Speaker 1: From the Skying Center. This is Paul Murray.
Speaker 2: Live Wednesday Night. Yeah, the end of hump Day.
Speaker 1: We're on our way towards the weekend, but there's plenty
Speaker 1: of work to be done between now and then, including
Speaker 1: a great conversation with the most fine up lady in
Speaker 1: the world. She is exclusive to this program on a
Speaker 1: Wednesday Night, the wonderful Megan Kelly, who found it rather
Speaker 1: funny that the real estate agents of the Gold Coast
Speaker 1: got together and paid Kamala Harris money to hear her
Speaker 1: speak on the weekend.
Speaker 3: I should be offended that I wasn't invited first. I'm
Speaker 3: much bigger in Australia than Kamala Harris's. Where at my invitation? Realtors?
Speaker 1: All right? Today the new opposition leader has announced their
Speaker 1: plan and number of people for the Shadow Ministry, and
Speaker 1: Susan lay will be on this program in the next
Speaker 1: couple of minutes to go through some of the decisions,
Speaker 1: to talk about the big task that is ahead, and
Speaker 1: a little of her personal story as well. I'm please
Speaker 1: that we're going to have a chance to talk to
Speaker 1: her about these things. Now, let's go through what you
Speaker 1: all know to be the case. Some people, some people
Speaker 1: down Now. Obviously, renewal absolutely front and center. Reality is
Speaker 1: up to two election losses. Many of the people who
Speaker 1: were at the very front end of those two election
Speaker 1: losses are being moved aside or down. Reality of politics,
Speaker 1: reality of professional sport, reality of media, reality of every
Speaker 1: business is that not everyone gets a promotion. Sometimes just
Speaker 1: staying in the game is the promotion. Sometimes people move sidewards,
Speaker 1: and yes, some people are punished for performance or a
Speaker 1: whole bunch of other personal reasons and they start to
Speaker 1: move backwards. The difference between professional sport or the real
Speaker 1: world is that in politics, we know how long this
Speaker 1: is going to go. For there's a three year term,
Speaker 1: some people will move further up, some people will be
Speaker 1: pulled back, and some people will come in from the cold.
Speaker 1: That is the reality. But obviously, after losing thirty seats
Speaker 1: in the past two elections, there are people who needed
Speaker 1: to come towards the front. Some of those people who
Speaker 1: are being brought towards the front. As you can see here,
Speaker 1: Tad O'Brien is the deputy Liberal leader, gets to pick
Speaker 1: whatever he wants to do, and he has chosen that
Speaker 1: he's going to be the shadow treasurer really important. Focus
Speaker 1: on small business is going to be where Tim Wilson
Speaker 1: is going to be. Dave Sharma is there when it
Speaker 1: comes to the money as well, A big brain fella,
Speaker 1: James McGrath. He's going to move to urban infrastructure. Michaulia
Speaker 1: Cash becomes Foreign Affairs James Patterson. Remember he was the
Speaker 1: Home Affairs guy, so he's had immigration, national security. Now
Speaker 1: he starts to broaden himself out and he is a
Speaker 1: spectacular performer both in the Parliament, in Senate estimates and
Speaker 1: on television. So him and the Finance portfolio really important. Yes,
Speaker 1: people have been dudded. Jane him essentially out the back door.
Speaker 1: Will she come back, Well, it'll be up to other
Speaker 1: people to make mistakes and her to impress that it
Speaker 1: is time for her to return. Sarah Henderson goes from
Speaker 1: education out the back door. Michael McCormick, Barnaby Joyce both
Speaker 1: former Deputy prime ministers. Now remember that in part is
Speaker 1: a decision by the National Party as to who they
Speaker 1: put forward, and then Susan Lee makes her decisions about
Speaker 1: who serves. But let's not pretend there aren't going to
Speaker 1: be some noses out a joint. But again the same
Speaker 1: team that's been playing for a long period of time,
Speaker 1: both in government from twenty thirteen and then the elections
Speaker 1: of sixteen, nineteen, twenty two and twenty five. Yep, some
Speaker 1: people are going to move forward, some people are going
Speaker 1: to move back. And I think all of these people
Speaker 1: are good people. So there's nothing personal about this. A
Speaker 1: lot of people want to talk about your Cindernampa Jupa
Speaker 1: Price really important that she of course maintains the shadow ministry. No,
Speaker 1: she is not in the shadow cabinet. I know that,
Speaker 1: Ruffle Sum. I'll let Susan Lay explain in a moment
Speaker 1: or two time why the decision has been made. But
Speaker 1: people that are her supporters are openly saying that it's
Speaker 1: about trying to broaden out the things that she's going
Speaker 1: to be focused on. Angus Taylor foreign affairs, he's of
Speaker 1: course the chief leadership rival, perhaps setting him overseas as
Speaker 1: a way to keep him busy. And Dan teen well,
Speaker 1: he moves into new positions as well. This, in part
Speaker 1: is what Susan Lee had to say her new team today.
Speaker 4: Our team is one of strivers and optimists, of leaders
Speaker 4: and listeners. The new coalition shadow ministry balances experience with
Speaker 4: new talent. It reflects the full range of our philosophical traditions,
Speaker 4: values and perspectives across our two great party rooms.
Speaker 1: Now, as always when you are handing out such prizes,
Speaker 1: there are not enough prizes for enough people that are there.
Speaker 1: If the coalition had not reformed, then there might have
Speaker 1: been almost prizes for every single person from the back
Speaker 1: bench all the way through to the deputy leader. But
Speaker 1: also what seems very obvious, apart from pulling some new
Speaker 1: faces towards the front, people like Angie Bell, great politician
Speaker 1: in and around the southeast of Queensland. People like Melissa Macintosh.
Speaker 1: She's been able to hold on to the western Sydney
Speaker 1: seat of Lindsay, regardless of whether they were the lives
Speaker 1: were in government or opposition, or even going further back
Speaker 1: as they did at the last election. She's going to
Speaker 1: be an interesting fighter. You've also got a balance, not
Speaker 1: just male female, not just left right, not just state
Speaker 1: here and there. But also remember that one of the
Speaker 1: roles of a shadow minister is to be the person
Speaker 1: asking questions of the minister. So say, for example, the
Speaker 1: Minister for Communications, well they are in the Lower House,
Speaker 1: the person asking questions of them. You would ideally like
Speaker 1: to have them in the lower House, the same as
Speaker 1: Foreign Affairs Penny Wong upper House. Hence why Mikaylia cash
Speaker 1: as what I think is a continuing of her as
Speaker 1: the leader of the Senate for the Opposition, She of
Speaker 1: course takes on Pennywong there. So there seems to have
Speaker 1: been in all of the different balancing acts an attempt
Speaker 1: to bring new Yes, some older faces move back, some
Speaker 1: people move sidewards, but you're also trying to match up.
