Speaker 1: Lately.
Speaker 2: Welcome the Late Ball.
Speaker 1: It's great to have your company. I'm James macpherson with
Speaker 1: Liz Stauer and Caleb Bond. Obviously, tonight, the big story
Speaker 1: is the federal budget released by Treasurer Jim Chalmers just
Speaker 1: a couple of hours ago. We'll talk about that, but
Speaker 1: there's a lot more to get through as well, everything
Speaker 1: from religious freedom to whistleblowers to tough new penalties for
Speaker 1: pet owners whose dogs go rogue. We'll talk about that
Speaker 1: as well. Plus, I want to show you a clip
Speaker 1: from Joe Biden today where he made a startling admission
Speaker 1: about Kamala Harris. It may be the first time Joe
Speaker 1: Biden has told the truth in his life. We'll get
Speaker 1: to that. Plus we've got what's making news tomorrow, as
Speaker 1: you can imagine, most of the papers dealing with the
Speaker 1: federal budget. In fact, why don't we have a look
Speaker 1: at just a couple that have already come through. Let
Speaker 1: me show you the front page of tomorrow's Herald's Son
Speaker 1: in Melbourne. They've got a rather pensive looking treasurer on
Speaker 1: the front page with that sort of you're buying this expression, they.
Speaker 2: Great expense, we're buying it.
Speaker 1: I believe they're calling him charmed and dangerous. He's trying
Speaker 1: to charm us with a three hundred dollars power bill rebate,
Speaker 1: but dangerous live because the debt is going to hit
Speaker 1: a trillion dollars and keep going up.
Speaker 3: Indeed, he meant it when he said in his budget
Speaker 3: speech this evening, this year's a budget for the forthcoming decades. Yeah,
Speaker 3: because they'll be paying it off. We will be paying
Speaker 3: it off four decades. Another front page spash on the
Speaker 3: Daily Telly, what's up, dark Well, jobless Australians up, grocery
Speaker 3: prices up, government debt up, overseas migrants, green's handouts and
Speaker 3: labour's total tax weight also up. I mean, what is
Speaker 3: there anything good to say about this budget?
Speaker 4: Caleb, help us out here. Is there one positive?
Speaker 5: Well? I suppose that the one positive, if your Jim Chalmers,
Speaker 5: is that it is very much an election budget. You know,
Speaker 5: he tried his hardest not to offend anyone. But of
Speaker 5: course the problem with that is that there is nothing
Speaker 5: much in there to deal with the real problems we have.
Speaker 5: And we know that you This night, Budget Night is
Speaker 5: the one night of the year where the Treasurer gets
Speaker 5: his day in the sun. He gets to stand up
Speaker 5: for half an hour and tell all the lies and
Speaker 5: spin he can fit into that thirty minutes. So I
Speaker 5: sat down tonight to watch Charmers give his speech, and well,
Speaker 5: I wasn't very heartened because within thirty seconds he'd started,
Speaker 5: as Liz just alluded to with the cliches.
Speaker 6: This is a budget for the here and now, and
Speaker 6: it's a budget for the decades to come.
Speaker 5: It's not really a budget for the decades to come.
Speaker 5: It's barely a budget for the next year to come.
Speaker 5: But of course what they're banking on is that we
Speaker 5: will have an interest rate drop within the next year
Speaker 5: or so and they can go off to an early.
Speaker 2: Election sell the election as well.
Speaker 5: You know, we've done the hard yards, we got inflation down,
Speaker 5: and we need your will.
Speaker 2: Help to keep on going.
Speaker 5: So of course the main theme tonight was nothing else
Speaker 5: but cost of.
Speaker 6: Living, cost of living, cost of living, cost of living,
Speaker 6: cost of living, cost of living, cost of living, cost
Speaker 6: of living, cost of living, and.
Speaker 5: Of course one of the major planks of cost of
Speaker 5: living measures was one that we heard about months ago.
Speaker 5: But mister Charmers, or doctor Charmers as I should say,
Speaker 5: spent a lot of time talking about tonight, and that
Speaker 5: is of course, the reworked Stage three tax cuts.
Speaker 6: Deliver as a tax cut for every taxpayer. Our new
Speaker 6: tax cuts for middle Australia, all thirteen point six million
Speaker 6: taxpayers will get a tax cut, a bigger tax cut
Speaker 6: than they would have under the previous government. Our tax
Speaker 6: cuts are better for families and communities, women and young people,
Speaker 6: just as every Australian taxpayer will get a tax cut.
Speaker 5: I mean no mention, of course, of the fact that
Speaker 5: he redrew Stage three tax cuts, so many taxpayers are
Speaker 5: actually getting less of a tax cut than they were
Speaker 5: originally promised when this government was elected elected on the promise,
Speaker 5: by the way, that they would not fiddle which with
Speaker 5: Stage three tax cut. But doctor Chalmers pointed out a
Speaker 5: group of workers who he believed would benefit especially from
Speaker 5: the changes.
Speaker 6: This is about rewarding the hard work of our nurses
Speaker 6: and teachers and truckies and tradees.
Speaker 5: I'd love to know how long he spent working on
Speaker 5: that line, or you know, the nurses and teachers, the
Speaker 5: truckies and the tradees well.
Speaker 2: A lot of tradees of course.
Speaker 5: Earn more than one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, particularly
Speaker 5: if you're a construction worker and those workers are getting
Speaker 5: less of a tax cut than they were originally promised
Speaker 5: by labor.
Speaker 2: Well done.
Speaker 5: But of course then it moved on to energy. And
Speaker 5: we've heard this so many times. No, it's got nothing
Speaker 5: to do with renewable energy that your power prices have
Speaker 5: gone up.
