on on those cigarettes,
Speaker 2: and its money, as I've talked about many times before,
Speaker 2: that ends up in the hands of organized crime gangs
Speaker 2: that then use it for their grizzly activities including murder
Speaker 2: and sex trafficking, so on and so forth. Now, one
Speaker 2: of the problems with this new health warning business is
Speaker 2: that in order for it to be done, manufacturers have
Speaker 2: to buy new equipment and they have to change their
Speaker 2: practices to move in line with the new rules. These regulations,
Speaker 2: by the way, were only sent out at the end
Speaker 2: of life last month and they come in in April.
Speaker 2: It's not all that long, it's less than six months,
Speaker 2: and shops will be allowed to sell existing stock for
Speaker 2: three months from April, but after that anything left over
Speaker 2: will have to be pulped and any new stock will
Speaker 2: have to have the warnings on them. Now, because of
Speaker 2: the tight time frames to get all this done, there's
Speaker 2: concern from retailers that there will be a temporary supply
Speaker 2: crunch on cigarettes, which would make people even more likely
Speaker 2: to seek out the illicit product. Yes, even though it
Speaker 2: is illegal, you can buy it in pretty much any
Speaker 2: convenience store or tobagonists in the country. And if you
Speaker 2: talk to the independent supermarkets and they have, they'll tell
Speaker 2: you that they are losing money hand over fist on cigarettes,
Speaker 2: not because fewer people are smoking, but because their customers
Speaker 2: are going to illegal shops down the road. And would
Speaker 2: you believe it, the people who would normally go into
Speaker 2: a supermarket and buy cigarettes also buy other things in small,
Speaker 2: local independent supermarkets, losing revenue that they could spend on
Speaker 2: employing local people. So did the Health Department take into
Speaker 2: account the illegal market when they made their decision?
Speaker 7: I mean, I suppose that whether rubber hits the rona
Speaker 7: raises before in this committee, is every smoker I know
Speaker 7: these days buys what's colloquly known as chop chop, not
Speaker 7: necessarily chopped up, but just buy illegal tobacco. Presumably this
Speaker 7: is going to play into that market's hands, mayn't it.
Speaker 7: I mean, has there been an analysis of that that
Speaker 7: if wholesom manufacturers can't make these legal obligations, the market
Speaker 7: will just get filled with illegal tobacco. Has that risk
Speaker 7: been considered?
Speaker 4: Senator? I think Australia has one of the strongest records
Speaker 4: in tobacco control in the world, which I think we're
Speaker 4: rightly proud of.
Speaker 7: But that doesn't answer my question with all respect, because
Speaker 7: I'm sure I totally agree with that, but everybody would
Speaker 7: agree with that.
Speaker 2: No answer there, so Matt Canavan tried again.
Speaker 7: Question is whether or not the Department, as part of
Speaker 7: good policy making practices, has analyzed the risk of these obligations,
Speaker 7: especially the accelerated time frame to introduce these regulations, could
Speaker 7: have an impact on encouraging more tobacco.
Speaker 4: Senator, So, I think the role of the Department in
Speaker 4: terms of the Health portfolio is to continue the best
Speaker 4: measures possible to avoid people taking up smoking, whether that
Speaker 4: is legal or illegal tobacco. The best measure against people
Speaker 4: is dissuading them from smoking in the first place, which
Speaker 4: has been the focus of this legend.
Speaker 7: Can you answer my question with all respect not just.
Speaker 4: It's not Health's job to do that. I mean it's not.
Speaker 7: Health job to evaluate the risks health comes.
Speaker 2: Finance Minister Katie Gallahers says it's not a matter for
Speaker 2: the Health Department. They wonder that they come up with
Speaker 2: such hair brained ideas. Now you can take this to
Speaker 2: the bank. This will do nothing to stop people from smoking.
Speaker 2: It's all about health. Well, what about the health of
Speaker 2: people that he's threatened every day by organized crime gangs which,
Speaker 2: thanks to the ridiculous price of cigarettes caused by the
Speaker 2: federal government's extortion at taxes, now has a lucrative market
Speaker 2: in illicit tobacco. How stupid do they think? We are
Speaker 2: down in Victoria where more than one hundred tobacconists have
Speaker 2: been firebombed thanks to gangs fighting over control of the
Speaker 2: illicit tobacco market. The Allen government is now planning to
Speaker 2: introduce the strictest tobacco licensing laws in the country to
Speaker 2: try to shut down illegal sellers. But this shouldn't be
Speaker 2: the state's problem. This is a mess created by the
Speaker 2: federal government through extortion at tax and they ought to
Speaker 2: be the ones to clean it up. Lots to get
Speaker 2: through tonight, Let's jump straight into my panel, Sky and
Speaker 2: News contributor Gary Hardgrave and form of Press Secretary to
Speaker 2: Julia Gillard, Darren Barnett. First, let's talk about the news
Speaker 2: from the AWE today. They've had to go at Tanya
Speaker 2: Plibastique over the decision over the mcphillamy's gold mine. Gary.
Speaker 2: You know, the longer this goes on, the dodgy it
Speaker 2: seems to be Tanua. Pipistick still has not answered why
Speaker 2: there are discrepancies between the advice she took from one
Speaker 2: Aboriginal group and the advice that comes from the actual
Speaker 2: local Aboriginal Land council. Why can't she simply tell us
Speaker 2: what's going on.