Speaker 1: And I've got to say one thing in particular that
Speaker 1: I'm really looking forward to my questions like Angus Taylor
Speaker 1: in Defense asking questions of the Deputy Prime Minister. I'm
Speaker 1: looking forward to Andrew Hasty in Home Affairs asking questions
Speaker 1: directly of Tony Burke. You see how these things all
Speaker 1: start to line up. That's part of the decision making. Again,
Speaker 1: will this be the team that will be there in
Speaker 1: three years going to an election? Probably not, Why because
Speaker 1: that's always the case. Is it the team that will
Speaker 1: be automatically and at some point into the future ministers
Speaker 1: in all of these portfolios, Well, logically not given the
Speaker 1: position that the party is in. But is it more
Speaker 1: than a liquor paint. Is it an attempt to put
Speaker 1: new faces and to move to the next generation of people. Yeah, obviously,
Speaker 1: and sometimes that can be a screaming heap because yep,
Speaker 1: all of these people are in experience. The government turns
Speaker 1: around and essentially points at an inexperienced opposition and drives
Speaker 1: that home as a reason why you have to re
Speaker 1: elect a government. But as Paul Ericson said, and this
Speaker 1: is really important, whether you like this or not, my
Speaker 1: job's not just to tell you the stuff that you like,
Speaker 1: but to tell you the stuff that obviously the other
Speaker 1: people are telling us is what they believe to be
Speaker 1: their worldview. The Labour Party boss Paul Erickson now, he
Speaker 1: said that one of the ways they were able to
Speaker 1: particularly go after Peter Dutton and many of the people
Speaker 1: who were in the key positions in the coalition at
Speaker 1: this last election, and yes, many of those were gross
Speaker 1: distortions or just outright lies, was that they had polling,
Speaker 1: constant polling for the past three years about what were
Speaker 1: people's perceptions of the previous government and what were people's
Speaker 1: perceptions of their performance in the previous government. And given
Speaker 1: that that government had not just lost, but lost handsomely,
Speaker 1: and then the remnants of that government lost again handsomely
Speaker 1: at this last election. Part of the logic about the
Speaker 1: renewal here again, like it, dislike it, Susan lay in
Speaker 1: a moment, We'll ask the questions and you can be
Speaker 1: convinced or otherwise by her answers. But to give her
Speaker 1: an opportunity to explain these decisions rather than them to
Speaker 1: be explained or judged for you, I think is a
Speaker 1: good thing, especially when somebody is at the start of
Speaker 1: their leadership journey. Again, I've said all the way through
Speaker 1: when there are big clangers, I'll call them out. But
Speaker 1: I don't see the big clangers in all of this.
Speaker 1: But when I talk about that renewal, I want to
Speaker 1: point your attention to the New South Wales Labor Party. Now,
Speaker 1: when Christina Kanneely was wiped from office, this was a
Speaker 1: scandal riddle government that the Liberal Party for four and
Speaker 1: almost eight years was able to point to as you
Speaker 1: wouldn't want to go back to that. You wouldn't want
Speaker 1: to go back to that. So when Chris Mins was
Speaker 1: putting together his shadow cabinet, and yes they were talking
Speaker 1: about a fourth term, not a third term in office.
Speaker 1: From memory, there was just one or two members of
Speaker 1: the entire shadow cabinet that were even MP's in the
Speaker 1: Kanneli government that had been blown away. So we've seen
Speaker 1: how brutal and effective the weaponization of lies about a
Speaker 1: politician's past can be when it comes to the Labor Party.
Speaker 1: And obviously you don't make a decisions that are just
Speaker 1: about fear of the Labor Party, but you want to
Speaker 1: take as many angles of attack off the table for
Speaker 1: you to be able to reset, reintroduce yourself and get
Speaker 1: the attention back onto a government. It's set up to
Speaker 1: a government about how many times it drops the ball?
Speaker 1: And when it drops the ball? Do you have a
Speaker 1: shadow minister who can ask question after question, day after
Speaker 1: day to put somebody on the ropes. Perfect example about this,
Speaker 1: Tim Wilson in part is going to have responsibility for
Speaker 1: small business. Do you know who has responsibility for small
Speaker 1: business in the government. It's an l now, yes, sir,
Speaker 1: former childcare minister, but essentially a person whose main role
Speaker 1: was sitting behind the Prime minister and rolling her eyes
Speaker 1: and acting like everything that she'd said was either everything
Speaker 1: the Prime minister or a minister had said was the
Speaker 1: most shocking or funniest thing she'd ever seen. Well, she
Speaker 1: of course now has responsibility for small business. I can't
Speaker 1: wait to see Tim Wilson versus ANL. Don't you think
Speaker 1: that NL is going to be the one double checking
Speaker 1: her notes rather than Tim Wilson, who, of course very
Speaker 1: success was part of putting on the agenda of the
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen election, things like frankin credits. So it's all
Speaker 1: about the contest, not just in presentation, not just in ideas,
Speaker 1: but also with an eye to the future. So yes,
Speaker 1: big benefit of the doubt will be given by this
Speaker 1: program to make sure that there is not a repeat
Speaker 1: of the last two elections. Now can there be? You
Speaker 1: bet you? Numerically, if you have any seats in the parliament,
Speaker 1: you can end up with no seats in the parliament.
Speaker 1: But obviously, what's the definition of insanity to keep doing
Speaker 1: the same thing and expect a different result. Now, I
Speaker 1: want the focus to be on the bad government. I
Speaker 1: want the shadow ministers to be the ones that can
Speaker 1: prosecute that argument. Not for our amusement here, but for
Speaker 1: the wider public and wider media to be able to see.
Speaker 1: I want people who may well have voted for the
Speaker 1: Liberal Party and turned away from the Liberal Party to
Speaker 1: re engage with it as an option into the future
Speaker 1: because of the people that are being put in front
Speaker 1: of them. That's all I'm playing here. That's all of
Speaker 1: the above the water and below the water currents of
Speaker 1: my attitude to this opposition and the decisions that are
Speaker 1: made in the next little while. All right, We're also
Speaker 1: going to have people on the show tonight who have
Speaker 1: been promoted demoted. How do you deal with it? What happens,
Speaker 1: How do you make sure that it doesn't just become
Speaker 1: a festering saw. How do you work your way from
Speaker 1: out in the cold right back into the center of government.
Speaker 1: We've got people who have lived that experience and they
Speaker 1: will join us a little later in the meantime. Susan
Speaker 1: Laigh in just a couple of minutes here on Palmurray
Speaker 1: Life to explain the decisions to you, not me, to
Speaker 1: you about her choices when it comes to the Shadow Cabinet. Now,
Speaker 1: remember we used to say that bank bashing was an
Speaker 1: Australian sport. It was like an unofficial sport for everyone
Speaker 1: to winge about banks and their profits and how much
Speaker 1: this and how little that, and so much so that,
Speaker 1: of course there was eventually a Royal commission, of which
Speaker 1: not many recommendations were of actually put in place, and
Speaker 1: nobody ever followed up. But everyone still remains wedded to
Speaker 1: the banks probably that you either had your kid account
Speaker 1: in or the one that you got your homeland. We
Speaker 1: don't move around lot when it comes to banks. But
Speaker 1: there is a new national sport that I think is
Speaker 1: going to be threatening bank bashing as our new national sport,
Speaker 1: and it is intergenerational bashing. Now. We have seen this
Speaker 1: in politics, we see this in social media, we see
Speaker 1: this in social commentary about the amount of winging that
Speaker 1: goes on. We're say, for example, the millennials, well, they
Speaker 1: want to have a crack at the boomers. The boomers
Speaker 1: want to have a crack at Generation Z. The older
Speaker 1: builders will they think Gen X is a little too loose,
Speaker 1: and obviously Generation OW for too young to vote right now.