Speaker 1: It's Russia.
Speaker 6: Russia's invasion of Ukraine triggered the biggest shock to global
Speaker 6: energy prices since the nineteen seventies. We know Australian families
Speaker 6: and businesses have felt this pain, and that's why we've
Speaker 6: stepped in to help.
Speaker 5: Oh God, save me, but step into help they apparently have.
Speaker 2: Would you believe it.
Speaker 5: If it weren't for this government, your power prices and
Speaker 5: I think you know how much they have gone up,
Speaker 5: would have gone up even more.
Speaker 6: Electricity prices would have risen fifteen percent in the last
Speaker 6: year if not for our efforts. Instead, they arose an
Speaker 6: average of two percent.
Speaker 1: Two percent, two percent.
Speaker 5: Has anyone looked at their power bill recently and really
Speaker 5: believes that your power bill has only gone up by
Speaker 5: two percent? But there's an answer to this, Oh my god,
Speaker 5: what can we do?
Speaker 2: Were the government? We've got money. Why don't we just
Speaker 2: give it to you?
Speaker 6: From July one, Australians will receive an energy rebate of
Speaker 6: three hundred dollars and one million small businesses will get
Speaker 6: a little bit more. The ABS has shown how cutting
Speaker 6: energy bills directly cuts inflation two.
Speaker 2: Three hundred bucks.
Speaker 5: It doesn't really make up for the increase in your
Speaker 5: power bills, does it, even though apparently they only went
Speaker 5: up by two percent extraordinarily, And he says, look, it's
Speaker 5: actually anti inflationary. It's a real slight of hand that
Speaker 5: the boffins who work this out on paper say it's
Speaker 5: anti inflationary, because of course it means that power prices
Speaker 5: are actually less so when they're working out the rate
Speaker 5: of inflation, the contribution of power to that is less
Speaker 5: than it otherwise would have been. But it means you
Speaker 5: have three hundred extra dollars cash in hand to go
Speaker 5: and spend elsewhere, so that money is still swimming around
Speaker 5: in the economy. It's not really anti inflationary. But let's
Speaker 5: not forget the government did promise a decrease in your
Speaker 5: power prices, and of course they couldn't actually deliver that,
Speaker 5: So why don't we just give you three hundred dollars instead,
Speaker 5: it's really similar to that number.
Speaker 2: They promised your power prices would go down.
Speaker 7: Households will benefit by two hundred and seventy five dollars
Speaker 7: on Apple reducing power prices by two hundred and seventy
Speaker 7: five dollars, price by two hundred and seventy five dollars
Speaker 7: two hundred and seventy five dollars two hundred and seventy
Speaker 7: five dollars a year, two hundred and seventy five dollars,
Speaker 7: two hundred and seventy five dollars a year.
Speaker 5: Never mind all that, you're getting a three hundred dollars rebate.
Speaker 2: Aren't you lucky?
Speaker 5: Even if you're malcom turnable, Even if you're earning three, four, five,
Speaker 5: even twenty million dollars a year, you get three hundred bucks.
Speaker 5: Aren't you so lucky? And of course, we need other
Speaker 5: industry in this country. We've lost our manufacturing.
Speaker 2: Et cetera.
Speaker 5: So we're going to turn to the one thing that
Speaker 5: has made your power bills more expensive.
Speaker 6: Renewable energy a crucial part of a growth agenda, which
Speaker 6: is all about attracting investment in key industries making our
Speaker 6: country are Renewable energy superpower.
Speaker 5: Of course, we're about the only country in the world
Speaker 5: that would want to be a renewable energy superpower, because
Speaker 5: don't forget most other Western nations have agreed to increase
Speaker 5: nuclear power threefold by twenty fifty, going after net zero
Speaker 5: by that time. Australia is one of the only countries
Speaker 5: of all our allies who said we're not going.
Speaker 2: To do it.
Speaker 5: No one else wants to buy into a dot there's
Speaker 5: an open market for Australia to get on board with.
Speaker 5: And of course we need people to fill up these
Speaker 5: sectors and run all these quantum computers that were apparently
Speaker 5: going to build. So we're going to get loads more
Speaker 5: people into university tonight.
Speaker 6: We're setting a national target of eight out of ten
Speaker 6: workers achieving a tertiary qualification by twenty fifty, and we're
Speaker 6: backing it in with new funding reforms to meet this.
Speaker 5: Goal eight out of teen workers by twenty fifty. I
Speaker 5: hate to break it to your doctor charmers, but in
Speaker 5: twenty twenty two university enrollments where the lowest they had
Speaker 5: been in nine years. I think you're going to have
Speaker 5: a gargantuan task pulling that one off. And I mean
Speaker 5: you won't even be there in twenty fifty anyway, so
Speaker 5: what does it matter. You can promise whatever the hell
Speaker 5: you want, and then of course we had to draw
Speaker 5: it all out. The NDIS, which keeps ballooning out and
Speaker 5: out and out, will be sixty billion dollars a year
Speaker 5: within a few years time. Next year it's going to
Speaker 5: be forty nine million. But it's time to crack down on.
Speaker 6: The roots and ensuring that every dollar invested in the
Speaker 6: NDIS goes to those who need it most, which is
Speaker 6: why we're providing four hundred and sixty nine million dollars
Speaker 6: to keep working with the disability community and the states
Speaker 6: and territories to crack down on fraud and exploitation.
Speaker 2: Short and look thrilled there, doesn't it?