Speaker 8: Because she has no idea what she's doing. This woman
Speaker 8: is a walking, talking sovereign risk to Australia. She is
Speaker 8: the member for Sydney. She lives in an isolated view
Speaker 8: of the world, she thinks, and she's keeping the Greens
Speaker 8: at bay in her electorate. There's coverning her seat, so
Speaker 8: to speak. She thinks she knows best. She's morally and
Speaker 8: intellectually superior to anybody who actually wants to do something
Speaker 8: practical like well, create jobs, create mining job. She did
Speaker 8: the same thing to a marvelous proposal to deal with
Speaker 8: a Jetty landing area and turn it into a marvelous
Speaker 8: housing development in the eastern Bayside areas around Brisbane. In Cleveland,
Speaker 8: she killed off eleven billion dollars worth of likely economic
Speaker 8: activity in that area alone. It was going to create
Speaker 8: many thousands of jobs and homes for hundreds, if not
Speaker 8: more people. I mean, this woman really doesn't get it.
Speaker 8: She doesn't understand and I think she's second only to
Speaker 8: Chris Bowen when it comes to a genuine risk to
Speaker 8: economic viability. That's a big statement. And it all comes
Speaker 8: back to the bloke who appointed her, the bloke and
Speaker 8: the seat next door and the other inner city seat
Speaker 8: in Sydney, in Gradlar. I mean, this is a government
Speaker 8: that doesn't know real Australia at all, presumes it does,
Speaker 8: cherry picks the advice they want to suit the narrative
Speaker 8: in their own area. It's a real peril and she's
Speaker 8: got to go, and I hope the Greens will knock
Speaker 8: her off and put her out of a misery.
Speaker 2: Frankly, well, I'll declare that I live in Graindler and
Speaker 2: I will personally say that I don't live in real Australia.
Speaker 2: I've seen some of my neighbors, but Darren, obviously the
Speaker 2: AWU is aligned to a different faction to Tania plibisk.
Speaker 2: But how worried should she be about the union movement
Speaker 2: getting involved in this fight?
Speaker 9: It is actually a pretty significant step, Okaylie, I agree
Speaker 9: with that. And therefore, whether it's through national conference or
Speaker 9: whether it's through the soft pressure that comes via the
Speaker 9: union movement into the Labor Party, you don't want affiliated
Speaker 9: unions being opposed to decisions that are made by government.
Speaker 9: But a couple of things to unpack. Firstly, the Greens
Speaker 9: won't win Tanya's seat while she's there, and I don't
Speaker 9: think the decision is based on any particular view towards
Speaker 9: assuaging the voters of her electorate. I think what you'll find, Gary,
Speaker 9: I hope you agree with me. The EPBA came in
Speaker 9: early two thousands seek Robert Hill was Environment Minister and
Speaker 9: I've never heard an environment minister since who loves that act.
Speaker 9: It's a difficult act to administer. It's a very opaque document.
Speaker 9: It's a complicated set of rules and criteria, and I
Speaker 9: think that's part of the reason why Labour's trying to
Speaker 9: bring in a national EPA and some other new rules.
Speaker 9: So I think you can criticize a lot of decisions
Speaker 9: under the EPBC. Maybe Tanny's got it right, maybe she's
Speaker 9: got it wrong, and we will see when that pressure
Speaker 9: comes to her head. Whether the decision remains or whether
Speaker 9: her argument that sixteen percent of the land in question
Speaker 9: is what she is trying to protect. Maybe that prevails,
Speaker 9: we will see she will lose some skin, but I
Speaker 9: spect she'll dig down on her decision and unless there's
Speaker 9: new evidence, we're not going to see a change.
Speaker 2: And that's a bit it will play out in the courts,
Speaker 2: of course. Now there's another ordinary poll result for the
Speaker 2: Albanezi government that the latest sec Ugate of the Nation
Speaker 2: survey found that the coalition has overtaken labor on cost
Speaker 2: of living management for the first time since the election,
Speaker 2: and seventy two percent of voters also said that cost
Speaker 2: of living was their top issue, which is no great surprise,
Speaker 2: but Garia, I think it proves people are losing confidence
Speaker 2: in the ability of the federal government to actually deliver
Speaker 2: any kind of financial benefit to them.
Speaker 8: A part of the problem is government is infering in
Speaker 8: everybody's lives in every possible way these days, and what
Speaker 8: people really want is for government to get out of
Speaker 8: their lives. You know, we can trust private citizens to
Speaker 8: work out what's best for them. We actually don't need
Speaker 8: to be losing enormous amounts of the wages that our
Speaker 8: bosses pay in the form of compulsory superannuation. We should
Speaker 8: be allowing people to actually make use of their money
Speaker 8: now today to deal with the problems they have today,
Speaker 8: to invest into the future. And that means for younger Australians,
Speaker 8: let them access their super and let them actually get
Speaker 8: that super in place to buy a house and once
Speaker 8: that house, if they sell it at a later stage,
Speaker 8: they can repay their super account at a later point.
Speaker 8: I mean, why is it that government wants to control
Speaker 8: all of our actions and I think the cost of
Speaker 8: living thing. Every time they put pressure on supermarkets and
Speaker 8: say we're going to crack down on supermarket pricing, the
Speaker 8: first person in the supply chain, the farmers or the
Speaker 8: producers of that item, they're the ones they're going to
Speaker 8: suffer the most. So again, I think people are able
Speaker 8: to work this thing out like what they've done in America,
Speaker 8: where they've gone against woke and stood for the workers.
Speaker 8: And that's where I think a lot of people's heads
Speaker 8: are at right now. I think there's a big wave
Speaker 8: coming and that's going to swamp this government because it's
Speaker 8: lost its way. It's just simply lost its way.
Speaker 2: Well, I think the Prime Minister should be worried, Darren,
Speaker 2: because if you look at our western allies, the US,
Speaker 2: the UK leaders that have presided over cost of living
Speaker 2: crises have been booted and the one bit of relief
Speaker 2: that Albo would be hoping for, which is of course,
Speaker 2: is an interest rate cut, may will not happen by
Speaker 2: the time he goes to a federal election. I think
Speaker 2: this is actually starting to be the biggest thorn in
Speaker 2: his side.