Speaker 1: But they're going through a very radical school system right now.
Speaker 1: And I'm pretty sure those born in twenty twenty five
Speaker 1: don't have a political opinion yet. But this happens all
Speaker 1: the time to me. You can watch news programs, current
Speaker 1: affairs shows, you can read opinion pieces on those websites,
Speaker 1: or you can listen to podcasts, and so often this generation,
Speaker 1: that generation who had it better, who had it tougher,
Speaker 1: all of it stuff. We used to joke about this
Speaker 1: stuff in generations previous, where you know, you'd always joke
Speaker 1: about your parents or your grandparents telling stories about, oh,
Speaker 1: you think it's tough to walk to school, Why I
Speaker 1: had to walk up a hill and down a hill
Speaker 1: and pass the crocodiles and with bare feet while I
Speaker 1: was dragging cement block. It used to be a joke
Speaker 1: about how the generations used to interact. But now it
Speaker 1: is being weaponized by what I think, you're pretty bad actors,
Speaker 1: people who don't want the country to get along instead,
Speaker 1: people who believe that anyone who disagrees with them should
Speaker 1: either shut up and disappear or fall off the perch,
Speaker 1: and then they get what they want. That's not healthy
Speaker 1: for a country. Perfect example of this is the housing debate. Now,
Speaker 1: obviously you know that there'll be a group of people
Speaker 1: who'll say you're winging now about how expensive a unit is.
Speaker 1: Where we had seventeen percent interest rates before that, you
Speaker 1: know you weren't able to get a bank depositive five
Speaker 1: percent you needed twenty percent up front. Everyone's got this story,
Speaker 1: and property is difficult to get whether this generation has
Speaker 1: it slightly better than that or this one had it
Speaker 1: slightly worse. Again, everyone has their own perspectives, and like statistics,
Speaker 1: they can be brought up by lots of different people
Speaker 1: trying to make lots of different points. Now, often, one
Speaker 1: of the reasons that you see the difficulty of housing
Speaker 1: affordability appearing in the media as regularly as it is
Speaker 1: is not because it's not an issue. It is an issue.
Speaker 1: But let's also be honest that many of the people
Speaker 1: who are writing the articles are the very people who
Speaker 1: are in the middle of the struggle to be able
Speaker 1: to buy a home. So therefore it becomes the number
Speaker 1: one issue that they are interested in, and when you
Speaker 1: publish it online, regardless of what publication I'm showing you here,
Speaker 1: lots of people are interested, lots of cliques, and as
Speaker 1: we know, the more the cliques, the more the repeat business.
Speaker 1: Here are some young people again talking about their difficulties
Speaker 1: right now when it comes to buying homes. Again, I'm
Speaker 1: not pretending it's not hard.
Speaker 4: Do you think you'll be able to afford a home
Speaker 4: within the next ten years. Absolutely not no, no, no,
Speaker 4: at not's you're at all very crazy, sir, No, probably not.
Speaker 5: I really doubt I'll be able to afford a house.
Speaker 1: And then there's the clap back like this one I
Speaker 1: think from news dot com dot Au about a dad
Speaker 1: who had a post basically telling everyone, look, you know,
Speaker 1: if you want you want the fancy lifestyle, you want
Speaker 1: the new car, you want the new everything, Well guess
Speaker 1: what you're not going to save you post it on
Speaker 1: socials and that causes a whole thing. And then another
Speaker 1: version of the people who have weaponized youth to believe
Speaker 1: that every generation other than theirs is killing the planet
Speaker 1: when it comes to climate change. Does you also find
Speaker 1: it interesting that, despite the existential threat, that those monthly
Speaker 1: protests have not happened since the government stopped being liberal.
Speaker 1: And then, of course there is the people who like
Speaker 1: to push back against those who are full of hypocrisy
Speaker 1: when it comes to arguments about climate like the boss
Speaker 1: of Woodside, dutifully reported by the Turnbull Times with dripping
Speaker 1: sarcasm in their headlines. The boss of Australia's gas giant Woodside,
Speaker 1: Mego Nail, has attacked young people who take an ideological
Speaker 1: stand against fossil fuels, suggesting they are hypocrites. Why because
Speaker 1: you can't just hit a switch and expect the lights
Speaker 1: to come on. Why, well, obviously you need to make
Speaker 1: sure that there is things like gas that are part
Speaker 1: of that picture. As she turned around and said, as
Speaker 1: she's referred to people being happy to buy fast fashion
Speaker 1: on things like Timu which are carbon intensive, while simultaneously
Speaker 1: blowing up about carbon emissions of a Western Australian fossil
Speaker 1: fuel plant. So the human impact and the consumer's role
Speaker 1: in driving energy demand and emissions is absolutely missing in
Speaker 1: the space in this conversation. Well, well, well there had
Speaker 1: to be pushed back and intergenerational fighting, didn't they, Because
Speaker 1: despite the fact that yeah, mego, Neil's got a point,
Speaker 1: which is the people who want all of the advantages
Speaker 1: of the modern world, all of people who do not
Speaker 1: care that China produces more emissions than we do, need
Speaker 1: to understand. There was only so much STRAIGHTI can do,
Speaker 1: but bang one of the go to people at the moment,
Speaker 1: a person who has already announced that their own candidacy
Speaker 1: to try to be a teal in the Senate at
Speaker 1: the next federal election. Well, of course, straight into the
Speaker 1: turbul times there. As the twenty six year old and
Speaker 1: a member of Generation the I am proud to say
Speaker 1: that I have never made a purchase from fast fashioned stoughts.
Speaker 1: This was her pushback. See Meg O'Nell's point is absolutely incorrect,
Speaker 1: because my personal circumstances do not recognize hers. Acknowledging this
Speaker 1: flaw is important. We should all be striving to make
Speaker 1: environmentally friendless choices. However, pointing out that this is a
Speaker 1: prime example of a straw ban argument is a more
Speaker 1: pressing point. The blatant scapegoating of young people while directly
Speaker 1: destroying our climate, and on and on and on and
Speaker 1: on and on and on and on. Now, of course,
Speaker 1: the point is, if you are absolutely serious about pulling
Speaker 1: back on emissions, you do every single thing in your
Speaker 1: life to pull back on those emissions, unless, of course,
Speaker 1: you have to give a speed each somewhere, and I'm
Speaker 1: pretty sure that you didn't ride your bike to get
Speaker 1: to that. Any conversation about this is well, of course,
Speaker 1: you know I can solve the world, but I'm not
Speaker 1: responsible for its problems.