Speaker 5: I think I see, I think I see forty nine
Speaker 5: million before it's forty nine billion dollars. The budget for
Speaker 5: the NDAs will be in the next financial year. So
Speaker 5: there's beending four hundred and sixty nine million, which is
Speaker 5: nearly ten percent of the NDIS budget to stop people
Speaker 5: defrauding the NDIS. I mean, it's hardly a working system, man,
Speaker 5: is it?
Speaker 2: Give me a break?
Speaker 5: Anyway, We'll have more analysis on the budget later in
Speaker 5: the papers segment, and there's plenty of it to get
Speaker 5: through it.
Speaker 1: Can I just say I've watched all of Sky News
Speaker 1: coverage tonight on the budget, all of it has been great,
Speaker 1: but that five minutes was the best budget spots I
Speaker 1: have seen.
Speaker 2: Again, you're five.
Speaker 1: Peter Dutton doesn't even need to talk tomorrow. He just
Speaker 1: needs to replay that little.
Speaker 5: Spirit and I didn't even pay him to say that.
Speaker 5: Can you believe it? My budget is looking much better
Speaker 5: than doctor Charmits.
Speaker 4: From now on.
Speaker 3: Instead of Charmers getting half an hour for the budget speech,
Speaker 3: five minutes, Roler Bond can do it, so can you, buddy?
Speaker 3: Well to the news of the day today where we
Speaker 3: have a whistleblower story and you know I don't love
Speaker 3: many things as.
Speaker 4: Much as I love a whistleblower story.
Speaker 3: Well, today, former military lawyer David McBride was sentenced to
Speaker 3: almost six years in jail for being the whistleblower who
Speaker 3: exposed Australia's war crimes in Afghanistan, where he was deployed
Speaker 3: twice in twenty and eleven and two thousand and thirteen.
Speaker 3: How disgusting is our.
Speaker 4: Government for prosecuting this man?
Speaker 3: In twenty nineteen, Labor promised that they would put together
Speaker 3: a whistleblower protection agency.
Speaker 4: Well, that never happened.
Speaker 3: And then in twenty twenty one they promised that if
Speaker 3: we elected them, they would make whistleblower laws really, really tight,
Speaker 3: so those whistleblowers could blow all the whistles that they wanted.
Speaker 4: That never happened either.
Speaker 3: Then they got into power and their Attorney General, Mark
Speaker 3: Dreyfuss decided, I'm going to have a look.
Speaker 4: I'm going to have a review at our secrecy laws.
Speaker 3: And he decided then that actually, if the whistleblower undermines
Speaker 3: trust in the Australian government, undermines the community's trust in
Speaker 3: Australian government, then I will prosecute them. So what are
Speaker 3: they supposed to blow whistles about, Dreyfuss all the great things.
Speaker 4: The government's doing behind closed doors. I don't think so.
Speaker 3: Of course, what he's really saying is, if you really
Speaker 3: knew what went on here Ozzie's, you wouldn't trust us.
Speaker 3: So we're just going to make a damn well sure
Speaker 3: you never find out. And I can't think of anyone
Speaker 3: better to explain David McBride's full story to you than
Speaker 3: an organization who calls themselves the Australian government and makes
Speaker 3: these ads saying this is what government wouldn't speak like
Speaker 3: if they were honest.
Speaker 8: Our whistleblower laws are here to protect you.
Speaker 2: Just kidding.
Speaker 8: You'll be prosecuted, bankrupt did and spend the rest of
Speaker 8: your life in jail. Old, No, seriously, you're like David
Speaker 8: who blew the whistle on war crimes in Afghanistan, including
Speaker 8: the murder of children. An official inquiry confirmed the war
Speaker 8: crimes took place. The journo who published the war crimes
Speaker 8: got an oam, the soldier who allegedly committed the war
Speaker 8: crimes got a medal, and the guy who helped reveal
Speaker 8: the war crimes he's about to get life in jail.
Speaker 8: How else was he meant to blow the whistle? He
Speaker 8: wasn't silly, And David, we prevented him from using key
Speaker 8: evidence and witnesses to defend himself under the Act because
Speaker 8: national security. They're by forcing him to plead guilty. And
Speaker 8: that is why the first person to based jail in
Speaker 8: relation to war crimes in Afghanistan isn't a war criminal,
Speaker 8: but the guy who exposed the war crimes.
Speaker 4: For shame Australian government.
Speaker 3: Of course, David McBride did seek protection under the Public
Speaker 3: Disclosure Act twenty and thirteen.
Speaker 4: Now, the way this Act works is that.
Speaker 3: It doesn't It's literally just there to protect the government really,
Speaker 3: which is why in the ten years that it's been
Speaker 3: in force it has protected exactly zero whistleblowers. Well, David,
Speaker 3: you can stand proud and tall, buddy, and he clearly is.
Speaker 4: This was his quote today.
Speaker 3: I had never been so proud to be Australian as today.
Speaker 3: I have broken the law, but I did not break
Speaker 3: my oath to the people of Australia and the soldiers.
Speaker 4: Who keep us safe.
Speaker 3: Let's remember Albanzi's tweet back in twenty twenty after the
Speaker 3: shocking revelations brought to us by the Brereton Report.
Speaker 4: He said, we must act on.
Speaker 9: The Breton findings and never hide from the truth of
Speaker 9: our past.
Speaker 10: We must also face the future to make sure that this.
Speaker 4: Never happens again.
Speaker 9: We owe it to those brave soldiers and whistleblowers who
Speaker 9: stood up, spoke out and said enough, Well you've got
Speaker 9: egg all over your face, you big fat liar. Of course,
Speaker 9: the reason why the government takes these prosecutions against these
Speaker 9: whistleblowers for exposing their own corruption is because well, firstly
Speaker 9: they hate their corruption being exposed. But secondly, gotten to
Speaker 9: make an example out of these people, don't you, which
Speaker 9: is why the judge today said that exact thing.