Speaker 9: Look, the numbers are not the trend is not his friend.
Speaker 9: I think it's fair to say. And the numbers it's
Speaker 9: still close thirty to twenty nine percent, but equally that
Speaker 9: margin was much greater as little as a few months ago.
Speaker 9: So there is work to do for the Albanesi government,
Speaker 9: that's for sure. And I think that rate cut is
Speaker 9: an important part of their re election strategy, that that's
Speaker 9: what they're waiting for before they pulled the trigger for
Speaker 9: an election. I look through that poll. They do say
Speaker 9: that sixty six percent of voters or two thirds of voters,
Speaker 9: that it would not impact their vote if there was
Speaker 9: a rate cut. I'm not sure about that. I think
Speaker 9: if people thought we had turned the corner economically, the
Speaker 9: support would be much stronger. So it's to me it's
Speaker 9: very much a question of when will we get a
Speaker 9: rate cut and will it be in time ahead of
Speaker 9: the election.
Speaker 2: They'll certainly be begging for a rape cut. And I
Speaker 2: mean I said more than a year ago that if
Speaker 2: you had a rape cut there would be an early election.
Speaker 2: Now I don't know that we're actually going to get
Speaker 2: her an early election, but you know, I would have
Speaker 2: thought that was the easiest thing to do very quickly
Speaker 2: before we go. I don't know whether you saw this
Speaker 2: story today. I couldn't get over it. Some people need
Speaker 2: to get it through their heads. I think that Donald
Speaker 2: Trump is actually the president the majority of American voters
Speaker 2: just chose. I mean, you think putting a Maga hat
Speaker 2: on would be pretty safe thing to do now, Not
Speaker 2: for singer a Hailey Mary. She's an Australian singer, lead
Speaker 2: singer of the Jezebels. They had a bit of success.
Speaker 2: She put a photo up online of herself in a
Speaker 2: Maga hat in a post opposing the Misinformation Bill, and
Speaker 2: she's now effectively been canceled. She told The Herald's son
Speaker 2: that the fallout was everything you could imagine. I probably
Speaker 2: no longer have a music career in the way that
Speaker 2: I knew it. I've lost some friends, though I hope
Speaker 2: that's temporary. I've lost some of the infrastructure of my business, publicity,
Speaker 2: band members, room members, a show, my album launch revenue,
Speaker 2: and quite a few followers. You know, Gary, this wouldn't
Speaker 2: happen if you put on a Waltz Harris hat. Apart
Speaker 2: from looking like a loser, you wouldn't get this kind
Speaker 2: of response.
Speaker 8: I got three Make America Great hats at home, and
Speaker 8: I was thinking about wearing them out, but I've been
Speaker 8: warned that maybe I might not get good service or
Speaker 8: someone wants to shout me at coffee. And by the way,
Speaker 8: I think that Donald Trump will be a revelation that
Speaker 8: will reshape the world for good. And I'm really excited
Speaker 8: about what's to come. The announcements he's made today. The
Speaker 8: way people are dissing Pete Hexseth as the new Defense
Speaker 8: Secretary's got me where this bloke actually cares about veterans,
Speaker 8: loves his country. I think he's a fantastic, from the
Speaker 8: troops up kind of Defense secretary, and he's not part
Speaker 8: of the Washington swamp. We need people like that in Australia,
Speaker 8: and somebody said to me before we see today, the
Speaker 8: only person they can think of that would stare down
Speaker 8: wasting government like Elon Musk has challenged to do and
Speaker 8: Ramaswami would be Gina Reinhart. You think Peter Dunn't got
Speaker 8: offer the gig? I don't think so.
Speaker 2: Gary Darren, thank you so much for your time. All right,
Speaker 2: let's move on, shall we? Cop twenty nine? The big
Speaker 2: climate conflab in Azerbaijan seems to be going well because
Speaker 2: China has demanded that developed countries, including Australia, cough up
Speaker 2: one point eight trillion dollars a year to help out
Speaker 2: developing nations with climate change. And the best bit, China
Speaker 2: wouldn't have to contribute a cent because it is still
Speaker 2: considered a developing country. So we and the UK and
Speaker 2: the US, et cetera, would have to pay China, one
Speaker 2: of the biggest economies in the world, to fix the
Speaker 2: global temperature NPMP and former Speaker Andrew Wallace joins me,
Speaker 2: Now you know I actually have to kind of hand
Speaker 2: it to jijingping here with this idea that we would
Speaker 2: be giving money to them. I'm sorry, I think we've
Speaker 2: just lost Andrew there, We'll go to a quick break
Speaker 2: and come back. Don't go away. My apologies for that
Speaker 2: brief interruption. It would see Andrew Wallace has lost power.
Speaker 2: I believe he's on the phone to Blackout Bowen right now,
Speaker 2: trying to sort that out so we can get him
Speaker 2: back later. Now it sounds like racing cars might be
Speaker 2: saved for a little while longer. Willowbank Raceway near Brisbane
Speaker 2: has banned electric vehicles from the track because it says
Speaker 2: they're too dangerous to compete.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: This has happened at racetracks in the US and the
Speaker 2: UK too. Willowbank Raceway said one of the big problems
Speaker 2: with evs was that batteries released toxic and flammable gas
Speaker 2: after a collision, and there was no guarantee that a
Speaker 2: car could be completely off after a crash, so the
Speaker 2: chassis could essentially be electrified and kill medics if they
Speaker 2: were trying to pull a driver from a car. To
Speaker 2: discuss this further, I'm joined by the founder of car
Speaker 2: expert dot com, Paul Marrick. Paul lad to see it happening,
Speaker 2: because I mean, hell, imagine going along to a racetrack
Speaker 2: and watching an electric vehicle go down a drag strip
Speaker 2: or something. I don't think it would have quite the
Speaker 2: same effect, but it does raise questions that should then
Speaker 2: be applied to the road, I think. I mean, if
Speaker 2: they're concerned that on a racetrack they can't ensure that
Speaker 2: the car is not live after a crash and that
Speaker 2: it could potentially harm or electrocute first responders, that would
Speaker 2: presumably be the same on the road too. Yeah.