Speaker 2: And that's true too, and very obviously a fossil fuel
Speaker 2: company clearly creates more carbon dioxide emissions than any one individual,
Speaker 2: no question. But again, something about this intergenerational debate that
Speaker 2: sometimes needs a little bit of water port on it.
Speaker 2: Are the bigger picture, and the bigger picture is for
Speaker 2: those who want to clap back at the evil fossil
Speaker 2: fuels people, or perhaps even the fossil fuels people, trying
Speaker 2: to pretend that it's the people clapping back that are
Speaker 2: the problem.
Speaker 1: China is the problem. How many times we have to
Speaker 1: show you this. This, by the way, is not some
Speaker 1: right wing group. This is the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Speaker 1: The numbers are from twenty twenty, but they say it's
Speaker 1: pretty similar to the picture right now. China more than
Speaker 1: thirty percent, the rest of the world twenty percent. That
Speaker 1: means we're at six o'clock on the climate clock and
Speaker 1: all of those people are polluting more than we are.
Speaker 1: You add the United States, Russia and India, you get
Speaker 1: to forty five minutes past the climate clock. Australia one
Speaker 1: percent of the problem. So even if we do everything
Speaker 1: the Guardian wants, or we do everything the fossil fuel companies,
Speaker 1: what get what? Guess what China will replace what we save.
Speaker 1: You can't hide. Sixteen days of emissions is what they
Speaker 1: can produce, and that wipes out everything we do in
Speaker 1: one year. So it's great that everyone wants to blow
Speaker 1: up at things like a fossil fuel company in Australia.
Speaker 1: If you choose to do so, fine, But if you're
Speaker 1: actually fared, it can deep in your bones fired up
Speaker 1: about the existential threat to the planet that is climate change.
Speaker 1: There is a joint called the Chinese Embassy. There is
Speaker 1: a joint choice called the Chinese Consulate in a city
Speaker 1: near you. Feel free to go and march and have
Speaker 1: a protest there, But of course it is interested in
Speaker 1: that because it's not as easy as being able to
Speaker 1: pretend that everything is someone else's fault. Well, if you
Speaker 1: actually want to blame a repeat China, Third World, United States, India, Russia.
Speaker 1: Forty five minutes of the climate clock, And just one
Speaker 1: last point, if I could make a little cultural reference
Speaker 1: The Simpsons, of course, is very key to me as
Speaker 1: a gen XA of being able to explain the world
Speaker 1: both before I was here and give us an insight
Speaker 1: into the world after I was young, and it was
Speaker 1: at the front and center regardless of what part of
Speaker 1: the generation span you sit on, which part of the
Speaker 1: intergenerational war you wish to fight. There is one rule
Speaker 1: that you cannot avoid. And Grandpa Simpson puts it right
Speaker 1: when he says.
Speaker 6: What the hell are you two doing? That's cold rocking out?
Speaker 6: You wouldn't and it's dan, Dad, you're not with it.
Speaker 6: I used to be with it, but then they changed
Speaker 6: what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it? And
Speaker 6: what's it? Seems weird and scary to me.
Speaker 1: It'll happen to you, correct and you that's just what happens,
Speaker 1: all right. And it is always hilarious watching like in
Speaker 1: the same way, like the divorced dad tries to dress
Speaker 1: like the twenty six year old girlfriend. It's always a
Speaker 1: bit weird when you start to see people that are,
Speaker 1: you know, older than fifty, that are trying to campaign
Speaker 1: like they were still twenty five and twenty five year
Speaker 1: olds who want to pretend that everyone else other than
Speaker 1: them has screwed everything else. But thanks so much for
Speaker 1: the internet, electricity and every other invention, and a little
Speaker 1: further to these divides that exist in our society, And again,
Speaker 1: I don't think they have to be clash points but
Speaker 1: they are key ways that people identify themselves. And of
Speaker 1: course we know that there's great difference between people under
Speaker 1: the age of fifty as voters under the age of fifty,
Speaker 1: between male and female. And just look at the electoral role.
Speaker 1: This is not polling, it's not an opinion. This is
Speaker 1: the number of people who were qualified and enrolled to
Speaker 1: vote at the election just gone. There are more under
Speaker 1: the age of fifty, and there are more than a
Speaker 1: female and no not all a uniform and vote in
Speaker 1: one way. But if everything's fifty to fifty, if like
Speaker 1: fifty percent of people under fifty and fifty percent of
Speaker 1: people over fifty fifty miles and fifty percent of females,
Speaker 1: guess who would win under fifty and female right as
Speaker 1: the key determinants of elections, And increasingly we know that
Speaker 1: there are different ways that the cities are voting as
Speaker 1: opposed to regional areas. Now, interestingly, today we've got maybe
Speaker 1: a little preview into something that I've got to say,
Speaker 1: I have been seeing in all of the time we've
Speaker 1: been doing the ourtowns going around the country, which is
Speaker 1: maybe when we started out, things like the part of
Speaker 1: the RSL were a little more at the heart of
Speaker 1: the culture of a regional town, but now competing for
Speaker 1: that attention is high end restaurants, cafes, pretty modern stuff.
Speaker 1: Not to suggest that pubs and RSLs aren't, but you
Speaker 1: get my point. Today we learn that the Sunny Coast
Speaker 1: has now been overtaken by Geelong as the place where
Speaker 1: people who leave cities have gone and lived in. In fact,
Speaker 1: if you have a look at this, which is the
Speaker 1: Regional Movers Index that was put out today by the
Speaker 1: Regional Australia Institute, you can see that there was big movement,
Speaker 1: not sixty four percent of the entire population, but of
Speaker 1: the people who moved, they moved out of the cities.
Speaker 1: They moved into the bush pretty level in the Northern Territory.
Speaker 1: They moved into the bush in Queensland. Level in South Australia, Tasmania.
Speaker 1: In fact, a little more you had a scenario where
Speaker 1: again people were vacating the cities moving into the bush
Speaker 1: in places like Victoria. Well guess what the local government
Speaker 1: areas where people are moving to and they take their
Speaker 1: politics with them. Greater Geelong, the Sunshine Coast, Lake Macquarie,
Speaker 1: the one I'm not going to try to pronounce I
Speaker 1: apologize in Victoria, Maitland in New South Wales other areas
Speaker 1: that have had major movements of people from the city
Speaker 1: moving to them bringing their politics with them Townsville, Gladstone, Latroe,
Speaker 1: Bendigo and Denmark in Western Australia. Now we won't know
Speaker 1: the full picture of who lives where and therefore to
Speaker 1: be able to start to marry the electoral role with
Speaker 1: the censors, which of course is the National Survey of
Speaker 1: Australia until we have one in the next few months.
Speaker 1: And in fact, the census gives us the best possible
Speaker 1: indication as to literally how many people rent, how many
Speaker 1: people own, how many people have an investment property in
Speaker 1: particular seats, meaning if there are high interest rates, you
Speaker 1: can start to do the sums on whether this seat's
Speaker 1: going to change or that seat's going to change. I
Speaker 1: love this Dart, I love these facts, and I love
Speaker 1: being able to go on the deep dive with you
Speaker 1: very patiently while I was doing so. Is Susan Lee,
Speaker 1: the brand new opposition leader who joins us now after
Speaker 1: assuming the position and obviously also giving out the shadow
Speaker 1: cabinet positions today. Susan firsty, congratulations, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for joining us, and again strength and love from all
Speaker 1: of our viewers after the loss of your mum mate.