Speaker 4: Lastly, a lego.
Speaker 3: Respender must be a very cold day in hell, because
Speaker 3: here I am siding with a Teal also tweeted today,
Speaker 3: the prison sentence handed to David McBride sends a chilling
Speaker 3: message to whistleblowers across Australia.
Speaker 4: David is the only.
Speaker 3: Person to go to jail for Australian wrongdoing in Afghanistan.
Speaker 3: His only crime was exposing the truth. We need a
Speaker 3: better whistleblower protections urgently. Do you think they're gonna be forthcoming?
Speaker 3: Do you think they're gonna be forthcoming? It's Julian assanj
Speaker 3: all over again.
Speaker 4: They just wipe their hands and be like.
Speaker 3: Well, you exposed us, so now we throw you under
Speaker 3: the bus.
Speaker 1: The irony in this case is that David McBride was
Speaker 1: not intending to get Australian soldiers in trouble. As I
Speaker 1: understand it, He licked this information to journalists because he
Speaker 1: was concerned that the military were unfairly targeting soldiers for
Speaker 1: killing Afghani's in self defense. So he liackd this material.
Speaker 1: Then the ABC used it as he had not intended
Speaker 1: to publish allegation sold and it became an anti soldier thing.
Speaker 1: So that's a great irony in this. He licked information
Speaker 1: to get result A and ended up with result B.
Speaker 1: Now he's in jail. I guess he still believes it's
Speaker 1: worth it.
Speaker 5: Yeah, Look, he probably should foreseen what was going to
Speaker 5: be done with that information when he leaked it. I mean,
Speaker 5: any self respecting journalist looking at that would have looked
Speaker 5: at it and said, well, I've got a war crime
Speaker 5: story on my hands.
Speaker 2: Here was pretty obvious.
Speaker 5: Look, if you are willing to take the risk of
Speaker 5: stealing that information and leaking at which he did, you
Speaker 5: should also be willing to take the fall for that.
Speaker 5: And as far as I can tell, mister McBride is
Speaker 5: more than willing to take the fall for that. He
Speaker 5: hasn't resiled from what he's done.
Speaker 1: He didn't go to Spain for a year and then
Speaker 1: reluctantly came home.
Speaker 5: But he came and he's faced it, and he's taken
Speaker 5: it very well. The concern I have is that if
Speaker 5: you say it's open the floodgates and every whistle blower
Speaker 5: is protected for everything, do you not then create a
Speaker 5: situation where there are no stage secrets and therefore every
Speaker 5: other foreign power is aware of everything we are doing.
Speaker 5: And we operate in a world where we know other
Speaker 5: countries are very secretive about what they do. So why
Speaker 5: would we voluntarily give as much information as we can
Speaker 5: to countries like China then use that information against us
Speaker 5: when we can't do the same.
Speaker 3: Tradition to use our war crimes in Afghanistan one of
Speaker 3: many wars in which we're just being America's little bitch
Speaker 3: and following them into these things, having absolutely no idea
Speaker 3: why we're really there except oh, America's there. We inevitably
Speaker 3: find out ten or twenty years later after these wars
Speaker 3: the fact that America was just shoring up its own
Speaker 3: selfish interests and we were just there playing patsy anyway,
Speaker 3: and Afghanistan is absolutely no exception. How is China going
Speaker 3: to benefit from that?
Speaker 1: Well to that question, Judge Mossip, in his rulings, said
Speaker 1: that because there were hundreds of documents leaked, right, So
Speaker 1: he said that in those documents there was tactical information
Speaker 1: which could give an advantage to an adversary. He also
Speaker 1: said it would cause our partners to lack confidence in
Speaker 1: the Australian military that their secrets were not safe with us.
Speaker 1: So there were two practical ways in which the judge state,
Speaker 1: why compromised Australian security?
Speaker 4: Why do you pretend, on the one hand to be.
Speaker 3: Like, yay, whistleblowers, We've got protections in place. You've literally
Speaker 3: got these whistleblower laws, you've got the Public Disclosure Act,
Speaker 3: pretending like, hey, if you want to bust us, we'll actually.
Speaker 4: Look after you. There there was the guy.
Speaker 3: Richard Boyle I think his name was, who uncovered he
Speaker 3: was the whistleblower uncovering what the ATO was doing, taking
Speaker 3: way too much money off small businesses, etc.
Speaker 4: And so on.
Speaker 3: They prosecuted him, even though they then got their act
Speaker 3: together tidied up everything he brought to the nation's attention,
Speaker 3: so thereby admitting yes, what he said was right and
Speaker 3: now we're fixing everything.
Speaker 2: Thanks for that.
Speaker 3: They prosecuted him any way as well, because he put
Speaker 3: together the documents showing what they were doing.
Speaker 5: Sure, crying out show, but there's a difference between talking
Speaker 5: about whether the ATO has taken money it shouldn't have
Speaker 5: taken from Australians and then state secrets in relation to
Speaker 5: the miller.
Speaker 2: I mean, the accusation has no.
Speaker 3: Difference when it comes to this is a government who
Speaker 3: in this no difference.
Speaker 5: There's no differences.
