Speaker 1: From the sky New Center. This is Paul Murray Live.
Speaker 1: Thank you Shari, and welcome aboard for your Thursday night.
Speaker 1: We're easing into the weekend.
Speaker 2: He to night.
Speaker 1: Pay labond in Paul Murray, So charge your glass and
Speaker 1: settle in. Christy McSweeney and Garth Hamilton will be with
Speaker 1: me later. The cost of servicing an EV and you
Speaker 1: believe it is about to go up. We'll talk about
Speaker 1: that then. Lisa Goddard and Joe Hildebrand will keep the
Speaker 1: fun going. And we have the new enemy ham sandwiches
Speaker 1: in school canteens. Seriously or on that in a moment.
Speaker 1: But let's start with some good news tonight. One nation
Speaker 1: has won an extra Senate seat today. Of course, there
Speaker 1: was talk that Paulin Hansen's daughter Lee could win down
Speaker 1: in Tasmania, but as we know, Jackie Lamby managed to
Speaker 1: fend her off, but she's managed to get a candidate
Speaker 1: over the line. In Western Australia. Tarron Witten was declared
Speaker 1: the winner of the final Senate spot today and he
Speaker 1: seems like exactly the kind of bloke we should have
Speaker 1: more of in Parliament to help start a successful construction company.
Speaker 1: So he has an understanding of the real world. He
Speaker 1: has some runs on the board, he has some success,
Speaker 1: and he's not a serial candidate who's been trying to
Speaker 1: get into politics forever because well he's got nothing better
Speaker 1: to do. And hopefully he'll be a voice for all
Speaker 1: the things that we talk about here every night, sensible migration,
Speaker 1: sensible energy policy, the sort of stuff that One Nation
Speaker 1: has been pushing. And look, there's no getting away from
Speaker 1: the fact that it was a landslide election for Labor.
Speaker 1: We all know that the Coalition absolutely bugged it up.
Speaker 1: But this is a great effort by One Nation. It's
Speaker 1: the first time we should note that they've had a
Speaker 1: senator elected outside of Queensland without it being a double
Speaker 1: dissolution election. Now, of course it's a double dissolution. The
Speaker 1: whole of the Senate has to go up for elections,
Speaker 1: so the quota you need to get elected is halved.
Speaker 1: That's why a bunch of One Nation senators were elected
Speaker 1: in twenty sixteen. But this is the first time it's
Speaker 1: been done at a step and an election with double
Speaker 1: the quota you had in twenty sixteen, and that is
Speaker 1: no mean feat. So I know a lot of people
Speaker 1: are licking their wounds and down and out about the
Speaker 1: election result. But let this be an example of the
Speaker 1: fact that things may not be as bad as you
Speaker 1: think they are. I mean, conservatism hasn't just died overnight
Speaker 1: in Australia. And it's probably a good moment to consider
Speaker 1: as well that if all of these small right of
Speaker 1: center parties, and there's plenty of them and their preferences
Speaker 1: of course, got this Feller in, but if they knocked
Speaker 1: their heads together and formed a united front like Reform
Speaker 1: in the UK, they'd probably be a lot more powerful
Speaker 1: than many people realize. So good luck to him, and
Speaker 1: I'm sure we'll see him here on our screens very soon.
Speaker 1: Speaking of conservative politics. Of course, the coalition back together now,
Speaker 1: so they'll have to work out whether or not they
Speaker 1: support zero by twenty fifty. Now you probably know my view.
Speaker 1: I think they need to get rid of it, and
Speaker 1: I'll talk a bit more about that in a moment,
Speaker 1: but let's go through how all of it plays out today. First. Now, obviously,
Speaker 1: yesterday Opposition leader Susan Lee said that she wouldn't just
Speaker 1: be backingit zero at any cost. Essentially, if we're going
Speaker 1: to back ned zero, it has to be because we
Speaker 1: think it's the best deal for the Australian people. We
Speaker 1: can't just blindly follow down the road of net zero. Well,
Speaker 1: this was Leon Skar this morning.
Speaker 3: Their agreement with the Nationals was that we would as
Speaker 3: a first step, announce as one of the policies we
Speaker 3: have jointly as a coalition to remove the moratorium. There's
Speaker 3: plenty of work to be done in terms of nuclear
Speaker 3: energy policy more broadly after that. That's a good starting point,
Speaker 3: but we'll take the time to get this right.
Speaker 1: We'll work through the issues now. Look, it's pretty noncommittal,
Speaker 1: but then she has said that everything is on the
Speaker 1: table and they'll have to discuss all this stuff. So
Speaker 1: she's not really in a position to make any commitments yet,
Speaker 1: but she is opening the door to getting rid of
Speaker 1: net zero and that is welcome and certainly from within
Speaker 1: the Nationals. There were a few people stoking the fire
Speaker 1: this morning. Barnaby Joyce has spoken against nick zero plenty
Speaker 1: of times before, but this is what he said this morning.
Speaker 4: I'm going to focus very much on getting rid of
Speaker 4: net zero.
Speaker 5: Can see the silhoue out of those hills.
Speaker 4: We don't want them covered it in swindle factories wind towers,
Speaker 4: solar panels. We've got to make sure that we keep
Speaker 4: the power price right for pensioners. They're moorried about the
Speaker 4: power price than they are about a Paris agreement. So
Speaker 4: I look after the pensions before I look after Paris.
Speaker 1: And he was even more animated about it with Andrew Bolton,
Speaker 1: and good on him. I mean, he doesn't have to
Speaker 1: worry about cabinet anymore. It's on the back bench. He
Speaker 1: can say exactly what he wants, which will be good
Speaker 1: because we know Barnaby will speak his mind and often
Speaker 1: speak common sense. And another former Deputy Prime Minister who's
Speaker 1: been dumped from the Shadow ministry is Michael McCormack. He's
Speaker 1: also questioning the value of nit zero.
Speaker 6: I think we need to have a very serious discussion
Speaker 6: about that. When I go to places such as crookle
Speaker 6: vinyl On Gunning where they've got a huge wind towers
Speaker 6: bounding as another place huge wind towers, they've done their
Speaker 6: heavy lift as far as making sure that they put
Speaker 6: these massive turbines up the solar factories that are bobbing
Speaker 6: up all over taking up valuable arable country farmland. You know,
Speaker 6: I think regional Australia has done its fair share, and
Speaker 6: I think we need to revisit that given the fact
Speaker 6: of the world. Indeed, America and other countries and other
Speaker 6: political parties in other nations have really revisited this net
Speaker 6: zero I think the Nationals will do the same.
Speaker 1: Meanwhile, just to sort of lighten the mood a bit,
Speaker 1: Matt Canavan's got into the AI who posted this on
Speaker 1: X this morningness. I think they need to get Matt
Speaker 1: to do the music video to that one anyway. But
Speaker 1: of course there are people in the Liberal Party, the
Speaker 1: wets in the Liberal Party who want to keep going
Speaker 1: with net zero. Zoey McKenzie was on SCAR this afternoon.