Speaker 10: Absolutely, And what we're seeing as well is a lot
Speaker 10: of apartments, apartment building owners and body corporates are actually
Speaker 10: banning the installation of electric vehicle charges. A lot of
Speaker 10: this has stemmed as well from e scooters and other
Speaker 10: sort of lithium powered devices catching fire and hurting people.
Speaker 10: And it's the same story here at racetracks. They just
Speaker 10: don't know how to deal with these things, and as
Speaker 10: a result of that, insurance costs are going through the
Speaker 10: roof and it's forcing a lot of these racetracks a
Speaker 10: just banned electric vehicles entiring.
Speaker 2: I can't imagine how you could potentially have electric race cars.
Speaker 2: I mean, I know they go fast, but surely a
Speaker 2: large part of what attracts people to a racetrack and
Speaker 2: to cars in general is the noise that they make.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: I know they'll say I will put a computer in
Speaker 2: it that makes a noise through a speaker or something,
Speaker 2: But to me, it's just not the same. It can't
Speaker 2: be the same. People wouldn't want to watch I wouldn't
Speaker 2: think electric cars going silently around Bathurst, would they? Yeah?
Speaker 10: Look, I mean it'd be a safe environment for babies,
Speaker 10: you'd be able to sleep, not not having to worry
Speaker 10: too much about that, But definitely for petrol head you've
Speaker 10: got to have noise. I mean, it is just not
Speaker 10: the same to have these things as quiet as they are.
Speaker 10: There was actually a video released yesterday on the Internet
Speaker 10: of Geomi, which is a smartphone manufacturer that's now got
Speaker 10: into making cars. One of their cars had a major
Speaker 10: break failure on a racetrack and had this catastrophic crash.
Speaker 10: And to me, it's just one of these things that
Speaker 10: just baffles logic. If you can't hear it, it's not exciting.
Speaker 10: It should be putting yourself at risk.
Speaker 2: I'm sure the great Paul Murray, who is back in
Speaker 2: the Man Cave tonight, by the way, would have some
Speaker 2: thoughts about that. Some other driving news, a controversial reporter
Speaker 2: suggested that Australians aged over fifty should be subjected to
Speaker 2: mandatory driving lessons. This is a study from the University
Speaker 2: of New South Wales in Sydney. It suggests that drivers
Speaker 2: with or without clean driving records should be re examined
Speaker 2: in order to make the road safer in Australia and
Speaker 2: make sure that their skills are still up to scratch
Speaker 2: or what do you think of that for an idea.
Speaker 10: Look, I know it's going to be a little cheap
Speaker 10: coming from me who's just under fifty, but to me,
Speaker 10: it's just like a pilot. If you told me that
Speaker 10: the pilot at the front of the plane last died
Speaker 10: his pilot's test fifteen twenty thirty years ago, I go,
Speaker 10: I don't think I want to be on this plane.
Speaker 10: And I think for all drivers, let alone people over fifty,
Speaker 10: you really should be getting reassessed more regularly because it
Speaker 10: is one of these things. Road rules change constantly, and
Speaker 10: you want to be on top of it. You want
Speaker 10: to know what's going on. And I think it's only
Speaker 10: fair that we are having more and more regular testing,
Speaker 10: especially for older Australians who may have first got their
Speaker 10: licenses decades ago.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I agree. I don't think it particularly matters about
Speaker 2: age either. To be perfectly honest, if it was a
Speaker 2: rule that you had to have another assessment every ten
Speaker 2: years when you renew your license or something, I think
Speaker 2: that would be perfectly reasonable, because you know, you do
Speaker 2: tend to get stuck in your habits and forget a
Speaker 2: few rules and whatever, and surely you want everyone to
Speaker 2: be as safe as possible on the road. Paul, thank
Speaker 2: you for coming on the program. Now back to where
Speaker 2: I was before we had the power outage, COP twenty nine.
Speaker 2: The big climate conflict going on in Azerbaijan is going well,
Speaker 2: apparently because China has demanded that developed countries, including Australia,
Speaker 2: cough up one point eight trillion dollars a year to
Speaker 2: help out developing nations with climate change. And of course
Speaker 2: China wouldn't have to contribute a cent because it's still
Speaker 2: considered a quote unquote developing country, So we, the UK,
Speaker 2: the US, et cetera, would have to pay China, one
Speaker 2: of the biggest economies in the world, to apparently fix
Speaker 2: the global temperature LNPMP, and former Speaker Andrew Wallace joins me,
Speaker 2: Now you've made it out of the power outage.
Speaker 1: Mate, I have chailed that was very wild and will
Speaker 1: we here, I got to tell you that much.
Speaker 2: Good. Now, I've actually got to give Jijiping a little
Speaker 2: bit of credit here because I think he's just gently
Speaker 2: needling the Western world about the way that they are
Speaker 2: carrying on about climate change, saying, you know, why don't
Speaker 2: you put your money where your mouth is. You've got
Speaker 2: to pay us, you know, one of the biggest emitters
Speaker 2: in the world if you want climate change to be fixed.
Speaker 2: In a funny way, I think it actually shows up
Speaker 2: how ridiculous a lot of the response to climate change
Speaker 2: at a governmental level is.