Speaker 3: I'm talking about the premise of my argument is I'm
Speaker 3: talking about this is a government who said they were
Speaker 3: going to set up a whistleblower protection agency, who promised us,
Speaker 3: it was one of their election promises, that we're going
Speaker 3: to make these watertight laws for whistleblowers. Then their Attorney
Speaker 3: General does it swiftly and says, well, actually, if you
Speaker 3: so much as undermine the community's trust in government, Jeep,
Speaker 3: as you do that yourselves every other day, by the way,
Speaker 3: then that is grounds for prosecution and I will go
Speaker 3: after you hammer and tong. Hopefully the matter the nature
Speaker 3: of the whistleblower. And that is why I'm using the
Speaker 3: example of Richard Boyle, because in the eyes of this
Speaker 3: government it doesn't matter but that to do with Afghanistan
Speaker 3: or the ATO, because clearly they go after you anywhere.
Speaker 5: But I tipted that's hypocritical, but surely we just can't
Speaker 5: people running around revealing state secrets all the time. I mean,
Speaker 5: if that's the road we go down, there will be
Speaker 5: no security for anyone at any level of the military
Speaker 5: or government ever.
Speaker 3: And if danger road we go down, then they can
Speaker 3: get away with blue murder, which is exactly what they
Speaker 3: did in Afghanistan and expect to get away with it.
Speaker 5: So you're saying everything should be on the table and
Speaker 5: every foreign power should be aware of everything that goes
Speaker 5: on at every level of government.
Speaker 3: No, because obviously we don't have whistleblowers coming out of
Speaker 3: our ears.
Speaker 4: It happens very rarely, sadly.
Speaker 1: Well, that's the concern is that you start to give
Speaker 1: permission for people. And the judge made this comment about McBride.
Speaker 1: He said McBride was very opinionated and very strong in
Speaker 1: those opinions.
Speaker 4: He wasn't sorry for what he did. Neither is Julian Asanja.
Speaker 4: Neither should either of them be.
Speaker 3: So if you don't want your corruption exposed, hot tip,
Speaker 3: just don't be corrupt.
Speaker 1: So the danger becomes that individuals who are trusted with
Speaker 1: classified information, they're the ones who make a judgment call
Speaker 1: about what is worth leaking into the public era arena
Speaker 1: and what is not and you can't.
Speaker 4: Definition of a whistleblower. Yes, that is what they do.
Speaker 1: We're just saying it's incredibly problematic because, especially when it
Speaker 1: comes to military secrets, you're going to have stuff that
Speaker 1: is leaked that is not pertaining to the relevant situation.
Speaker 1: I you, Julian Assam's leaked a whole lot of stuff.
Speaker 3: And nobody can point to it also linked by that
Speaker 3: harmed us in any way.
Speaker 1: And McBride also leaked stuff which the judge said compromised
Speaker 1: Australian military tactics. So you've got a great conundrum for
Speaker 1: governments to work out how to make whistle blower legislation
Speaker 1: effective but still safe for the national secret Yes is.
Speaker 3: Stop being a hypocrite and just get rid of it
Speaker 3: all because you don't intend to protect them at all.
Speaker 2: That's fifth.
Speaker 4: That's all I'm saying.
Speaker 3: You are being hypocritical being like, oh, yeah, we care
Speaker 3: about this one hundred percent.
Speaker 4: Transparency. Transparency is our middle name.
Speaker 3: We've got these laws in place, we're talking about a
Speaker 3: protection agency.
Speaker 4: We've got the public disclosures.
Speaker 5: No you're not, but that's that's the whole hog or
Speaker 5: don't do it at all. While we're on the topic
Speaker 5: of transparencing, and of course on budget night there's lots
Speaker 5: of money being thrown around. We found out today that
Speaker 5: the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras in Sydney has copped
Speaker 5: more than a million dollars from the state government because
Speaker 5: that's the amount of deficit that they have found themselves
Speaker 5: in now. Of course, the Game and Lesbian Mardi Gras
Speaker 5: has been going in Sydney since nineteen seventy eight. It
Speaker 5: is a long running and popular event in Sydney. But
Speaker 5: of recent years the organizing committee have sort of moved
Speaker 5: away from the original point of Mardi Gras, which was
Speaker 5: to fight against discrimination against gay and lesbian people, and
Speaker 5: they've bought into all sorts of other social issues, including
Speaker 5: ones that actually affect gay and lesbian people negatively, like
Speaker 5: you know, giving their support to Gaza, a place where
Speaker 5: you don't go terribly well if you are a gay person.
Speaker 5: What a surprise that they would find themselves running out
Speaker 5: of money because they've kind of lost sight of what
Speaker 5: the event actually is. Now, I know, state governments give
Speaker 5: millions of dollars to all sorts of events to prop
Speaker 5: them up because they're loss making ventures, but it's deemed
Speaker 5: that they're good for the state in terms of tourism
Speaker 5: and publicity, et cetera, et cetera, and a lot of
Speaker 5: people go to Mardi Gras. My concern, though, is that
Speaker 5: it has turned into nothing more than an activist arm
Speaker 5: for whatever the current issue is. And this year it
Speaker 5: was of course Palestine, and then it was police because
Speaker 5: you had a fellow who was allegedly murdered by a copper,
Speaker 5: or two people who are allegedly murdered by a copper,
Speaker 5: And so where the Mardi Gras decided we're not going
Speaker 5: to allow police to march in the Mardi Gras this year.
Speaker 5: Then you had all this uproar from gay police officers saying, well,
Speaker 5: are we even part of the community anymore?
Speaker 2: On and on and on and on it goes.
Speaker 5: There is an argument that something that has become so
Speaker 5: political beyond the point of the demonstration doesn't deserve the
Speaker 5: public money it's receiving.