Speaker 7: I am personally optimistic that we will continue to observe
Speaker 7: the net zero goal. It is important for an electorate
Speaker 7: like mine, where environment is very highly valued. But more importantly,
Speaker 7: it's very important in the minds of the people in
Speaker 7: Australia's metropolitan seats. There are eighty eight of them, and
Speaker 7: my side of politics only now holds eight, and so
Speaker 7: we must be very focused on the aspirations and perspectives
Speaker 7: of metropolitan Australia in rebuilding our policy platform towards twenty
Speaker 7: twenty eight.
Speaker 1: So net zero didn't work for you this time, So
Speaker 1: what makes you think it's going to work for you
Speaker 1: next time? You know, I get the point she's making
Speaker 1: about wealthier seats, and she represents one of them on
Speaker 1: the Mornington Peninsula in Victoria. And we know about all
Speaker 1: the Teal seats, but the majority of the country doesn't
Speaker 1: live in wealthy seats. They can't afford to have a
Speaker 1: social conscience and vote for the environment. They have to
Speaker 1: vote for their hip pockets. They have to be able
Speaker 1: to put food on the table. They want to be
Speaker 1: able to turn the lights on for a reasonable price.
Speaker 1: And if you look at the seats that the Liberals
Speaker 1: lost at this election just gone, they weren't inner city seats.
Speaker 1: I mean, they already went to the Teals three years ago,
Speaker 1: and of course they won one of those back with
Speaker 1: Tim Wilson. But it's the outer suburbs where the Libs
Speaker 1: went wrong this time. Hues in Southern Sydney, more in
Speaker 1: perths Out and North Dixon, Ford Banks. You know, they're
Speaker 1: not in teal or green sort of territory. And you
Speaker 1: can't tell me that these people are voting on the
Speaker 1: basis of net zero, that the people who are struggling
Speaker 1: to pay their power bills, and they are the people
Speaker 1: you need to get back if the coalition wants to
Speaker 1: win another election. I mean, the Libs can try to
Speaker 1: claw back those Teal seats by veering to the left
Speaker 1: all they want, but that will not secure any kind
Speaker 1: of long term future for the Liberal Party. The future
Speaker 1: of the Liberal Party is in the outer suburbs and
Speaker 1: the Perry urban areas. But here's the blueprint to walk
Speaker 1: both sides of the fence, as it were. You can
Speaker 1: get rid of net zero. Say look, there's no sense
Speaker 1: in signing ourselves up to targets that it seems pretty
Speaker 1: clear we won't meet, and no one else quite frankly
Speaker 1: will meet. I mean, it's just words on a page.
Speaker 1: It means nothing and clearly going as hard as we
Speaker 1: have to try to meet it has bagged up the
Speaker 1: energy grid. So we won't pursue a net zero target.
Speaker 1: But we will say there is a place for renewable
Speaker 1: energy in the grid, along with a mix of other sources,
Speaker 1: including nuclear, and we will move towards decarbonization at a
Speaker 1: time and a pace that economically best serves the people
Speaker 1: of Australia. We won't rush things. We won't do anything
Speaker 1: that unnecessarily drives up power bills. We will work first
Speaker 1: and foremost to keep the lights on for a reasonable price,
Speaker 1: while also looking at how to make the grid cleaner. Now,
Speaker 1: I'm sure the left of the Liberal Party will say
Speaker 1: that's not good enough, but really you have to make
Speaker 1: a serious point of difference between you and the Labor Party.
Speaker 1: You have to say, look, we understand the environmental aspect
Speaker 1: and that is what we are working towards, but that
Speaker 1: cannot come at the expense of the Australian people. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's all good and well to say that we have
Speaker 1: to save the planet, but what's the point of saving
Speaker 1: the planet if it means financially strangling the people who
Speaker 1: currently live on it. People didn't vote for a ratalus
Speaker 1: and same same coalition at this election, and they're not
Speaker 1: going to do it at the next day either. Now
Speaker 1: it's no secret that we need more houses, more apartments,
Speaker 1: but in more places for people to live. I get
Speaker 1: it we're in a housing crisis, but I just don't
Speaker 1: get this obsession at the moment, particularly in New South Wales,
Speaker 1: with destroying existing productive assets in order to put up
Speaker 1: dog boxes. Now, obviously the plan to turn rose Hill
Speaker 1: Racecourse into homes has failed. It was voted down on
Speaker 1: Tuesday by the members of the ATC and rightly so
Speaker 1: in my opinion. So now Chris Min's the new South
Speaker 1: Wales Premier, saying well, we'll have to find some other
Speaker 1: currently useful joint to slap tens of thousands of homes on.
Speaker 1: And the suggestion is that that place is Glebe Island,
Speaker 1: which is between Sydney CBD and Balmine. It also happens
Speaker 1: to be the last working port in Sydney. Now, the
Speaker 1: Maritime Union today has come out and said this is
Speaker 1: a dumb idea. And I'm not saying we should be
Speaker 1: taking dictation from the wharf is there as bad as
Speaker 1: the CFMEU when it comes to Thagaray and dodgy deals,
Speaker 1: at least historically anyway. But this isn't just the wharfies,
Speaker 1: it's the industry too. They've set up the Working Port
Speaker 1: Coalition to fight against the joint being shut down and
Speaker 1: turned into houses. A lot of the state's cement and
Speaker 1: sugar comes through the port at Gleebland. It needs to
Speaker 1: be noted and let's be honest It's not often that
Speaker 1: the unions and the employers are singing from the same
Speaker 1: hymn sheet, but here they are. They both say that
Speaker 1: getting rid of Sydney's last working is a dumb idea. Now,
Speaker 1: much like rose Hill, once you get rid of these things,
Speaker 1: you never get them back. And the reality is that yes,
Speaker 1: we need more houses. But the reason we need more
Speaker 1: houses is because the city isn't getting any smaller. The
Speaker 1: population isn't getting any smaller. So having a working port
Speaker 1: in Sydney will only become more important because we'll need
Speaker 1: more volumes of stuff coming in. And if it's not
Speaker 1: coming into Sydney, then it has to go to Newcastle
Speaker 1: or Port Kembler. Then it has to be taken into Sydney.
Speaker 1: So you increase transport costs and that increases product costs,
Speaker 1: and on and on it goes. The need for a
Speaker 1: port is growing, The need for a racecourse in the
Speaker 1: Western suburbs is only growing, just like the population. People
Speaker 1: want things to do. They want things to come into
Speaker 1: the city, don't they. And if you increase the population,
Speaker 1: you need the things to service them. You can't just
Speaker 1: build houses willy nilly and then hope that a city
Speaker 1: is able to operate. You have to actually think about
Speaker 1: how all these people can live and not just exist
Speaker 1: in a city. And this is the frustrating thing about
Speaker 1: planning and population. The only thing the people in charge
Speaker 1: seem to care about is increasing the population. Poured all
Speaker 1: these migrants, more than a million under the Albanesi government.
Speaker 1: And then, oh no, we don't have any houses for them.
Speaker 1: Oh no, rents are going through the roof. Oh no,
Speaker 1: young people can't afford a house anymore. What are we
Speaker 1: going to do? Quick? Let's knock down the racecourses and
Speaker 1: the port so we can stack up a bunch of
Speaker 1: dog boxes. No one asked for this. No one asked
Speaker 1: us whether we wanted it either. We didn't ask for
Speaker 1: a big Australia. But we've been told you must have
Speaker 1: a big Australia. You must welcome all the migrants. You
Speaker 1: must give up ports and racecourses so we can house
Speaker 1: all these people. Why for what?