Speaker 11: Yeah, Lookail, this is a country that is classifying as developing,
Speaker 11: and yet it has a hundred satellites.
Speaker 1: You're gonna have many satellites Australia owns and operates. Go on,
Speaker 1: I'll tell you none. None. None.
Speaker 11: So we've got a developing country that's so called developing
Speaker 11: country China, that has a very very mature space industry,
Speaker 11: and Australia is regarded as a developed country, and yet
Speaker 11: the federal government continues to rip funding out of the
Speaker 11: space program in Australia such that we have zero zero satellites, So.
Speaker 1: You tell me.
Speaker 11: Can anyone explain to me why we are still having
Speaker 11: to consider China as developing Australia as developed and we
Speaker 11: are having the.
Speaker 1: Fund and prop up.
Speaker 11: It just makes no seeds, Absolutely, it makes no sense.
Speaker 2: That's ridiculous. So you may as well call it a
Speaker 2: coal rebate because of coause we sell our coal to
Speaker 2: China because we can't burn it here that it'd be
Speaker 2: bad for the world. But it's okay if China burns
Speaker 2: it so they can give us the money for the
Speaker 2: coal and then we can give it back to them
Speaker 2: in some sort of climate subsidy. Great idea. Now, labor
Speaker 2: social media legislation. It's probably one of the only bills
Speaker 2: that will be passed between now and Christmas. The opposition
Speaker 2: has a course back to ban for under sixteens, and
Speaker 2: on the face of it, you know, I'd have to
Speaker 2: say it's hard to oppose. Who isn't sympathetic to the
Speaker 2: idea that kids shouldn't be on social media. We know
Speaker 2: the harms, but I feel like this has been rushed.
Speaker 2: There's no clear idea of how it will work. The
Speaker 2: planned trial hasn't even happened yet. You've got serious concerns
Speaker 2: that have emerged out of Senate estimates about how verification
Speaker 2: systems would work. I think we're all sympathetic to the idea.
Speaker 2: I'm just not sure the government has gone about it
Speaker 2: the right way.
Speaker 11: Well, Caleb, I don't think the government has gone about
Speaker 11: it the right way.
Speaker 1: On that, I agree.
Speaker 11: With you, But I am a big supporter of increasing
Speaker 11: the age to sixteen.
Speaker 1: In fact, I was.
Speaker 11: Pushing for this from as early as twenty twenty one,
Speaker 11: so I've been working in this space for a long time.
Speaker 1: I think it's really important that people understand the dangers
Speaker 1: and perils that we're seeing.
Speaker 11: On social media now, particularly for young people under.
Speaker 1: The age of sixteen.
Speaker 11: Young people just simply don't have the maturity to be
Speaker 11: able to be dealing with the sort of pressures that
Speaker 11: they are that's being brought to bear on them. We
Speaker 11: saw the Primary School Principles coming out today supporting the
Speaker 11: increase in age to sixteen. But the reality, Caleb, is
Speaker 11: that the Prime Minister has been dragged, kicking and screaming
Speaker 11: on this. Twelve months ago, Peter Dutton and David Polman
Speaker 11: moved a Private members bill calling for an age verification
Speaker 11: trial and the Prime Minister rejected that, Labor rejected that.
Speaker 11: Now six months ago, Peter again, Peter Dutton again tried
Speaker 11: to push through a bill which would see and in
Speaker 11: fact Peter Dutton committed in his first one hundred days
Speaker 11: to ensuring that age sixteen for social media.
Speaker 1: Now I've just finished, or just about to wrap up
Speaker 1: in the next couple of months, a social media requiry.
Speaker 11: I've listened to the testimony of parents talking about some
Speaker 11: of their kids who have taken their own lives because
Speaker 11: of this bullying.
Speaker 1: And we're talking about very, very young children.
Speaker 11: You know, the way the Privacy Act in the US
Speaker 11: is worded is that and that's the only reason why
Speaker 11: these platforms is US platforms have an age of thirteen.
Speaker 1: Is the US Privacy Act sets that age.
Speaker 11: But we know that in Australia and across the world,
Speaker 11: many parents are basically assisting their kids to fraudulently get
Speaker 11: access to social media in much younger than thirteen. And
Speaker 11: it was really heartening to see these principles of the
Speaker 11: private primary school principles coming out and supporting this lifting
Speaker 11: the age to sixteen. But it's only because the parents
Speaker 11: and news corps and the opposition put up such a
Speaker 11: state that the Prime Minister finally relented. He has been
Speaker 11: utterly weak on this. He's been dragged, kicking and screaming,
Speaker 11: but they haven't.
Speaker 1: Put a lot of thought into it. But ultimately it.
Speaker 11: Will be the platforms that will have to be satisfied
Speaker 11: that someone is sixteen. What we're really concerned about in
Speaker 11: the opposition is these exemptions that Michelle Roland is now
Speaker 11: talking about. We don't think these exemptions should apply. We
Speaker 11: don't think that the social media platforms have demonstrated any
Speaker 11: social license whatsoever. They've really demonstrated that the kids are
Speaker 11: nothing more than an opportunity to raise money for them.
Speaker 2: Andrew, I'm sorry we've got to move on, but to
Speaker 2: good luck those storms up there. I hope you don't
Speaker 2: get blown away. Let's bring in now Peter Wertheim, the
Speaker 2: co CEO of the Executive Council of Australian Jury. Now
Speaker 2: you're arguing this watered down hate speech bill from the
Speaker 2: federal government, which of course was a long time coming,
Speaker 2: doesn't go far enough. You say that the wording of
Speaker 2: the proposed legislation doesn't include enough forms of hate speech.
Speaker 2: Explain what is your issue with the current state of
Speaker 2: the legislation.