Speaker 1: I always thought that Marti Gras was a raging success,
Speaker 1: but to find out, as you said, by June they'll
Speaker 1: have a one million dollar deficit. They received a million
Speaker 1: dollars in February from taxpayers, and prior to that, taxpayers
Speaker 1: provided extra money to keep them cash flow positive in
Speaker 1: the lead up to the parade. So you know, the
Speaker 1: organizers when asked what's going on, they said cost of
Speaker 1: living pressures, which, well, I mean, we can all relate
Speaker 1: to that. So why don't they just get quantus to
Speaker 1: fund them rather than the TACKA payers. But I mean,
Speaker 1: you see the great irony here, right, You've got an
Speaker 1: organization which is all about equality, equality, but give us
Speaker 1: special funding for us to do our thing. Well, you
Speaker 1: can't have it both ways. So maybe the Mardi grass
Speaker 1: should do what the rest of us are expected to
Speaker 1: do and live within their means.
Speaker 4: Yeah, well it just comes down to poor management. Really.
Speaker 3: Mardi Gras went bankrupt in two thousand and two. It's
Speaker 3: not the first time that the government has bailed it out,
Speaker 3: Like you say, in the name of tourism, Caleb, But
Speaker 3: it becomes ridiculous when you have such it has become
Speaker 3: inherently political. Then it becomes ridiculous for the taxpayer to
Speaker 3: be funding it to the tune.
Speaker 4: Of millions of dollars each year. It just doesn't make
Speaker 4: any sense.
Speaker 1: Well, Clovermore said it's her goal to help it become sustainable. Well,
Speaker 1: as you said, it's existed since nineteen seventy eight, how
Speaker 1: long do you need to be sustainable? And the New
Speaker 1: South Wales Arts Minister John Graham, he said the Mardi
Speaker 1: Gras will be supported by the New South Wales taxpayer
Speaker 1: because it's a celebration of inclusion and community. We're making
Speaker 1: half of New South Wales pay for an event they
Speaker 1: don't like. Is hardly a way to celebrate inclusion.
Speaker 2: You're included at least you're a police officer.
Speaker 1: Of course. It's exactly talking of stupid. And every time
Speaker 1: we think we've reached peak stupid, we open our eyes
Speaker 1: and realize we're only at base camp. But we have
Speaker 1: great footage of a conservative YouTuber. Her name is Schuler
Speaker 1: and she went on to university campuses to ask young
Speaker 1: men if they would donate a testicle to transgendered people
Speaker 1: in order to fight toxic masculinity. Now, can you imagine
Speaker 1: a more ridiculous proposition? And yet how ridiculous have our
Speaker 1: university students become?
Speaker 11: Would you donate one of your testicles to and if
Speaker 11: it transmit and help fight toxic masculinity?
Speaker 12: I'd have to know more about the medical implications of
Speaker 12: me like having procedure to get rule my testicles, but like,
Speaker 12: I'm not against the idea entirely true.
Speaker 11: Yeah, I mean I'm a transpomant, so yeah, yeah.
Speaker 5: If I ever felt like I definitely was like, you know,
Speaker 5: I don't want kids, and you know, somebody explained like,
Speaker 5: you know, if I if I knew that things were
Speaker 5: going to function properly afterwards, I don't see a problem
Speaker 5: with that, right.
Speaker 11: If there is a risk entail too, yeah, I'd consider Yeah,
Speaker 11: probably the way.
Speaker 1: Cal I've got to ask you, would you donate a
Speaker 1: testicle to fight toxic masculinity?
Speaker 2: No, not to fight toxic masculine.
Speaker 5: My one question would be my ones with someone after
Speaker 5: My one question would be does it mean that it
Speaker 5: hurts half as much if you copy kick in the nuts?
Speaker 2: If you get rid of one of them. That might
Speaker 2: be the only thing that would be some pro again.
Speaker 1: Realized we're just I mean, they've got a girl with
Speaker 1: blue hair. They're being asked about LGBTQ issues. Do you reckon?
Speaker 1: They were just petrified of saying the wrong thing, so
Speaker 1: they feigned I'd think about it, or do you reckon?
Speaker 1: They were they've seriously been so brainwashed by work ideology
Speaker 1: they would.
Speaker 4: Water bordered with said ideology.
Speaker 3: Do you have to be a delusional You have to
Speaker 3: be you are willing to part with one of your
Speaker 3: nuts for the cause. I mean, do you do you
Speaker 3: actually think that's going to be somehow soldered on to
Speaker 3: a trans man.
Speaker 4: I don't think so.
Speaker 3: And yet some of them put absolutely no thought into
Speaker 3: it whatsoever.
Speaker 4: They're just like, well, if it's for the cause, it's
Speaker 4: for the cause.
Speaker 5: I guess they've got someone a woman standing there wearing
Speaker 5: the most obviously fake blue WI right, Like how they
Speaker 5: did not look at this woman and go, clearly, this
Speaker 5: is satire.
Speaker 2: That's how far gone these people are.
Speaker 5: And then comes out with this ridiculous suggestion, would you
Speaker 5: donate a testicle to stop toxic masculine? I mean, it's
Speaker 5: like going into a shopping center and saying, would you
Speaker 5: give me the three of your fingers to stop children
Speaker 5: being hungry in Africa? I mean, what difference is the corners?
Speaker 5: But they're not comparable causes. But giving a test you
Speaker 5: to get rid of a toxic masculinity? I mean, is
Speaker 5: she suggesting that It's a bit like when you're new
Speaker 5: to an animal. You know, when your horses start going mad,
Speaker 5: so you geld them to calm them down.
Speaker 2: You know, if every man.
Speaker 5: Gets rid of a testicle, Well, I don't know that's
Speaker 5: going to solve every problem.