Speaker 2: Now?
Speaker 1: I know migration is run by the federal government and
Speaker 1: planning is run by the states, but I don't see
Speaker 1: any premiers turning the these people away or saying turn
Speaker 1: off the tap. You created this problem by flooding us
Speaker 1: with people when we didn't have enough homes for them.
Speaker 1: You forced rents and house prices through the roof as
Speaker 1: a result, and now you tell us that we should
Speaker 1: be giving up productive assets to give all these people
Speaker 1: somewhere to live. This is not it's not a long
Speaker 1: term mession. It's not what's best for the country. It's
Speaker 1: a short term fix to a problem the government has created,
Speaker 1: ostensibly because productivity is through the floor and the only
Speaker 1: way to stop the country from officially going into recession
Speaker 1: was to import masses of people and give them jobs.
Speaker 1: Don't forget seventy five percent of all jobs created in
Speaker 1: Australia last year. We're in the public sector or industries
Speaker 1: that are propped up by government funding like health and education.
Speaker 1: We're not actually creating jobs and economic growth. We're running
Speaker 1: an immigration Ponzi scheme where you generate alleged economic growth
Speaker 1: by importing people and then the government essentially funds their
Speaker 1: jobs so they can go and spend the money, and
Speaker 1: they go, look, there's jobs growth, there's economic growth. But
Speaker 1: there's not. It's a band aid and we are having
Speaker 1: to deal with the consequences. The face of our cities
Speaker 1: and our country is rapidly changing, and we don't really
Speaker 1: seem to have a say in what it looks like.
Speaker 1: We need to talk seriously about the future of our
Speaker 1: population and the future of our cities, what we want
Speaker 1: them to look like, how they can operate, how many
Speaker 1: people we can fit in them. But neither of the
Speaker 1: major parties really seem to want to have that conversation.
Speaker 1: They'd rather just rip up things like race courses and
Speaker 1: ports and put up cheap apartments because hey, economic growth.
Speaker 1: But I think you and I both know that's a scam. Now.
Speaker 1: The nanny state is to have been out in force
Speaker 1: recently in South Australia. A couple of weeks ago you
Speaker 1: had the state government introduce a ban on ads for
Speaker 1: unhealthy foods and drinks on public transport, which includes processed meats.
Speaker 1: So you can't advertise a ham sandwich on the side
Speaker 1: of a bus anymore because, as we know, that will
Speaker 1: fix obesity. But if it makes feel any better. It's
Speaker 1: not just us having this trouble. Over in the UK,
Speaker 1: some mob called the Food Foundation has decided that school
Speaker 1: canteens should stop serving ham sandwiches and sausage rolls. The
Speaker 1: manager of this outfit, Rebecca Toby, She said it is
Speaker 1: particularly worrying to see children eating such a high proportion
Speaker 1: of processed meat, with schools and restaurants often serving up
Speaker 1: very meaty menus, businesses and policymakers must work together for
Speaker 1: people and planet to ensure that healthier and more sustainable,
Speaker 1: plant rich options are more available and crucially more available
Speaker 1: to better support families tasting. I also found that children
Speaker 1: proportionately eat more processed meat than adults, But I mean,
Speaker 1: is that really is surprise. I think we all knew
Speaker 1: that children can be fussy, but they eventually grow out
Speaker 1: of it. And look, I obviously don't disagree that healthier
Speaker 1: options should be availab but this idea that you have
Speaker 1: to yank the ham sandwiches and the sausage rolls. Really
Speaker 1: the issue is apparently that processed meats cause bowel cancer.
Speaker 1: But you know what, to be perfectly honest, I don't
Speaker 1: really care. I mean, yes, if you diet is entirely
Speaker 1: made up of sausages and ham sandwiches with white bread
Speaker 1: and wash down with chocolate milk, then perhaps you should
Speaker 1: reconsider your choices. But the reality is you have to
Speaker 1: die of something. We're all going to die one day
Speaker 1: if I die from enjoying a pork and finel sausage
Speaker 1: RIGATONI too much, then, so be it. That's just my
Speaker 1: lot in life. If I shave five years off because
Speaker 1: I enjoy a bottle of red whatever, I enjoyed it
Speaker 1: while I was doing it. I mean, who decided that
Speaker 1: a long life and clean living was the best version
Speaker 1: of life? Maybe it is for you. Good luck to you,
Speaker 1: go for it, but just leave the rest of us
Speaker 1: alone with you now. I don't know if you've looked
Speaker 1: at the official recommendations around these things, but they're pretty
Speaker 1: damn restrictive. The World Health Organization deems processed meat a
Speaker 1: group one castinagen, which I'm a racing man, so that
Speaker 1: led me to think that they must be the best
Speaker 1: castogen the top of the tree, and from a taste perspective,
Speaker 1: I think I'm right, But apparently it means they're deadly.
Speaker 1: Red meat is a group two a castinagen, which means
Speaker 1: it probably causes bow cancer. So get this. The Cancer
Speaker 1: Council says you should only eat four hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: five grams of cooked, lean red meat every week, and
Speaker 1: suggests that four hundred grams of raw red meat once
Speaker 1: it's being cooked, at which point it's less than four
Speaker 1: hundred grams. Is enough to feed a family of four
Speaker 1: I mean maybe a family of four toddlers. Really, they
Speaker 1: recommend that you eat little, if any, processed meat. How boring.
Speaker 1: Don't get started on drinking. The Health Department says you
Speaker 1: should have no more than ten standard drinks a week,
Speaker 1: which quite to about six schooners of beer or a
Speaker 1: bit over a bottle of wine. If you have more
Speaker 1: than four standard drinks in one sitting, the drink police
Speaker 1: say you are a binge drinker. Now, a standard glass
Speaker 1: of wine is about one and a half standard drinks,
Speaker 1: so if you have one glass before dinner, one with
Speaker 1: one after, which would be pretty standard for a lot
Speaker 1: of people. I'm sure many of you are sitting there
Speaker 1: having a glass of wine or a beer, or a
Speaker 1: brandy or whatever your poison of choice is. Right now.
Speaker 1: You are a naughty boy or girl. You have had
Speaker 1: too much. You're a risk to yourself, and of course
Speaker 1: you should have precisely zero cigarettes ever, because every cigarette
Speaker 1: is doing you damage. And that may well be true,
Speaker 1: but let's be real, it's not people who had a
Speaker 1: few darries on the weekend in their twenties who are
Speaker 1: dropping dead with lung cancer. And I'm not telling people
Speaker 1: to smoke. I'm not encouraging it before the narks start
Speaker 1: writing in, but I am saying, whatever happened to moderation.
Speaker 1: I've written more on this in a column for news
Speaker 1: dot com Dot a you that'll go online tomorrow, so
Speaker 1: go and have a read of that. But the health
Speaker 1: zelots say they want to save your life, but most
Speaker 1: of the time it seems like they just want to
Speaker 1: sap you of your will to live. Now, I want
Speaker 1: to stand up for an underdog here. There's a bloke
Speaker 1: in Wyala in South Australia, Mark Jones. And Wyala, of course,
Speaker 1: has been in the news recently for the steel works
Speaker 1: that the federal and state governments have had to bail out.