Speaker 12: Well, I take myardstick or starting point with some of
Speaker 12: the events that have occurred in recent times. Cast your
Speaker 12: mind back to last year October the ninth, twenty twenty
Speaker 12: twenty three, when we had a major demonstration at the
Speaker 12: fore court of the Opera House. The rhetoric was violent,
Speaker 12: the behavior was menacing and intimidating. In keeping with that rhetoric,
Speaker 12: I would have thought that, judging by the reaction to it,
Speaker 12: including on Sky News which did a big exposie of
Speaker 12: that whole incident, people would have expected that that kind
Speaker 12: of conduct would already be against the law and should
Speaker 12: have been prosecuted. And yet there was no prosecution. There
Speaker 12: was no legal action taken in relation to it at all.
Speaker 12: So I guess our starting point has to be do
Speaker 12: we believe that behavior in that category should be prosecutable?
Speaker 12: And if the answer is yes, then we have to
Speaker 12: gauge any potential legislation against that sort of behavior and
Speaker 12: see whether it would be prosecutable under that legislation. And
Speaker 12: the current bill does not have a provision in there
Speaker 12: which would enable a prosecution of that sort of behavior
Speaker 12: to occur.
Speaker 2: So at the moment, the bill is basically suggesting that
Speaker 2: any that is a direct incitement to violence you are
Speaker 2: suggesting someone should do something would be considered hate speech,
Speaker 2: but perhaps a more indirect version of incitement to violence
Speaker 2: would not be included. Is that correct?
Speaker 12: I think that's the way it's advertised, But difficultly with
Speaker 12: a sort of legislation Caleb, is that it's not always
Speaker 12: as advertised. The use of the word incitement has a
Speaker 12: particular meaning in common parlance. Most people would have thought
Speaker 12: that the behavior we saw at the opera House Forecourt
Speaker 12: would have fallen within the meaning of incitement, and yet
Speaker 12: the legal meaning is much narrower and much more constricted.
Speaker 12: It's quite technical. I can get into the weeds of
Speaker 12: it if you like, but it doesn't necessarily correlate to
Speaker 12: the way most people use the word incitement in common parlance.
Speaker 12: And so for that reason, when you use the word
Speaker 12: incitement as the test for whether it's incitement to violence
Speaker 12: or even incitement to hatred in the criminal context, where
Speaker 12: you have to prove intention to incite beyond reasonable doubt,
Speaker 12: you're setting a very high bar, and a bar which
Speaker 12: most prosecutors find impossible to overcome. And that's the reason
Speaker 12: why the sorts of behaviors that we've been discussing have
Speaker 12: gone unpunished.
Speaker 2: Somehow, I suspect this might go the same way as
Speaker 2: the religious discrimination bill. No one seems to be happy
Speaker 2: with it. Peter, thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 2: Coming up after the break, Elon Musk has scored a
Speaker 2: huge gig in the Trump administration. What this means for
Speaker 2: the United States and Australia with former Defense intelligence analyst
Speaker 2: Paul Munt later, but first, the boat smuggling debarcle is
Speaker 2: about to rear its ugly head again after another load
Speaker 2: of foreign and has found their way onto our shores.
Speaker 2: My political panel Daniel Molino and Keith Pitt join me next.
Speaker 2: Plenty more headlines to get across. Joining me in that
Speaker 2: endeavor Labor MP Daniel Molino and Nationals MP Keith Pitt.
Speaker 2: Now four foreign nationals washed ashore on Croker Island, which
Speaker 2: is northeast of Darwin on Sunday night. The Northern Land
Speaker 2: Council confirmed this yesterday. They said the men were found
Speaker 2: by some local Aboriginal people. We don't know where they
Speaker 2: came from, only that they are no longer in Australia. Daniel,
Speaker 2: does this not just prove that our efforts to stop
Speaker 2: boats coming ashore simply isn't working.
Speaker 13: Well, thanks for having me on, Caleb, No, it doesn't
Speaker 13: show that. The first thing I'd say is that the
Speaker 13: current government, as with the previous government, doesn't confirm or
Speaker 13: comment on the details of operational matters, and that's been
Speaker 13: our stance for a long time. The second thing is
Speaker 13: that even under the previous government, which had the Operation
Speaker 13: Sovereign Boarder's Framework, which has continued, voter rivals occurred. For example,
Speaker 13: there was one in twenty eighteen in Danetree, so voter
Speaker 13: rivals occurred under the previous government. Also, the main point
Speaker 13: is that the policy framework has continued across and there
Speaker 13: is no way under the current framework that people arriving
Speaker 13: in Australia in that manner will be able to stay.
Speaker 13: And that's something which continues under this government and that's
Speaker 13: why this arrangement will continue to work.
Speaker 2: Keith.
Speaker 14: Your response to that, well, for those playing long at home,
Speaker 14: if you're counting Hanny illegal arrivals, there are. In terms
Speaker 14: of boats, you've run out of fingers and toes. It's
Speaker 14: twenty three and before the last election we had the
Speaker 14: albans as anything alban Easi's leader. The opposition say that
Speaker 14: nothing would change, there won't be any difference, it will
Speaker 14: all be the same. And yet we've seen that this
Speaker 14: has been switched on again by people smugglers. You can't
Speaker 14: get away from facts twenty three illegal arrivals in terms
Speaker 14: of votes and in terms of ones when they get
Speaker 14: here all Unfortunately, when it was minus the Giles, they
Speaker 14: get let out. This is an ongoing problem. We know
Speaker 14: what happened last time. No one wants to see death
Speaker 14: at sea. And yet in terms of funding and everything
Speaker 14: else that's needed to make border force successful, we see
Speaker 14: money pouring into things like as you said earlier, China,
Speaker 14: they wanted trillion dollars now for climate and don't forget
Speaker 14: that this government signed up to that. They've signed up
Speaker 14: to it expecting it to be in the billions and
Speaker 14: now it's in the trillions.