Speaker 1: I think your most pertinent comment is how did they
Speaker 1: not recognize it was satire? I know, but the world
Speaker 1: right now is so mental that satires. Well I was dead,
Speaker 1: So you believe pretty much anything.
Speaker 2: And you can't question anyone, of course.
Speaker 5: I mean, you know someone says I've got the degree
Speaker 5: in gender studies and I wear.
Speaker 2: A blue wig. Well you must be obeyed.
Speaker 5: There's nothing potentially wrong with you whatsoever. And you had
Speaker 5: these moments and you think, my god, the world has
Speaker 5: gone to hell in a hand basket. We need someone quick, smart,
Speaker 5: who knows what's going on and consort all of this out.
Speaker 2: And who would have thought it would.
Speaker 5: Come in the form of the Prime Minister of Singapore,
Speaker 5: Lee sine Long. Now we know that Singapore, of course,
Speaker 5: they go very hard on things like crime. If only
Speaker 5: we could take the Singaporean way up in Queensland, for instance,
Speaker 5: where they have serious issues with the youth crime. I
Speaker 5: think in Singapore, you know, if you spit your chewing
Speaker 5: gum on the pavement. They cut your hand off or something. Right,
Speaker 5: you know it's serious, but you learn your lesson when
Speaker 5: you lose your hand.
Speaker 1: Right, But I don't think they cut your hand off
Speaker 1: or something like that.
Speaker 2: We get well, you know, same thing.
Speaker 5: But over in Singapore they do not take kindly to
Speaker 5: woke ideology, and the Prime Minister has put it more succinctly,
Speaker 5: I think than I have seen it anywhere else.
Speaker 11: In the West, they've got a movement called warkness, where
Speaker 11: you're super sensitive upon other people's issues, and you'll become
Speaker 11: hyper sensitive when other people somehow others say things or
Speaker 11: mention things, or refer to you without the respect which
Speaker 11: you or your super subgroup feel you or entitled to.
Speaker 11: It leads to very extreme attitudes and social norms, particularly
Speaker 11: in some academic institutions universities. You talk about safe spaces,
Speaker 11: you talk about appropriate pronouns, you talk about I'm about
Speaker 11: to say something which may be offensive to you. If
Speaker 11: you don't want to hear it, perhaps you would like
Speaker 11: to leave now, and life becomes very burdensome. And I
Speaker 11: don't think we want to go in that direction. It
Speaker 11: does not make us a more resilient, cohesive society with
Speaker 11: a strong sense of solidarity. We must be more robust.
Speaker 5: Sorry I gave Singapore a little too much credit. They
Speaker 5: don't cut your hand off. They just kind of supply.
Speaker 5: If they kind of hard enough, you might lose your hand.
Speaker 5: But he just puts it so well in the problem
Speaker 5: with woke ideology, and it's amazing. Here we are sitting
Speaker 5: in the West going, oh, what can we do about this?
Speaker 5: And a bloke who is running a small city state
Speaker 5: that you know, in many ways has civil society sorted
Speaker 5: out better than anywhere else in the world, just cuts
Speaker 5: straight through the rubbish and says, this is why it's bad.
Speaker 5: If only we had more leaders like him.
Speaker 1: We mentioned two things, resilience and cohesion, and no one
Speaker 1: can tell me right now that we have social cohesion
Speaker 1: in this country. And you certainly can't tell me that
Speaker 1: our young people are resilient and able to you know,
Speaker 1: sort of well things slight.
Speaker 3: They're willing to give away their testicles of so wonderful
Speaker 3: to hear wokeness very politely, as is their beautiful cultural way,
Speaker 3: trying to describe the utter insanity of they had this.
Speaker 4: Movement called wokeness.
Speaker 3: But delves, which means they're not very robust. No, they're
Speaker 3: not very robust at all. Some very important news we
Speaker 3: have to get to tonight. The UN has double checked
Speaker 3: its figures on the death count in Palestine, and would
Speaker 3: you believe it, the numbers they were getting from Hamas
Speaker 3: aren't true. They cut them by almost fifty percent.
Speaker 4: This is the quote.
Speaker 10: The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
Speaker 10: has revised its data attaining to the number of Palestinian
Speaker 10: casualties in the seven month old Garza War, reducing almost
Speaker 10: by half the number of women and children it previously
Speaker 10: said were killed in the hostilities between Israel and the
Speaker 10: Iranian backed terror group Hamas. So get this, they had
Speaker 10: claimed that fourteen thousand and five hundred children.
Speaker 4: Had been killed since the war began. Two days later.
Speaker 3: Early this month, the UN agency nearly cut the number
Speaker 3: in half. They're now saying that some four nine hundred
Speaker 3: and fifty nine women seven thousand, seven hundred and ninety
Speaker 3: seven children have been killed in the war so far. Now,
Speaker 3: how the only way to get in figures that inflated
Speaker 3: is to be taking the numbers of a terrorist group
Speaker 3: and publishing them as if it were fact, while Israel
Speaker 3: keep saying, we are actually doing everything we can possibly do,
Speaker 3: while these mongrels use the human beings as shields to
Speaker 3: save civilian lives. We're not here to kill civilians. We
Speaker 3: are here to annihilate Hamas. And yet the UN recognize the.
Speaker 4: World over has been trumpeting the.
Speaker 3: Harmas figures and are responsible for so much of the
Speaker 3: uprisings we see across the West as people have believed
Speaker 3: these figures.