Speaker 1: But Mark Jones wants to open a small bar in
Speaker 1: the town. He wants to open it in the city plaza.
Speaker 1: It'll be called Draft and Drift. And his liquor license
Speaker 1: has been approved, so he's all ready to go, or
Speaker 1: he was anyway, until the Hotels Association came along and
Speaker 1: decided they challenged the liquor license in court after it
Speaker 1: was granted. So now Mark has to stop work setting
Speaker 1: up his bar and go to court next Friday to
Speaker 1: see whether or not he can open. The AHA is
Speaker 1: challenging it because they say that the licensing licensing sorry
Speaker 1: court failed to consider the potential adverse effects quote unquote
Speaker 1: to existing pubs in Wyala. Mister Jones said, we won't
Speaker 1: have Pokey's, no bottle shop, no full meals. It's a small,
Speaker 1: intimate space serving premium cocktails and fine wine. There's nothing
Speaker 1: else like it in Wyala. The money I'd bring in
Speaker 1: is nothing compared with the big hotels with gaming and meals.
Speaker 1: I thought it would be a welcomed edition in town.
Speaker 1: Wyala deserves something new, something different, And here's a bloke
Speaker 1: trying to make a go of things and bring some
Speaker 1: vibrancy to a regional town and the Hotels Association is
Speaker 1: trying to bring him down. Wyale is a town of
Speaker 1: twenty thousand people and I'm sure they can handle a
Speaker 1: wine bar without sending the local pubs broke. And I
Speaker 1: love a good pub, as many of you will know,
Speaker 1: and the AHA does some good work, but come on, guys,
Speaker 1: just let the bloke have his bar. Joining me now
Speaker 1: is liberally MP Garth Hamilton and PR Council Managing Director
Speaker 1: Christy McSweeney team. It's good to see you both, and
Speaker 1: I was talking earlier about the proposition of netzero, of
Speaker 1: course being dropped by the Coalition. There's plenty of push
Speaker 1: from with in the Nationals for this to happen. Garth.
Speaker 1: We spoke last week after you wrote in The Australian
Speaker 1: saying that you need to drop zero because it's blank
Speaker 1: check politics. Now that the Coalition is back together and
Speaker 1: you are both going to go off and have your
Speaker 1: respective discussions about policy and then come back together and
Speaker 1: try and form some sort of cohesive message, what do
Speaker 1: you think the chances are of the Liberal Party agreeing
Speaker 1: to drop net zero?
Speaker 2: Honestly, I just think it's a matter of time. This
Speaker 2: is something that's happening around the world. I remember very
Speaker 2: clearly when we signed up to it, and we were
Speaker 2: told that we had to sign up to it because
Speaker 2: everywhere in the World's everywhere else in the world was
Speaker 2: signed up. It was something that we had to do.
Speaker 2: Well that proved wrong. You know one thing about net zero,
Speaker 2: one thing that's really important. No one knows the cost
Speaker 2: of it financially. I'll tell you the political costs because
Speaker 2: we often don't talk about this. Since that day we
Speaker 2: signed up, we've lost thirty four seats in the coalition.
Speaker 2: We've lost thirty four seats since that day we signed up,
Speaker 2: to two thirds of which have been in the city.
Speaker 2: So I think we can completely throw away this argument
Speaker 2: that this is we need to keep net zero to
Speaker 2: keep city seats absolute nonsense. The proof is the opposite.
Speaker 2: Net zero has cost us city seats. That's a fact.
Speaker 2: The reason it's cost us that is, of course we're conflicted.
Speaker 2: No one believes us on it. I think we just
Speaker 2: need to sort ourselves out, get over this and move on.
Speaker 1: And I know Christy, of course I mentioned zoemckenzie earlier,
Speaker 1: who was saying, you know, my voters care about needs zero,
Speaker 1: and so I can understand from a personal perspective why
Speaker 1: she might be worried. But having net zero as a
Speaker 1: policy platform for the Liberal Party didn't save them in
Speaker 1: the Teal seats. So hanging on to it isn't in
Speaker 1: and of itself, going to help them win those seats back.
Speaker 1: So what is there possibly to gain in hanging on
Speaker 1: to net zero.
Speaker 8: Well, first of all, Zoe is Ralph, and there's eighty
Speaker 8: eight other seats in metropolitan Australia to consider. But what
Speaker 8: we do who know, is that climate change and issues
Speaker 8: around net zero and how much Australians care about that
Speaker 8: has dropped down the order. It's about sitting at number
Speaker 8: eight or nine in terms of measuring against what issues
Speaker 8: people care about when they're all polled prior to the election.
Speaker 8: So we've had a number of elections where's the number
Speaker 8: one issue or been perceived to be the number one
Speaker 8: issue and it's been replaced by cost of living, by crime,
Speaker 8: and by healthcare. And so whatever the policy the coalition
Speaker 8: parties come to, it has to be a policy that
Speaker 8: in part recognizes that if you want to prosecute a
Speaker 8: counter argument, that counter argument has been lost for about
Speaker 8: fifteen years. So if you want to prosecute that argument,
Speaker 8: there's a lot of work that's got to be done
Speaker 8: with messaging to explain it, to tell Australians the economic
Speaker 8: cost of it, the job security cost, to tell Australians
Speaker 8: how we globally benchmark Australia with the United States pulling out,
Speaker 8: with other countries relooking at this. But that work has
Speaker 8: to be done rather than making a blanket decision and
Speaker 8: the Coalition risking those eighty eight metropolitan seats again being
Speaker 8: perceived as a party that doesn't believe in climate change.
Speaker 8: And that's a risk, it's a nuance, but that work
Speaker 8: has to be done if that argument is to be made.
Speaker 1: It's a fair point and this is kind of what
Speaker 1: I was saying earlier that you need to find a
Speaker 1: middle ground where you acknowledge that we want to decarbonize
Speaker 1: in some way, but we have to do it in
Speaker 1: a way that doesn't economically disadvantage Australian people. Garth, Oh, sorry,
Speaker 1: we've lost Garth for a minute. There. We'll move on
Speaker 1: Christy to Asby because we saw this report. The Australian
Speaker 1: had it today from the Strategic Policy Institute, warning that
Speaker 1: the ADF is in serious trouble. They said it will
Speaker 1: become a paper ADF because essentially the government has been
Speaker 1: focused on Orcus and saying, look, you know, we're all
Speaker 1: good here because we've got big picture ideas in the offing,
Speaker 1: but that doesn't really help us in the meantime. I mean,
Speaker 1: if we ran into trouble, we don't have the resources
Speaker 1: right now. Of course, alban Easy was none too happy
Speaker 1: about this, you can understand why because he's been called
Speaker 1: out here he was this morning.
Speaker 9: Well that's what they do, isn't it ask to be?
Speaker 9: I mean, seriously, they need to I think have a
Speaker 9: look at themselves as well and the way that they
Speaker 9: conduct themselves and debates. We've had a defense strategic review,
Speaker 9: We've got considerable additional investment going into defense.
Speaker 1: I think the PM work up a bit groggy this morning.
Speaker 1: He sounds like he smoked a packet of twenty five there.