Speaker 2: I think at the very least we should give a
Speaker 2: big hooray to with the indigenous people up north. I
Speaker 2: think this is at least the second occasion where they've
Speaker 2: been the waist to find out that these people have
Speaker 2: come ashore. Now, in other news, the Albanezy government has
Speaker 2: set up a National Productivity Fund, which means the states
Speaker 2: and territories will have to compete for money for plans
Speaker 2: to boost productivity growth. Nine hundred million dollars is up
Speaker 2: for grabs for things like planning and zoning reform. Here's
Speaker 2: the treasure of Jim Charmers.
Speaker 15: We're not seeking productivity growth at the cost of higher
Speaker 15: unemployment or by insisting Australians work longer for less. We're
Speaker 15: trying to apply a new thinking to the challenge by
Speaker 15: broadening our ambitions beyond the tired old slogans on debates
Speaker 15: central to industrial relations.
Speaker 2: Daniel, one of the biggest problems we're facing as a
Speaker 2: country right now is slow productivity growth. A lot of
Speaker 2: what you see in terms of employment increasing employment is
Speaker 2: in the care sector, which happens to be largely funded
Speaker 2: by the federal government through the Ndis Is this nine
Speaker 2: hundred million dollars actually going to change anything?
Speaker 13: So the first thing I'd say is that look, productivity
Speaker 13: growth has become harder right around the world in advanced economies.
Speaker 13: And I think there's a Martin Wolf article in the
Speaker 13: Financial Times today which goes to the heart of this,
Speaker 13: which is the productivity growth in the services sector is
Speaker 13: harder to achieve than in manufacturing and agriculture, and that's
Speaker 13: something we've seen over decades, so it's not a surprise
Speaker 13: that that's something we're seeing here. The second point is
Speaker 13: I think these payments could make a huge difference and
Speaker 13: they're really worth exploring. When you go back to the
Speaker 13: Fred Hillmer reforms in the nineteen eighties and nineteen nineties,
Speaker 13: when you look at the report that Ian harbohanded down
Speaker 13: to the previous government on competition, incentive payments to the
Speaker 13: states were central.
Speaker 1: To both of those approaches.
Speaker 13: This is something which I think we can probably get
Speaker 13: bipartisan support on. It's important for two reasons. Firstly, it
Speaker 13: incentivizes states, and secondly, it recognizes the fact that a
Speaker 13: lot of the hard lifting in terms of policy change
Speaker 13: that's required is going to have to be undertaken by
Speaker 13: state governments. And yet a lot of the increases in
Speaker 13: revenue through income tax and corporate tax will go to
Speaker 13: the Commonwealth government. So it's only fair that the Komonwealth
Speaker 13: government should pass on some of that benefit. So I
Speaker 13: think this is very sensible and I think it will
Speaker 13: help well if.
Speaker 2: We want to have that discussion about money going to
Speaker 2: the Commonwealth government. We could always go back to the
Speaker 2: pre war set up where the state had control of
Speaker 2: income tax. For that to discussion for another day. But Keith,
Speaker 2: I don't quite understand why we the taxpayer need to
Speaker 2: pay the states to reform things like their planning systems.
Speaker 2: Shouldn't they just be doing that anyway.
Speaker 14: Well, no matter what the question is, Labour's answer is
Speaker 14: always spend more taxpayers money. And I can tell you
Speaker 14: where productivity can be improved, and that is in policy
Speaker 14: settings from the cabinet of the Australian government. You don't
Speaker 14: need to spend enormous amounts of money to fix this.
Speaker 14: You need to stop doing things like sending our industrial
Speaker 14: relations programs back to the nineteen seventies. We've got interest
Speaker 14: rates which have had twelve increases, We've got electricity and
Speaker 14: gas costs out of control. It makes people uncompetitive. The
Speaker 14: fundamentals of business don't change. For them to be successful,
Speaker 14: they have to be competitive internationally if they're looking to export.
Speaker 14: And we have a government that is hell bent on
Speaker 14: giving the unions everything that they want, spending more taxpayer money,
Speaker 14: which is driving up inflation. And the RBA and themselves
Speaker 14: have said this is an issue and yet here we
Speaker 14: go as another nine hundred million for the states who
Speaker 14: have thought it.
Speaker 2: Now, the PM doesn't seem to think it's worth catching
Speaker 2: up with Donald Trump before he becomes the US president again.
Speaker 2: Albaneze hask not back the suggestion from the opposition that
Speaker 2: he had to stop in Florida to see Trump on
Speaker 2: his way to the APEC leaders meetings in Rio de
Speaker 2: Janeiro this week. Daniel ort he, you know, I know
Speaker 2: he's had a phone call, but aught he actually have
Speaker 2: a face to face discussion. I don't think there'd be
Speaker 2: any harm in it, would there.
Speaker 13: Well, look, I think it's interesting that some of the
Speaker 13: people calling for this have also been the same people
Speaker 13: who roundly criticized the PM for traveling too much. So
Speaker 13: there's a bit of interest there that brazenly self promoting here.
Speaker 13: I'm just in the process of finishing up a book
Speaker 13: on PM president relations back to Federation, and I've actually
Speaker 13: interviewed all former pms on their relations with presidents, including
Speaker 13: Turnbull and Morrison's relations.
Speaker 2: We've got too much farming heads and my.