Speaker 4: Thank you so much, Paul. It's been an incredible two weeks.
Speaker 4: But above all the privilege of leading the Liberal Party
Speaker 4: with the fantastic team that I have and that I
Speaker 4: reflected on today as I appointed my shadow ministry going forward.
Speaker 4: And it's interesting is David Little Proud and I walked
Speaker 4: into the party room and walked back out. We were
Speaker 4: talking about flood affected communities in rural Australia and how
Speaker 4: we were both very keen to get out of that
Speaker 4: building and back into communities and sell our message about hope,
Speaker 4: about the future and about being a really strong and
Speaker 4: determined opposition that will take the fight up to this government.
Speaker 1: So let's talk about again that the many different balancing
Speaker 1: acts when you come up with a shadow ministry again
Speaker 1: House versus Senate. Where is the person that they are
Speaker 1: taking them on, where are they questioning, Who's a new phase?
Speaker 1: All the rest of it. Right when you were making
Speaker 1: what have been considered to be tougher cause, So say
Speaker 1: somebody who may will have been very prominent in the
Speaker 1: last election but may not be as prominent in the
Speaker 1: next four months. What was you thinking there? Did you
Speaker 1: have to start to bring forward a new generation? Were
Speaker 1: people being pushed because they were negatives? Give me an
Speaker 1: idea of hour you came up with the list.
Speaker 4: You're right, Paul, it is a balancing act. But the
Speaker 4: talent in my party room is extraordinary. It reflects the
Speaker 4: broad depth of Australia's life experience across this amazing country,
Speaker 4: from the bush to the city and everywhere in between.
Speaker 4: So every conversation was about drawing on that talent, which
Speaker 4: is something I want to do for the future. Frankly,
Speaker 4: over the years I've been on the receiving end of
Speaker 4: calls where I've gone somewhere else in the Parliament. I
Speaker 4: don't necessarily like the language of going up and down
Speaker 4: and the backbench being something that is not preferred from
Speaker 4: time to time. It's not, but everybody can play a
Speaker 4: role wherever they sit in the Parliament, and everyone knows
Speaker 4: what an extraordinary privilege it is to walk into either
Speaker 4: the Senate chamber or the House of Reps chamber and
Speaker 4: advocate for the things they believe in from wherever they
Speaker 4: are placed.
Speaker 5: So it was.
Speaker 4: Important for me to talk to my colleagues talk to
Speaker 4: my team and remind them that opposition is not a
Speaker 4: hierarchical game. We need all our players on the field,
Speaker 4: every single one of them, every day, because we've got
Speaker 4: a really big job to do and we've got a
Speaker 4: really big fight on our hands. Most importantly, we want
Speaker 4: to be the best possible opposition as a coalition everywhere
Speaker 4: in every corner of this country. We can be and
Speaker 4: we will be.
Speaker 1: I do like again some of the four D chests
Speaker 1: that you've got to play here, which is putting the
Speaker 1: right people in the right jobs, but also who are
Speaker 1: they going to be taking on in the Parliament because
Speaker 1: the reality of opposition is making the most of the
Speaker 1: failures of a government, meaning in the very limited time
Speaker 1: that an opposition gets to be put on level pecking,
Speaker 1: which generally speaking, question time contests matter. And I really
Speaker 1: like the ones that you've set up here. In Home
Speaker 1: Affairs it's going to be Andrew Hasty asking questions of
Speaker 1: Tony Burke. I like that, In small business it's going
Speaker 1: to be Tim Wilson asking questions of NL I like that.
Speaker 1: When it comes to energy, it's going to be Danteen
Speaker 1: versus Chris Bowen. I like when it comes to communications,
Speaker 1: it's going to be Anaka Wells versus Melissa Macintosh. How
Speaker 1: much did that come into your thinking?
Speaker 4: Does? And that balance between the Senate and the House
Speaker 4: is something that you have regard to. It's not the
Speaker 4: be all and end all, but it's important. And I'll
Speaker 4: add another one. Mikaylia Cash who is now our Foreign
Speaker 4: Affairs spokesperson, sitting in the Senate as our Senate leader
Speaker 4: opposite Pennywong, and she will definitely hold her own and
Speaker 4: she'll definitely take the fight up to labor.
Speaker 1: So about just into Nampa, jimper Price. There are obviously
Speaker 1: very warm feelings for most people who watch on this
Speaker 1: channel towards her. No doubt there is inside your party roop.
Speaker 1: She's now literally part of the broader team. It's specifically
Speaker 1: the Liberal team over the Nationals team. She's moving into
Speaker 1: a defense what you used to be called defense material,
Speaker 1: which is defense personnel and also levels of defense procurement. Now,
Speaker 1: I actually think that this is a really interesting area
Speaker 1: and obviously a very rich one to be able to
Speaker 1: through things like Senate estimates to pull the government apart.
Speaker 1: But for those that want a specific answer about why
Speaker 1: do you seem to wear why do you seem to wear.
Speaker 4: Well? I share those warm feelings for Jacinta and I
Speaker 4: want to make that very clear, and our party room
Speaker 4: does too, and we're delighted that she is now a
Speaker 4: member of the Liberal Party. I spoke to her before
Speaker 4: this appointment, Paul. She's very pleased to take it on.
Speaker 4: As your viewers know, and you advocate so strongly for
Speaker 4: the defense of our nation is crucial. It's critical, and
Speaker 4: it's one of the most important periods that we are
Speaker 4: now facing as a country. It determines our prosperity. And
Speaker 4: defense industry, which you mentioned can be a great Australian
Speaker 4: success story and I certainly saw some of that in
Speaker 4: the previous parliament, so the industry aspects are vital. Working
Speaker 4: with Angus Taylor, who's taking on that senior senior role
Speaker 4: as our shadow Minister for Defense, they will be a
Speaker 4: formidable team. And I'm really excited for Jacinta to take
Speaker 4: this next step and communicate and build the relationships she
Speaker 4: has been so successful doing up until this point and
Speaker 4: I know will continue to do now.