Speaker 1: But leaving that aside, Christie, you know, the point is
Speaker 1: that we have had more than a decade and it's
Speaker 1: not just the Labor Party's fault. The previous government is
Speaker 1: at fault as well, more than a decade of poor
Speaker 1: defense policy, and I think it's only gotten worse under
Speaker 1: this government. We are in the worst position we've ever
Speaker 1: been basically when it comes to the ADF and defense,
Speaker 1: and the Prime Minister just back to the way and says, ah, well,
Speaker 1: of course Asby would.
Speaker 8: Say that, well, it's sort of you know, played the man,
Speaker 8: not the ball, right, and who knows if he had
Speaker 8: been probably briefed on Asby's report before he made those comments,
Speaker 8: or that was a line that politicians sometimes try and
Speaker 8: weave into things and try and respond with when they're
Speaker 8: not across in detail of the brief and sure, defense
Speaker 8: policy and defense expenditure policy and defense is a policy
Speaker 8: expenditure area that goes out sort of twenty five thirty years,
Speaker 8: you know, and it's really complex and it's really detailed,
Speaker 8: and he may not be an expert in it. He
Speaker 8: may not be competent or confident to mount an argument
Speaker 8: on camera against ASPI, who are experts, who are people
Speaker 8: drawn from military battle, from long time defense intelligence, from
Speaker 8: defense industry, and from the Defense Department themselves. I mean,
Speaker 8: they are Australia's pre eminent expert group of defense analysts.
Speaker 8: And I don't think it's probably right to mount a
Speaker 8: response to Australians wanting to know what his opinion was
Speaker 8: to their allegations or their criticisms of Australia's defense policies,
Speaker 8: saying well, they need to take a look at themselves
Speaker 8: and how they engage in public debate if I was
Speaker 8: wanting to learn about defense or I know whose side
Speaker 8: I'd be on in terms of listening to around defense policy.
Speaker 8: But their report, you know, the cost of defense, they
Speaker 8: make an argument that Australia has never been less prepared
Speaker 8: for the threats that we face, and that we've never
Speaker 8: had more threats to face. And I think they may
Speaker 8: be right, you know, And what else do we know
Speaker 8: about defense? And we know defense departments, even though there's
Speaker 8: not a change of minister, defense departments like to run
Speaker 8: the government. It's a tail wagging the dogs, so to speak.
Speaker 8: And so it's a new government and defenses certainly using
Speaker 8: Asby to assess their message. And I don't think they're wrong,
Speaker 8: and I don't think there's a defense expert in Australia
Speaker 8: who thinks they are wrong.
Speaker 1: Yeah, of course. And I mean the government not that
Speaker 1: long ago was trying to cut money out of Asby,
Speaker 1: probably for good reason, Garth, because they are calling them
Speaker 1: out and telling them exactly how things are. But I
Speaker 1: mean it's not the only example we saw of that today.
Speaker 1: Of course, some Sharry was talking about before, you know,
Speaker 1: Paul Keating's ropable about the capital gains tax, the unrealized
Speaker 1: capital gains tax. So they won't take any notice of
Speaker 1: the bloke you know who designed superannuation what he thinks.
Speaker 1: They won't take any notice of the experts on defense
Speaker 1: and they seem really cocky at the moment Garth, and
Speaker 1: with good reason because they had a good win at
Speaker 1: the election. But Albaneze would want to be very careful
Speaker 1: because governing is not going to get any easier from here,
Speaker 1: and if you get two cocky, he will slip up.
Speaker 2: Well, look, that may well be the case, It certainly
Speaker 2: can't be the basis for our plan for the next
Speaker 2: several years. We've got to be able to form ourselves,
Speaker 2: be able to hold them to account very very quickly.
Speaker 2: But look, I think there's some points that we can
Speaker 2: make here that show this government can spend money. It
Speaker 2: can increase its defense spending if it wants to. And
Speaker 2: I'll give you a really quick comparison that shocked me
Speaker 2: when I went through this process. We spent about fifty
Speaker 2: six billion dollars a year on defense. On NDIS, we
Speaker 2: spend forty eight. By the year twenty thirty five, we're
Speaker 2: hoping we can get out of fense spending up to
Speaker 2: one hundred billion a year, but NDIS by that stage
Speaker 2: will be one hundred and twenty five billion. If this
Speaker 2: government wanted to spend money on this, if it wanted
Speaker 2: to engage people and get moving it could. The truth is,
Speaker 2: I don't think it really focuses on defense. I don't
Speaker 2: think it to solve this problem. I don't think this
Speaker 2: is an area where the government's going to slip up.
Speaker 2: I think this is an area where the government's going
Speaker 2: to walk away and leave a great, big void, which is,
Speaker 2: as you've pointed out, in the current environment, the absolute
Speaker 2: worst situation that Australia could be facing.
Speaker 1: Well, as long as China still thinks he's a handsome boy,
Speaker 1: he'll probably think he's doing it all right. Christy. You
Speaker 1: know EV's I think you like them about as much
Speaker 1: as I do, which is not very much, and most
Speaker 1: of us watching it home would be of that view
Speaker 1: as well. But you know, I hate regulation, and this
Speaker 1: is another example of overregulation. I think in New South
Speaker 1: Wales now they're looking to bring in all these new
Speaker 1: rules that if you want to take your EV to
Speaker 1: be serviced, and you know, fair enough, your life is
Speaker 1: difficult enough as it is because you've bought an EV,
Speaker 1: but you go down to the mechanic, and even a
Speaker 1: mechanic in New South Wales now who's already been working
Speaker 1: on evs has to go off and take a bunch
Speaker 1: of new courses in able to be able to look
Speaker 1: at EV's and learn about batteries and all this sort
Speaker 1: of business because it's supposedly dangerous. So of course that
Speaker 1: will mean it will take longer to get your car
Speaker 1: into be serviced, and it will drive costs up because
Speaker 1: they have to pay for all these courses. I mean,
Speaker 1: for goodness, say, why can't we just let people get
Speaker 1: on with life.
Speaker 8: Well, first of all, there's not enough evs on the
Speaker 8: road versus internal combustion engines for a start for this
Speaker 8: regulation to come into effect extremely quickly. It's slated to
Speaker 8: be due on the second of September. Now, the industry,
Speaker 8: which includes Australian Aftermarket Automotive Association, major industry groups like
Speaker 8: Capricorn Capricorn who have thirty thousand members across Australia and
Speaker 8: New zealand five thousand in New South Wales, ninety seven
Speaker 8: percent of their members of small businesses employing around an
Speaker 8: average of five people have said there's been no clarity.
Speaker 8: There's been consultation, but it hasn't come to small businesses.
Speaker 8: And what do we know about small businesses ability to
Speaker 8: engage in console? They're flat out, they're facing skill shortages
Speaker 8: in the automotive sector. They're just trying to keep their
Speaker 8: business afloat in these economic conditions and keep their customers
Speaker 8: happy and meet demand a mid supply chain costs as well.
Speaker 8: They don't have time to engage, so they're all very,
Speaker 8: very surprised that the New South Wales government has now
Speaker 8: said to them, by the second of September, you have
Speaker 8: to train all your staff on these New South Wales
Speaker 8: Government mandated to approved training courses, which are multi day courses.