Speaker 13: Lessons from that are that I think the way to
Speaker 13: succeed with Trump is going to be firstly to show
Speaker 13: him on each of the issues that comes up. What's
Speaker 13: in it for the US, secondly to be straightforward and
Speaker 13: thirdly to build trust. And so I think that's the
Speaker 13: approach we need to take as issues come up. I
Speaker 13: think we need to approach it in that way, and
Speaker 13: I think we'll do very well. He's very open minded
Speaker 13: to dealing with Australia in a positive way.
Speaker 2: I believe, gents, we're only got ten seconds before the break, Keith.
Speaker 2: Should he meet.
Speaker 14: Him well as soon as possible.
Speaker 2: We're supportive.
Speaker 14: The best thing Kevin Rudd could do is reach out
Speaker 14: to Jenna Reinhart make a special.
Speaker 2: Enjoying gents, thank you so much for your time. After
Speaker 2: the break, Donald Trump, we're just talking about him. His
Speaker 2: cabinet is starting to take shape after a wave of announcements.
Speaker 2: It includes, of course billionaire buddy Elon Musk and what
Speaker 2: are we going to do about Kevin Rud all of
Speaker 2: that with Paulmnk Right after this, let's go back to
Speaker 2: the United States. Donald Trump has announced that billionaire richest
Speaker 2: man in the world, Elon Musk, and of course former
Speaker 2: GOP presidential candidate Vivic Aswami will have roles in his administration.
Speaker 2: They're going to lead the Department of Government Efficiency, which
Speaker 2: the President elect said will dismantle government bureaucracy, slash excess regulations,
Speaker 2: cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure federal agencies. In other words,
Speaker 2: the Manhattan Project of our time. Let's bring in our
Speaker 2: former defense intelligence analyst Monk Paul. I suspect there are
Speaker 2: a few bureaucrats in the US tonight who might be
Speaker 2: quietly changing their underwear at the thought of what's going
Speaker 2: to happen here. How much would this change the way
Speaker 2: government operates in the US, do you.
Speaker 16: Think, Well, a great deal depends of course, on how
Speaker 16: precisely and efficiently do I say it's carried out. So
Speaker 16: let's be in no doubt that party politics and ideology
Speaker 16: are such a site. The US is running massive deficits,
Speaker 16: and they're not sustainable, and the real thrust of those deficits,
Speaker 16: the real cause of them, is unfunded entitlement. So something
Speaker 16: has to be done. An Elon Musk, in his customary way,
Speaker 16: is such a visionary and an innovator, says let's do
Speaker 16: something about this like we mean it. So I think
Speaker 16: that he's been appointed to this role, is itself a
Speaker 16: very interesting development, But the question of precisely how to
Speaker 16: go about it when he's starting from scratch and doesn't
Speaker 16: himself have a substantial staff to work with to do
Speaker 16: the enormous amount of reviewing that would have to go
Speaker 16: into such a program gives one pause because there are
Speaker 16: a lot of ways to get this wrong. I would
Speaker 16: hope the administration's not intimidated by the scale of the task,
Speaker 16: and that they set about it in a systematic way
Speaker 16: that remains to be seen.
Speaker 2: And if there's anyone who can do it, I think
Speaker 2: it's Elon Musk. I just wish we could have one
Speaker 2: of these here. We've found out today we've spent another
Speaker 2: five billion dollars on more public servants, one person who
Speaker 2: is sort of trying to save his career as well
Speaker 2: under the Trump administration. Of course, our very own Kevin Rudd,
Speaker 2: one of Trump's senior advisors, Dan Scavino Junior, post to
Speaker 2: this on X It's a pretty pointed warning. I would
Speaker 2: have thought to our ambassador to the United States, the
Speaker 2: time is running out.
Speaker 16: Yes, well, in a sense, it would probably be running
Speaker 16: out even without Donald Trump winning the election, because Kevin
Speaker 16: is a labor appointee and we may well have a
Speaker 16: liberal or coalition government by halfway through next year. But
Speaker 16: the reality is that Kevin has a bad habit of
Speaker 16: expressing strong opinions personal opinions out of turn and Kim
Speaker 16: Beasley made a very sage remark at the time when
Speaker 16: Kevin is appointed, saying that that Kevin needs to learn
Speaker 16: the role of an ambassador is not to express opinions,
Speaker 16: it is to cultivate relationships. But I think Kevin can't
Speaker 16: help himself, and the birds or the chickens are coming
Speaker 16: home to roost. It'll be interesting, therefore, to see what
Speaker 16: actually falls out of this in the next couple of months.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we've got fifty seconds left. I've been surprised by
Speaker 2: the reaction of some very learned people who've actually said,
Speaker 2: will there's really nothing much to worry about here, including
Speaker 2: his defenders has been Tony Abbott, which I was surprised by.
Speaker 16: It is interesting. I'm not sure what motivated that. Maybe
Speaker 16: it's an xpm's club, because Turnbull has been defending him
Speaker 16: as well, you know, and Turnbull pointedly and I think
Speaker 16: very correctly, declined to endorse Kevin's desire to become Secretary
Speaker 16: General of the United nations. Heaven knows, the UNS dysfunctional
Speaker 16: enough as it is without having Kevin at the steering wheel.
Speaker 16: So I think it's it's probably fair to say that,
Speaker 16: whatever one's criticisms of him, Kevin is a high intelligent perts.
Speaker 16: And then he's doubtless done some good things while there.
Speaker 16: One of the things, as you know, he's just done,
Speaker 16: is he's published on Sidy and Pinion.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I'm sorry we've run out of time. He
Speaker 2: is knowledgeable on China, but somehow I suspect this is
Speaker 2: going to be a problem. Thank you for joining me,
Speaker 2: and thank you all at home for joining me. Scherry
Speaker 2: will be back tomorrow night. And he's back. Paul Murray
Speaker 2: is here in the man Cave.