Speaker 1: We've got a lot time to talk about many many
Speaker 1: subjects and certainly, of course your story is an exceptional one,
Speaker 1: from the shearer's cook to the person being able to
Speaker 1: do university degrees while being a pilot. There's a lot
Speaker 1: to talk about, and we are going to get to
Speaker 1: know you as Australia does in the next little while
Speaker 1: as the alternative Prime Minister. What I also want to
Speaker 1: talk about, though, is for those millions of people who
Speaker 1: didn't get the election result that they wanted. There's obviously
Speaker 1: that sense of disappointment, but also there's a need to
Speaker 1: talk to the people who did not vote or may
Speaker 1: well have changed of the past couple of elections, considering,
Speaker 1: of course the win in twenty nineteen versus the result
Speaker 1: in twenty two or twenty five. I hate to quote him,
Speaker 1: but it's I think a good little way that he
Speaker 1: took to opposition, which was Bill Shorton saying first year
Speaker 1: was about the party, second year was about policy, third
Speaker 1: year was about politics. Obviously, I'm not going to verbal
Speaker 1: you that the inspiration for the Susan Lee leadership is
Speaker 1: going to be Bill Shorton, because we can imagine how
Speaker 1: that's going to be immediately spun out of control. But
Speaker 1: how important is it to you that all three of
Speaker 1: those things look different in three years than they looked
Speaker 1: three months ago.
Speaker 4: They're all important, Paul, and they're all important from day one.
Speaker 4: I certainly won't be stringing them out over a three
Speaker 4: year period. We will all be hitting the ground running.
Speaker 4: There's no doubt that we suffered a resounding defeat on
Speaker 4: May the third and Australians handed us a lesson. We
Speaker 4: have to listen to it with humility and we have
Speaker 4: to engage and meet modern Australia where it is. And
Speaker 4: when I talk about modernizing the party, I don't mean
Speaker 4: moving to the left or the right. I mean meeting
Speaker 4: people where they are and understanding they're different initiatives, they're
Speaker 4: different wishes, they're different things that are important to them
Speaker 4: wherever they happen to live. Now, our policies are up
Speaker 4: for review, but our values are not. What I want
Speaker 4: to do in setting myself and my team up for
Speaker 4: this important next stage is to spend time listening. I
Speaker 4: would love it if you and I could perhaps be
Speaker 4: on a listening town hall somewhere in this amazing country,
Speaker 4: and genuinely, listening is something that you do incredibly well,
Speaker 4: and you come out of those town halls and those
Speaker 4: meetings just filled with optimism because you know, what we
Speaker 4: see around us in the Australian people is very much
Speaker 4: worth fighting for.
Speaker 5: So I do want to do that.
Speaker 4: My team will be doing that, and we will be
Speaker 4: asking Australians what they want in us. But above all,
Speaker 4: this is an opportunity I believe for us to reconnect,
Speaker 4: to accept, as I said with humility, that we didn't
Speaker 4: meet the expectations of Australians and that we have work
Speaker 4: to do. But as I've moved through this period of
Speaker 4: reforming the coalition with David littl Proud and the administration
Speaker 4: that you necessarily take on as a new leader, I
Speaker 4: just can't wait to get out there, out into the
Speaker 4: real Australia that gave me the gifts that I'm so
Speaker 4: privileged to reflect on today as leader and make me
Speaker 4: so determined and to want to give back to the
Speaker 4: country that has given me so much. So there's a
Speaker 4: lot of fighting to do and I'm up for it
Speaker 4: and I can't wait to get started.
Speaker 1: Good stuff. Susan, thank you so much for the conversation tonight.
Speaker 1: There many more to come, and on behalf of the
Speaker 1: minions of people who definitely want a different result for
Speaker 1: the country. Go get him.
Speaker 4: Thank you, good on you.
Speaker 1: Mate, Susan Lee. They're the opposition leader joining us from Aubrey.
Speaker 1: What a crazy couple of weeks that she has had,
Speaker 1: all right, I said, benefit of the doubt of the
Speaker 1: team that has put in place. And I think some
Speaker 1: of those contests, including Angus Taylor in defense Angus Taylor
Speaker 1: versus are Richard Martins in between his private flights to Jeelong.
Speaker 1: I'm looking forward to this, all right, some political experience next,
Speaker 1: and then the wonderful Meghan Kelly want to say. I
Speaker 1: told you we were going to talk tonight with people
Speaker 1: who have seen all the ups and all the downs
Speaker 1: of both opposition and government when it comes to their
Speaker 1: own careers and shadow ministries and ministries and leader of
Speaker 1: this and leader of that, and of course it is
Speaker 1: none other than the carry of a champ. That are
Speaker 1: none other than Brombin Bishop single carry over a champ, Sorry,
Speaker 1: my love. And of course so she gave me that look.
Speaker 1: And Stephen Conroy just always gets close, but he's always
Speaker 1: get a help. So the really obvious and boring question
Speaker 1: was what do you think of? The interview's second most
Speaker 1: boring question is what do you think of the shadow ministry.
Speaker 1: So let's get to an interesting question as number three,
Speaker 1: what's your advice to people who didn't maybe get what
Speaker 1: they wanted today or even in the government reshuffle, And
Speaker 1: how do you if you are out Nicole bring yourself
Speaker 1: into the center of things. Bromwin, what is the advice
Speaker 1: for maybe those people who are being pushed into more
Speaker 1: mentor role than minister role or shadow minister role. What
Speaker 1: do you think?
Speaker 7: Well, the first thing is you've got to take it
Speaker 7: as it is, and then you've got to take the
Speaker 7: opportunities to have an impact and carve out of roll
Speaker 7: for yourself and what you can do from me, I
Speaker 7: went from the highest being thought to be the next
Speaker 7: prime minister, the leader of the opposition prime minister and
Speaker 7: preferred over Paul Keating and John Houston too, coming into
Speaker 7: the Parliament and seeing the change of leadership, and I
Speaker 7: didn't perhaps handle the first of that the best way.
Speaker 7: But nonetheless you just get in there and then you
Speaker 7: pitch a new work hard and find opportunities.
Speaker 1: And look, again, I know that I'm being a little
Speaker 1: bit again, I was talking about not happy talk again.
Speaker 1: I understand how eventually once you're rubbed, if you rubbed
Speaker 1: the wrong way many many times. Then obviously it ends
Speaker 1: up with the majority of your colleagues at one point
Speaker 1: in time saying time to change the leader. But Stephen
Speaker 1: again again, as one of the joys of you, guys
Speaker 1: is the experience of being on a back bench, into
Speaker 1: the outer into the middle, back on the way. What's
Speaker 1: your advice again to those who either didn't get what
Speaker 1: they wanted, sideways or maybe up and down.
Speaker 5: Look, the thing about politics is everybody has gets knocked
Speaker 5: over during the course of their career. But in politics
Speaker 5: the key part is not you know how easy is
Speaker 5: when you're on the up, it's how you manage when
Speaker 5: you get knocked over. You stand up, you dust yourself off,
Speaker 5: just sook a bit and you wander off into a
Speaker 5: corner and just ignore everybody. Or do you get up
Speaker 5: and as you've just said and promise that you've just
Speaker 5: got to work hard, you've got to re establish yourself.