Speaker 8: You have to close your business to be able to
Speaker 8: go and do them, or you have to stagger your
Speaker 8: staff one at a time. They're not held across many
Speaker 8: areas in regional New South Wales. And if you don't
Speaker 8: do that on the second of September, when an ev
Speaker 8: car comes in, you cannot service this and you have
Speaker 8: to turn away customers because you're not compliant. Now the
Speaker 8: automotive sector says, well, fair enough, we accept that there
Speaker 8: has to be industry transition and we welcome industry transition.
Speaker 8: The automotive industry is already training people, of course with
Speaker 8: supply groups and guess what that training is fit for purpose,
Speaker 8: So you don't have to close your business and shut
Speaker 8: up shop if to actually do that training.
Speaker 1: But if he's one bug it has said, if you
Speaker 1: want to back something up, give it to a government
Speaker 1: to do. I'm sorry both both of you run out
Speaker 1: of time. Christium Xquen and Garth Hamilton. I'll see you
Speaker 1: both again very soon. And a note to my accountants
Speaker 1: as well. He's trying to phone me. Mate. Turn on
Speaker 1: the TV. Aren't you watching? After the break? Lisa Godard
Speaker 1: and Joe Hildebrand don't go away joining me now Lisa
Speaker 1: Godard from a Journey Media and Joe Hildebrand, of course
Speaker 1: Scar and News contributed. Lisa, welcome to the guest from Brisbane.
Speaker 10: It must be a little colder here is freezing down here.
Speaker 10: I have to say, you've got it freezing cold.
Speaker 1: I prefer it. I prefer it that way. I specifically
Speaker 1: requested it. And Joe, can you believe we're just complaining.
Speaker 1: He didn't listen to the sermon earlier from the health
Speaker 1: police about how you can only have four standard drinks
Speaker 1: in anyone sitting and you can only have six schooners
Speaker 1: of beer a week. He was just complaining that coming
Speaker 1: here is cutting into his drinking time.
Speaker 11: It's terrible I've never I've never faced more of a
Speaker 11: threat to my functioning alcoholism, and I have with my
Speaker 11: appearances on Sky News. Well that's exactly, It's what most
Speaker 11: people may think. I'm actually sober when I appear on again.
Speaker 1: Look, at least at least it provides you with the
Speaker 1: money to go and buy your Pike's reasoning, which I know.
Speaker 5: Is that's exactly right. And for drinks, I mean, that's
Speaker 5: not unreason. I wouldn't have more than four drinks an hour.
Speaker 1: No, No, I wouldn't have thought so either. It's it's
Speaker 1: a good way to prepare and more fall out today
Speaker 1: from the shadow ministry. Of course. Look, it's pretty clear
Speaker 1: that there were a few people more than a little
Speaker 1: peeved that they didn't get in there. I thought Michael
Speaker 1: McCormick today was very interesting when he was asked on
Speaker 1: the ABC you know whether or not there was a
Speaker 1: threat to David Little Proud's leadership, and he goes, well,
Speaker 1: you'd have to ask David about that. And then he
Speaker 1: was asked whether or not, I'm asked whether or not
Speaker 1: he has any ambition to be leader again, and he said, oh, well,
Speaker 1: never say never. I mean, they're not hiding there staying here, Lisa.
Speaker 10: Now, if you look at one O one in media messaging,
Speaker 10: it's as soon as you go out and say deny
Speaker 10: it or so well, it's a question for him, of course,
Speaker 10: there is something to smell there. So they're all doing
Speaker 10: it and it's a case now of just when will
Speaker 10: we see that next move made?
Speaker 11: I think, Joe, yeah, I think that's probably right. I mean,
Speaker 11: my favorite bit, next thing, Michael McComb coming out. So,
Speaker 11: David Little Proud is the leader and I support the leader.
Speaker 11: I support the leader. You always say I support the leader.
Speaker 11: You never you never say that by name. So David
Speaker 11: Little Proud is the leader and I support the leader.
Speaker 11: And then the next day you say Matt Canavan is
Speaker 11: the leader and I support the leader. Obviously, I think
Speaker 11: David Little Proud has not covered himself in glory in
Speaker 11: the last week or so. Clearly, Matt Canavan doesn't want
Speaker 11: a front bench position because he wants to be able
Speaker 11: to speak his mind and it's good for everyone else
Speaker 11: that he gets a chance to do that. Michael McCormack
Speaker 11: and Barnaby Joyce, We're never ever going to be nominated
Speaker 11: a Little Proud for the NATS carve out of the
Speaker 11: cabinet or shadow cabinet spots. So I don't think there
Speaker 11: are any surprises there, although you know the number of
Speaker 11: other Number one rule in politics is keep your friends
Speaker 11: close and your enemies closer. So you know, if you
Speaker 11: want to give Joyce or McCormick more of a reason
Speaker 11: to roll you, I think you know, the difference between
Speaker 11: a backbench's salary and a minister's salary is probably about
Speaker 11: one hundred thousand reasons or so.
Speaker 1: Yeah, how would you like to be just into nampajmper
Speaker 1: Price at the moment though you know you've changed party rooms.
Speaker 1: You go to the Liberal Party and you get rewarded
Speaker 1: by Susan Lee by being taken out of the portfolio
Speaker 1: in which you have great strength and being put into
Speaker 1: defense industry.
Speaker 10: Well, the problem with this, I think is the Liberal
Speaker 10: Party are always fighting this. Well, you have a women's problem,
Speaker 10: what are you doing about it? And right now you've
Speaker 10: got four of them that have been pretty much sidelined.
Speaker 10: So it's a really bad look when you think about
Speaker 10: here's a female leader. You've put fourth senior women to
Speaker 10: the side and never jimber Price was great during the
Speaker 10: Voice campaign. They needed her desperately to do that. Now
Speaker 10: she's got nothing in return. She was shaping up to
Speaker 10: be potential deputy leader. What does that say. I just
Speaker 10: think you're right, Joed, is to keep your enemies close.
Speaker 10: Look at what she's done with Angus Taylor. So I
Speaker 10: think that there if she's saying, we've got all the
Speaker 10: players out on the field, everyone's out there, all of
Speaker 10: the members at the moment, I think there's a lot
Speaker 10: of them plotting what's the next rematch? Are we plotting
Speaker 10: for the next that next game.
Speaker 5: On the field Susan Layer's defense.
Speaker 11: Just enter Price did join the Liberal Party with the
Speaker 11: sole intention of rolling her as the leader. I mean
Speaker 11: she was going to run on Angus Taylor's ticket, so
Speaker 11: that was the whole reason behind it. But I think
Speaker 11: I think Jacinta was who is a dear friend of mine.
Speaker 5: I love her very much.
Speaker 11: I think she was hopelessly misused in that quasi doge portfolio.
Speaker 11: I don't know why you would get someone who is
Speaker 11: such a firebrand crusader on indigenous affairs and say we're
Speaker 11: going to give you a really dry kind of fiscal
Speaker 11: portfolio and again to give her defense material, give her
Speaker 11: defense material, like why give her anything at all? Like, well,
Speaker 11: who do you think is going to open the newspaper?
Speaker 5: In mindest?
Speaker 11: I wonder what just Center Price has to say about,
Speaker 11: you know, whether or not there's enough scrambled eggs and
Speaker 11: at the astral Summarine Corporation, I mean much.
Speaker 1: I think Tha's are a real disservice, and I think
Speaker 1: does the coalition of disservice as to be honest as well?
Speaker 1: Because I think she's a good performer. I think she's
Speaker 1: a vote winner as well. Over in the US, of course,
Speaker 1: the Trump tariffs have now been sort of halted for
Speaker 1: a while because the courts have said it's not legal.
Speaker 1: They're now going to take it. He's going to take
Speaker 1: it up to the Supreme Court and say I should
Speaker 1: have this power. Does it really matter, though, because my
Speaker 1: reading of all of it from the beginning is that
Speaker 1: it was never really about the tariff's being one hundred
Speaker 1: percent or one hundred and forty percent or whatever number
Speaker 1: he slapped on each individual country. We ended up with
Speaker 1: ten percent. Of course, China went through the roof, but
Speaker 1: he went negotiated with China and got things back down.
Speaker 1: I don't know that Trump ever really intended it to
Speaker 1: be the be all and end all. The idea was
Speaker 1: to try and force other country is to give him
Speaker 1: more amenable terms, and in some cases he's achieved that.
Speaker 1: So in the long run, Joe does he care.
Speaker 5: Yeah, it's an interesting one. Someone taught me.
Speaker 11: There's a new law and new sort of rule of
Speaker 11: thumb in international diplomacy these days called the Taco rule,
Speaker 11: which is Trump always chickens out. So Trump talks big,
Speaker 11: but then he never actually follows through. And I think
Speaker 11: an addendum to that would be that Trump actually kind
Speaker 11: of relies on the guardrails to both to kind of
Speaker 11: rain in some of his worst impulses, if you like,
Speaker 11: or most successive ones.
Speaker 5: So he relies on the Supreme Court.
Speaker 11: The courts have done it before, they did it with
Speaker 11: his immigration bands from various Muslim countries, they've done in
Speaker 11: other areas, So he kind of relies on that because
Speaker 11: that means he can say, well, everything'll be fine if
Speaker 11: the courts hadn't have stood in my way. And it
Speaker 11: also gives him an off ramp, so he doesn't have
Speaker 11: to go all the way with his great stuff. So
Speaker 11: I think there would definitely be some many in the
Speaker 11: Republican Party who are very very rel that this has happened.
Speaker 11: And it might be that some in Trump's circle are
Speaker 11: kind of like, well, we didn't really want to go through.
Speaker 11: You know, got all the paperwork of you know, applying
Speaker 11: all these tariffs, collecting them all. What we wanted to
Speaker 11: do was throw a giant rock in the puddle and
Speaker 11: just let it ripple out through the globe. And so
Speaker 11: you could then come to the table and say, all right,
Speaker 11: we'll increase our defense spending.
Speaker 5: All right, we'll chuck.
Speaker 11: More money to NATO, all right, we won't you know,
Speaker 11: we'll give you a better deal on your exports.
Speaker 10: But what you've got now, though, Caleb, is you've got
Speaker 10: a lot of uncertainty because if he does push ahead,
Speaker 10: and he does, he's going to appeal what happened. So
Speaker 10: you've got investors everywhere thinking, well, well, what do we
Speaker 10: do so.
Speaker 1: And if you're an investor in Australia going, oh my god,
Speaker 1: that the unrealized Capital Games text coming as.
Speaker 5: Well at the market.
Speaker 1: In big trouble, we got more to get through. Don't
Speaker 1: go away, Joe and Lisa will be back right after this,
Speaker 1: back in the Man Cave with Lisa Goddard and Joe Hildebrand, Lisa,
Speaker 1: what was the go There was meant to be this
Speaker 1: prot today on the story Bridge in Brisbane, your hometown,
Speaker 1: of course, because the thing's crumbling basically, and they've shut
Speaker 1: down the footpath. So they were going to have a
Speaker 1: protest saying that one of the lanes of traffic ought
Speaker 1: to be turned into the footpath, and the coppers went
Speaker 1: to court and banned it all.
Speaker 10: What's going on, good background, So eight o'clock tomorrow morning,
Speaker 10: story Bridge, six lanes of traffic closed, shut down to
Speaker 10: all traffic because the cyclists want to have one lane
Speaker 10: dedicated to cyclists and pedestrians. Now, at this point the
Speaker 10: police have said public safety emergency crews can't get through.
Speaker 10: It's going to cause gridlock. After court they went we
Speaker 10: have a magistrate who actually said, yes, I agree, this
Speaker 10: is a problem. We could be putting people clives. This
Speaker 10: is not safe. So while your protest doesn't get to
Speaker 10: go ahead. Finally, if only they could do that for
Speaker 10: climate change protesters. Do it cyclists, get them off the road,
Speaker 10: that's great, But if they could do it for the
Speaker 10: climate change protesters, imagine what would happen the bridges weren't blocked,
Speaker 10: the road weren't blocked.
Speaker 1: I think it's time for I don't know whether people
Speaker 1: would hate the climate protesters or the cyclists more to.
Speaker 11: Be they're both similarly sanctimonious. I'd want to know, like,
Speaker 11: if they're planning and saying, oh, we want to shut
Speaker 11: down one car lane, one traffic lane for cyclists and pedestrians,
Speaker 11: what are they going to put between them all the
Speaker 11: other cars? So you need the barrier, so that would
Speaker 11: then take up room as well, and then you would
Speaker 11: have to have the like they'd have to get on it.
Speaker 11: Just it's just something tells me that these guys aren't
Speaker 11: structural engineers.
Speaker 1: Funny about that, and often I think cyclists are. But
Speaker 1: they think that everything should be there, so you know,
Speaker 1: that's just how things go.
Speaker 5: They are astronomers, so they know everything.
Speaker 1: Pay registration.
Speaker 10: They don't pay registration, and they are taking up space
Speaker 10: on the roads.
Speaker 1: Don't go down that road. Elon Musk, of course we're
Speaker 1: talking about EVS earlier, but one of the great makers
Speaker 1: of the EV's, Elon Musk, is pulled out now from
Speaker 1: the Trump administration. His time is coming to an end,
Speaker 1: and he's basically said, look, I've had enough, and I
Speaker 1: don't think you can really blame him, Lisa. I mean,
Speaker 1: he's paid a heavy personal price for having been involved
Speaker 1: in setting up DOGE, And a bit's been made of
Speaker 1: the fact that he sort of criticized the Big Beautiful
Speaker 1: Bill in the last couple of days. Are there erections
Speaker 1: between him and Trump or not?
Speaker 10: Do you mean we're not going to see any more
Speaker 10: of the dancing what we do? It's not the first
Speaker 10: time they've had a stout. A Musk was against the tariffs.
Speaker 10: Now he's come out and said he's against the bill
Speaker 10: because he's basically says, I've gone in there, I've done
Speaker 10: the work. Obviously he didn't get the cuts that he
Speaker 10: thought he was going to achieve. But the new Big
Speaker 10: Beautiful Bill, which it can't be two things at once
Speaker 10: with this thing is it's not going to it's going
Speaker 10: to cannibalize any savings that he has actually made. So look,
Speaker 10: he says it's time to go back and focus on
Speaker 10: the business. There are the arguments there that because he
Speaker 10: has done that work, a lot of the federal agencies
Speaker 10: that's sort of minuskulled away at they now have no
Speaker 10: longer powers to sort of go after him and the
Speaker 10: investigations that he was fighting. So, look, it could be
Speaker 10: good for him. It'll in the SpaceX world.