Speaker 5: I mean, I personally thought that Jane Human was one
Speaker 5: of the most articulate of the front benches for the
Speaker 5: Opposition over most of the last two and a half years. Unfortunately,
Speaker 5: she had what she would think, I'm sure is a
Speaker 5: disappointing election campaign, and she's now paid the price and
Speaker 5: she's on the back bench. But she will apply herself
Speaker 5: in the Senate and she will be good at what
Speaker 5: she targets, and she will rebuild herself, rebuilds her ability
Speaker 5: to land punches on labor, and I'm sure she'll be
Speaker 5: back in the future. What she shouldn't do is go
Speaker 5: sookn off and thinking, oh woe is me. You know,
Speaker 5: your knuckle down, you get you know, you get back
Speaker 5: into it. There's plenty of Senate as much, plenty of
Speaker 5: Parliamentary committees, and plenty of opportunities to do media where
Speaker 5: she will be able to rebuild her career. Not everyone
Speaker 5: follows that approach. Some really throw the toys out of
Speaker 5: the cot, and some say or you know, all positions
Speaker 5: weren't elected on merit today. I mean, at least she's
Speaker 5: still on the front bench, so I don't know what
Speaker 5: she's tossing the toys out of the cot over far
Speaker 5: more disappointed disappointed people in the Liberal Party today than
Speaker 5: just sent the price.
Speaker 1: So I mean, let's talk about that. Just enterprise of
Speaker 1: it all is that I think, you know, obviously, if
Speaker 1: you know, if I'm making the call, but I'm not
Speaker 1: making the call right. It is that I think she's
Speaker 1: somebody that you want to keep at that highest level
Speaker 1: of shadow ministry, that being in the in the shadow cabinet.
Speaker 1: The silver line thing is that, yes it's not the
Speaker 1: highest of positions, but there's some absolute rich pickings and
Speaker 1: you both know to be both asking and answering questions
Speaker 1: in centered estimates. Defense procurement in Australia is a shoka.
Speaker 1: It is a shocker, and if you turnover enough rocks,
Speaker 1: there's enough moments where you turn that into the rock
Speaker 1: star moment that absolutely makes the case for promotion undeniable.
Speaker 1: Am I right? Bromwin.
Speaker 7: Absolutely, She's got every opportunity to shine. And it's interesting,
Speaker 7: very often when an opposition forms its ministry, there is
Speaker 7: no shadow cabinet, shadow out of ministry. It is just
Speaker 7: the shadow ministry want and it all works together. And
Speaker 7: that's more usual actually. But Susan's chosen to go this route.
Speaker 7: But that's no problem for your center. She's got plenty
Speaker 7: of opportunities.
Speaker 1: Yeah, myth. All right, let's jump to a couple of
Speaker 1: things other things here, which is of course the super
Speaker 1: super innuation tax. For now, I am loving the number
Speaker 1: of people that are ramming at home and rapping the doors,
Speaker 1: and isn't it terrible and shaking the sky down? Awesome? Great.
Speaker 1: You know, we just had an election and he had
Speaker 1: an opportunity to make all of these points at maximum
Speaker 1: volume in the same but the number of people and
Speaker 1: I'm saying organizations that have come out post election, where
Speaker 1: were you pre election? We know all of that, but
Speaker 1: we're now starting to get back into what I was
Speaker 1: talking about before, which was the intergenerational war of things.
Speaker 1: Ross Gittens turns around and says that it's just about
Speaker 1: rich old white blokes winging about, you know, their patch
Speaker 1: of coin. There's people on social.
Speaker 7: Media talk about himself like that should saying, you know.
Speaker 1: What, you know, this idea that all young people will
Speaker 1: end up paying it's rubbish because we're not paid enough.
Speaker 1: Rah rah rah. Your thoughts as somebody who was speaking
Speaker 1: loudly about it for the many weeks prior to the election.
Speaker 7: But unfortunately I wasn't a minister with carriage of the
Speaker 7: issue where it should have been, and it should have
Speaker 7: been out there loud and bold and properly debated. There
Speaker 7: is no mandate for this tax, No mandate for it
Speaker 7: at all, because it was never debated, and for me,
Speaker 7: it's important to separate it out into two parts. There
Speaker 7: is a proposal to tax superannuation over three million dollars
Speaker 7: at the thirty percent rate. That's one issue. The second
Speaker 7: issue is to introduce a brand new tax that has
Speaker 7: never existed before, and that is to tax the use.
Speaker 7: But that's a complicated term, I understand. Let's explain it out.
Speaker 7: That means that you will be taxed annually on any
Speaker 7: increase in anything you own by the tax offers. And
Speaker 7: you've got no payment and you haven't sold anything, but
Speaker 7: you're going to have to pay that tax every year.
Speaker 7: It's a tax which is punitive with any moral impromata
Speaker 7: at all, and it should be the pressure should be
Speaker 7: on the government to scrap it.
Speaker 1: With Stephen, let me guess we got ninety four seats
Speaker 1: and almost control of the Senate. That equals no mystery
Speaker 1: about the policy. Therefore, mandate is that your response.
Speaker 5: Look, Robin was breathtaking. There. This is a piece of
Speaker 5: legislation that has been held up in the Senate for
Speaker 5: the best by six or twelve months. This has been
Speaker 5: debated uphill and down dale. It was absolutely front and
Speaker 5: center of parliamentary debates. It is impossible to say there's
Speaker 5: no mandate for this. This is like saying John Howard
Speaker 5: didn't have a mandate for the GST after he took
Speaker 5: it to an election in ninety eight. Of course he
Speaker 5: had a mandate.
Speaker 7: I'm sorry, put this had made that front and center and.
Speaker 5: I'm sorry Brian center and it has been debated at length.
Speaker 5: The fact that you take the advice to campaign on it,
Speaker 5: the fact that the Liberals wouldn't take your advice in
Speaker 5: campaign is a deep floor of theirs. But also arguing
Speaker 5: about only eighty thousand people who were impact on it
Speaker 5: this year. I accept the indexation argument. We're going to
Speaker 5: be all in the future.
Speaker 1: Forgive me, guys again once we had my editorial, Susan
Speaker 1: Lee and all of those other things. Not enough time tonight,
Speaker 1: but I assure you into the future plenty, plenty, plenty.
Speaker 1: All right, quick break back with more with one of them,
Speaker 1: Meghan Kelly, who's got plenty to say about why Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris was on the Gold Coast this weekend our favorite
Speaker 1: time of the week to talk to our favorite person
Speaker 1: in the world, the wonderful Megan Kelly joins us from
Speaker 1: the United States. How are you, Rockstar?
Speaker 3: I'm great? How are you look?
Speaker 1: You know I'm always great, but I've just done a
Speaker 1: new level because Australia was touched by greatness in the
Speaker 1: past few days. You know, I know that this little
Speaker 1: old eye and continent doesn't make a lot of news
Speaker 1: around the world, but we were changed for the better
Speaker 1: because a true global leader just graced us with her
Speaker 1: presence for a day and a half. Kamala Harris was
Speaker 1: here and just an example of what you've missed out
Speaker 1: as a president. She was addressing a real estate conference.
Speaker 1: I mean, we're lucky, aren't we to just get a
Speaker 1: little bit of this gold dust that the realtors of
Speaker 1: Australia are what bring her out of hiding?