Speaker 1: It probably proves Joe, doesn't it that, you know, in
Speaker 1: life end, in politics you can't have at all, and
Speaker 1: people are very idealistic when they go in, but they
Speaker 1: soon get beaten down.
Speaker 11: Look I'm not a zoo keeper, but I'm pretty sure
Speaker 11: if I had two male lions, I would not.
Speaker 5: Put the same cage.
Speaker 11: I mean, I mean, anyone who couldn't see from space
Speaker 11: that Elon Musk and Donald Trump teaming up together.
Speaker 5: I mean, you know, Batman had to have a robin.
Speaker 11: It's not Batman and Batman, you know, and when it's
Speaker 11: Batman versus Superman spoiler alert.
Speaker 5: So so I think this is always going to happen.
Speaker 11: Musk is already going on about people in the Trump
Speaker 11: administration are undermining him, and this is actually a really
Speaker 11: common throughout history. This is what people have always said
Speaker 11: when there's ever been dissatisfaction with a sort of supreme rule.
Speaker 11: It's not it's not that Donald Trump doesn't like him
Speaker 11: or his undermining him or trying to get rid of him.
Speaker 11: It's his advisors. It's those around him, but those those
Speaker 11: sort of you know, those snake tongued kind of brocracy
Speaker 11: and who's all the roxy And again I think it
Speaker 11: also shows it's so easy to say, oh, you know,
Speaker 11: we'll just fund everything, or we'll just make get all
Speaker 11: our money back by just cutting the ways, cutting the
Speaker 11: wayst cutting this, cutting that you know, we'll do it,
Speaker 11: and then when you actually get into it, it's actually
Speaker 11: like there's institutional facts that play, but there's also kind
Speaker 11: of like some stuff is pretty important, like you know,
Speaker 11: the garbage does need to be collected. So I think
Speaker 11: there's a limit to what you can do. And of
Speaker 11: course this is exactly what Musk did to vivic Ram and.
Speaker 5: The two of them were made because remember they were.
Speaker 11: And then of course basically Musk did to Vivac what
Speaker 11: Trump has done to Sorry Trump's advisors.
Speaker 1: Yes, I've always wondered why people need days of our lives.
Speaker 1: You've got for you before we go. Winners and losers
Speaker 1: of the week, Lisa, I.
Speaker 10: Think the winner, and this might be for the past month,
Speaker 10: is Anthony Albanezi. Joe, you will like that.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Well, now you've taken my go I don't
Speaker 5: know what I'm going to be All of.
Speaker 10: The focus has been on the coalition, so Albanez is there.
Speaker 10: He's not under much scrutiny at the moment, so I
Speaker 10: think he's the winner and loser has to be the
Speaker 10: French president. Surely if he the look on his face
Speaker 10: when he realized that camera was on him for many reasons,
Speaker 10: he's the loser of the week.
Speaker 3: Sure.
Speaker 11: Yeah, Look, i'd have to say albows well, I mean,
Speaker 11: albow has been there, He's still in mine now.
Speaker 5: I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: That is going to be the winner for the next
Speaker 1: like six months, isn't he?
Speaker 5: That's right?
Speaker 11: I think the loser, I think would have to be
Speaker 11: Sadly Susan Lay. I think because just that's right. Everyone
Speaker 11: keeps changing, Everyone says something different every single time, so
Speaker 11: we're going to have to settle that. But I think
Speaker 11: the through no fault of her own. She's trying to
Speaker 11: make the best of a bad lot. But basically every
Speaker 11: single pathway you look at it, like you choose your
Speaker 11: own adventure book, it basically all ends with her in
Speaker 11: a world of pain right up to you know, the
Speaker 11: Nats cracking the Sads and leaving again, Angus Taylor having
Speaker 11: another go the numbers change after the Senate changes on
Speaker 11: July one, so she loses possibly to possibly three then
Speaker 11: depending on how that to your elections go. And then
Speaker 11: of course you've got twenty twenty eight, which she can't
Speaker 11: win anyway, which could see the return of Dun Dun Dum,
Speaker 11: Josh Frodenberg and the King the later in waiting, so we.
Speaker 1: Shall see Joe Hildebrand, Lisa god I thank you for
Speaker 1: joining me tonight after the break. Did you know that
Speaker 1: wind can be stolen? Yes, we have found yet another
Speaker 1: problem with renewable energy. They're arguing now that wind is
Speaker 1: being stolen from other countries that more rapidus. Now, look,
Speaker 1: if we didn't have enough problems with renewable energy as
Speaker 1: it is, we've found another one. People countries, i should say,
Speaker 1: are now being accused of stealing wind from other countries. No,
Speaker 1: I'm not joking. Belgium is apparently stealing the wind from
Speaker 1: the Dutch so they're not getting enough energy out of it.
Speaker 1: This comes from a bloke who runs a weather forecasting
Speaker 1: service over there. He says, wind turbine is designed to
Speaker 1: extract wind from the air. If you measure behind a
Speaker 1: wind turbine, the wind is blowing less hard. Behind a
Speaker 1: wind farm with many wind turbines close together, you really
Speaker 1: see lower wind speeds. His name is rimco Versilberger. Probably
Speaker 1: buggered that up, sorry Feller, but he says that the
Speaker 1: lower caused by wind farm can be quite long. When
Speaker 1: it comes to large wind farms. You can still see
Speaker 1: lower wind speeds one hundred kilometers away under certain circumstances.
Speaker 1: Within that one hundred kilometers, of course, there are other
Speaker 1: wind farms. So what he's saying is there is this
Speaker 1: wind theft where one country puts the wind farm up
Speaker 1: in their country. Of course, in Europe they're all very
Speaker 1: close together, and then the country next door puts up
Speaker 1: their wind farm, and they're essentially saying, well, you've stolen
Speaker 1: our wind because you put your wind turbines in first.
Speaker 1: I mean, for goodness sake. Look, I had never thought
Speaker 1: of the idea that wind could be stolen, but it
Speaker 1: seems it is the case. Thankfully Australia doesn't have to
Speaker 1: worry about that too much. But I'm sure if someone
Speaker 1: else can find a way to extract some money out
Speaker 1: of us, the Pacific nations will be saying very soon
Speaker 1: that we're stealing their wind. And how good is this
Speaker 1: one hundred and one year old bloke in Adelaide. Now
Speaker 1: he is the oldest tennis player in the world. In
Speaker 1: twenty twenty three, became the oldest tennis player in the world.
Speaker 1: He's currently preparing to go and play in a competition
Speaker 1: in Croatia. He's not giving up. I mean, I know,
Speaker 1: I said earlier, a long life isn't necessarily the best
Speaker 1: version of life. But he's certainly enjoying a long life.
Speaker 1: And you know what he sees the secret is to
Speaker 1: living to one hundred and one years old. He drinks
Speaker 1: a liter of milk a day. I mean, everyone has
Speaker 1: a different answer for how they've been able to live
Speaker 1: so long. He says, a liter of milk a day.
Speaker 1: I'm sure they're healthy. Expert to say no too much fat,
Speaker 1: you can't possibly do it, But it works for him. Mate,
Speaker 1: Good on you. You are an absolute legend. That's it
Speaker 1: for me. Up next to the later bait. Good night,