Speaker 3: Like for what lessons exactly? First of all, she's never
Speaker 3: been a salesperson. Don't you have to know sales and
Speaker 3: very well to be a realtor, Like that's their one
Speaker 3: of their greatest skills. You'd think they'd want somebody who
Speaker 3: is an excellent salesperson. She's never been in the public
Speaker 3: sector doing any sort of sales work whatsoever, other than
Speaker 3: her fake little stint at McDonald's. But let's face it,
Speaker 3: those burgers sell themselves. So what could be gleaned from her?
Speaker 3: First of all, you got to be a little concerned
Speaker 3: that could be one thing if she and hot demand
Speaker 3: over here, and like she just made time for the Aussies,
Speaker 3: because that's out of the goodness of her heart. Nobody
Speaker 3: wants her, Like she had to go over there where
Speaker 3: her reputation didn't so much precede her in order to
Speaker 3: get a check. So, my friends, we need to be
Speaker 3: a little bit more discerning in our invitations. And then
Speaker 3: the bits that I saw because originally earlier today at
Speaker 3: least it wasn't put out on video, so we were
Speaker 3: just getting little sneak peeks at it from what my
Speaker 3: friends over there, you know, got and put online.
Speaker 4: It was just.
Speaker 3: More inanity, saying absolutely nothing about anything, with a huge
Speaker 3: wind up to every single quote unquote point she was
Speaker 3: about to make. She makes you work so hard you
Speaker 3: have to sift through five hundred words to get to
Speaker 3: the flour that actually do have meaning. But then you
Speaker 3: realize that those two are entirely empty.
Speaker 1: Now, I would like to suggest that somebody like Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris is basically just giving a version of the same
Speaker 1: speech wherever she goes, which of course is the laziest
Speaker 1: possible thing, and they get paid a huge chunk of change.
Speaker 1: Can I read from one of the newspaper accounts of
Speaker 1: what she said? Quote, oh, she said real estate agents
Speaker 1: could be considered quote civic leaders for their role in
Speaker 1: connecting buyers with suitable homes. She just turns up anywhere
Speaker 1: an insert industry or who I'm talking to and tell
Speaker 1: them that they're civic leaders. They're flogging apartments around Australia
Speaker 1: and beachside on the Gold Coast. Civic leaders.
Speaker 3: Please, I'm sure they don't even see themselves like that.
Speaker 3: Like they know a lot about houses and what would
Speaker 3: make somebody happy, and what's a good deal and what's not.
Speaker 3: But civic leaders. What is that? That's like your preacher,
Speaker 3: probably your mayor. You know. I don't know, some activist
Speaker 3: in talent who's taken up an issue that's important to
Speaker 3: the town, like no windmills offshore. I don't know, but
Speaker 3: it's probably not the realtor. And that's just, of course
Speaker 3: her empty problem because CIA took her on as a client,
Speaker 3: this big agency that I used to be with too,
Speaker 3: and I'm sorry to tell you, but you guys were
Speaker 3: the only takers. So Soul was really excited until they
Speaker 3: found out like literally no one else wanted her. I
Speaker 3: shuddered to think what the check looked like. They cannot
Speaker 3: get her any gigs over here. No one wants to
Speaker 3: hear from her. She not only could she not sell
Speaker 3: real estate the way the people listening to the show
Speaker 3: likely can, she couldn't sell herself. So why would you
Speaker 3: think she would have something of value to say to
Speaker 3: you about sales, which is the business of real estate. Like,
Speaker 3: she didn't win the presidency, she didn't win the nomination. Ever,
Speaker 3: she couldn't. She failed miserably when she actually did run.
Speaker 3: She couldn't sell herself as an inspirational woman, nor as
Speaker 3: a woman from Puerto Rico or Jamaica or where else
Speaker 3: did where her accents from. She couldn't sell herself as
Speaker 3: any of those things. All she really is is an
Speaker 3: out of work lawyer. So I mean, maybe you should
Speaker 3: ask her about contract law. She might be able to
Speaker 3: say something valuable on that front. Otherwise there was a
Speaker 3: waste of everyone's time.
Speaker 1: See, I was disappointed that she didn't try An Australian accent,
Speaker 1: because as you say during a campaign that she was
Speaker 1: you know, if she was in the south, she tried
Speaker 1: to sound a little southern.
Speaker 3: And what was something your daughter?
Speaker 1: Doesn't your daughter have a little piece of advice as
Speaker 1: to how you can try.
Speaker 3: Yes, you can sound Australian. You say, rise of lights.
Speaker 1: Rise of blights. Yeah, hi, I'm Kamala. Have you got
Speaker 1: any raise of lights? Say?
Speaker 4: That would have worked?
Speaker 1: It would have worked.
Speaker 3: What I'm actually saying is rise up lights. I'm in
Speaker 3: American English. I'm saying rise up lights, but it translates
Speaker 3: into Australian English into razor blades. But I sound like
Speaker 3: a local, don't I absolutely?
Speaker 1: And you are welcome on any of any of our
Speaker 1: conferences anywhere, and they'll pay you better than she.
Speaker 3: Oh my god, I know I should be offended that
Speaker 3: I wasn't invited. First, I'm much bigger in Australia than
Speaker 3: Kamala Harris is. Where's my invitation?
Speaker 1: Reeltors mate, I'll give you the tip. There isn't There
Speaker 1: isn't a town in this country where somebody wouldn't be
Speaker 1: willing to put you up in a spare bedroom. All right.
Speaker 1: That's the type of joint we are. You know, there's
Speaker 1: lovely hotels, there's beautiful resorts, but you know, come and
Speaker 1: stay at some maytewns.
Speaker 3: Except always we'll be there. I'll bring my favorite pillow.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for watching. Now, before we get
Speaker 1: to the late debate, I think there's a good idea
Speaker 1: that's rattling around. The more China will continue to pollute
Speaker 1: the planet, the more likely it is that the effects
Speaker 1: of which are going to be all sorts of disasters
Speaker 1: that we have to deal with. That's just the reality.
Speaker 1: Remember Australia one percent of the world's problem one, China
Speaker 1: thirty three. Once you put together the rest of the
Speaker 1: third world, then you throw in America, then you throw
Speaker 1: in India, then you in Russia. Forty five minutes of
Speaker 1: the sixty minutes of the climate clock are the actual problems.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: As long as that happens, problems will ensue. But there's
Speaker 1: a really interesting idea disaster relief Australia. They want to
Speaker 1: put in place a floating army of former members of
Speaker 1: the Australian Defense Force who can be deployed to the
Speaker 1: various of natural disasters that happen around the country. This
Speaker 1: is on top of that volunteer service. I don't think
Speaker 1: it's a brilliant idea. Total cost to get to ten
Speaker 1: thousand people who would be able to be deployed. They're
Speaker 1: not the army, they're not the sees, they're supplementary, would
Speaker 1: be about eighty seven million dollars, or a fraction of
Speaker 1: the two hundred and fifty million dollars that the government
Speaker 1: spend on itself last year in advertising. Surely that's the
Speaker 1: way to go, and surely that would be a good idea.
Speaker 1: We will be talking in the next little while to
Speaker 1: the disaster relief Australian people because I think it's a
Speaker 1: good idea. As is to keep watching for the late
Speaker 1: debate