Speaker 1: Unquestioningly, the figures that the UN have been promoting have
Speaker 1: caused huge anger against this They've led to charges of
Speaker 1: Israel using disproportionate force. They've also been the basis for
Speaker 1: claims of genocide, and what the UN have done is
Speaker 1: basically just repeated Hamas talking points. If the new figures
Speaker 1: are true, then it would be about one to one
Speaker 1: in terms of civilian casualties and terrorists Israel claimed they've killed,
Speaker 1: which would make Israel in terms of urban warfare, one
Speaker 1: of the most brilliant, caring military forces in the history
Speaker 1: of urban warfare. So this is a massive back down
Speaker 1: by the United Nations. But my question is, even if
Speaker 1: these numbers are half what they say, how do they
Speaker 1: know that that's correct, because they don't have any way
Speaker 1: of verifying on the ground what the actual numbers are.
Speaker 1: So it's curious that they've halved them. But how do
Speaker 1: they know that those numbers are correct?
Speaker 2: They probably don't.
Speaker 5: But I mean, the UN is just the most Johnny
Speaker 5: cum Lately organization when it comes to this war, isn't it.
Speaker 5: I mean, what was it January or February when the
Speaker 5: UN finally decided that they were concerned that on October
Speaker 5: seventh there may have been gratuitous violence in the form
Speaker 5: of rape and murder, etc. Against Israeli women. I mean,
Speaker 5: we already knew all of that, and it took them
Speaker 5: four five months for the UN to come out and say, oh,
Speaker 5: we have a problem here.
Speaker 2: Oh we condemn this.
Speaker 5: I mean, you know, we know what the UN thinks
Speaker 5: of Israel. What's the number sixty times they've condemned Israel
Speaker 5: or probably more I think, And how many times have
Speaker 5: they condemned Palestine. Well, they've just decided, they've recommended to
Speaker 5: the Security Council.
Speaker 2: That they should be included in the UN.
Speaker 5: All you have to do to be recognized by the UN,
Speaker 5: apparently is commit terrorist acts.
Speaker 2: Who knew it was so easy?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think before we go to a break, let's
Speaker 1: talk about a quick story from your home state, South Australia,
Speaker 1: where if you own a dog and your dog attacks
Speaker 1: another animal or a person, you face fines of twenty
Speaker 1: five thousand dollars. That's the owner of the doll If
Speaker 1: your dog attacks an other dog or a person and
Speaker 1: causes injury or death, fifty thousand dollar fine. If that
Speaker 1: dog had already been labeled dangerous and you've failed to
Speaker 1: keep it from attacking. Is that fair? Do you reckon quick?
Speaker 4: Let the dogs?
Speaker 3: No, I'm sure they'll call off any future planned attack.
Speaker 5: No, it's down to the owners. The owners control the dog,
Speaker 5: it's their animal. You shouldn't have a dangerous animal. The
Speaker 5: current penalty is two hundred, say two hundred and twenty
Speaker 5: five hundred dollars in so they're increasing the penalty by
Speaker 5: ten times. You know people running around with pit bulls
Speaker 5: and all these sorts of things. There should be a
Speaker 5: major disincentive to allow dangerous dogs out in public, and
Speaker 5: a twenty five thousand dollar fine if your dog attacks
Speaker 5: someone sounds like a pretty good disincentive.
Speaker 1: If you're mainly recognizing a pet almost as a weapon.
Speaker 1: If you're waiting around eat and that's responsible. If you're
Speaker 1: allowing a pit bull or a dog like that, just
Speaker 1: naturally aggressive, to be off a leash, then you irresponsible.
Speaker 3: You should be now, well, somebody has to be responsible.
Speaker 3: And some of these attacks result in fatalities otherwise being
Speaker 3: horrifically scarred for life, So it makes sense you've got
Speaker 3: to punish someone. And in the nature versus nurture argument, obviously,
Speaker 3: if you're on the nurture side, it's always always the
Speaker 3: owner's responsibility.
Speaker 5: I mean, look, twenty five hundred dollars fine if your
Speaker 5: dog kills someone. If you killed someone with your car,
Speaker 5: you're out for either murder or manslaughter. But your dog
Speaker 5: does it and you copp the same fine you'd get
Speaker 5: for sort of serious drink driving or something. It seems
Speaker 5: ridiculous you deserve to have such a serious fine. If
Speaker 5: we're not going to put down every pitople in this country,
Speaker 5: which I believe we should because they are dangerous dogs,
Speaker 5: then a large fine is about as good as we're
Speaker 5: going to get.
Speaker 1: Well, Calibond will never get such a fine because he
Speaker 1: owns a cat and cat cat men. We're going to
Speaker 1: go to a break when we come back. We'll look
Speaker 1: at what's making news in the papers tomorrow. It's the budget,
Speaker 1: of course, but we'll look at how the papers are
Speaker 1: reporting Jim Chalmer's speech earlier this sevenon that's coming up
Speaker 1: in a moment. All right, well, let's look at how
Speaker 1: the papers are going to report Jim Chalmer's budget speech. Liz,
Speaker 1: what does the Australian say.
Speaker 3: The Australian does not disappoint James bug it on after
Speaker 3: pay is the main headline. Gotta love that Jim Chalmers
Speaker 3: has splashed seven point eight billion on new cost of
Speaker 3: living measures, including three hundred dollars energy subsidies for every
Speaker 3: household and boosted rent assistance designed to artificially lower inflation
Speaker 3: and heap pressure on the Reserve Bank to cut rates
Speaker 3: ahead of the next election. Of course, this budget is
Speaker 3: all about trying to win said election.
Speaker 4: It's all a sugarhead.
Speaker 3: Everyone gets a pony, some of you get a pony
Speaker 3: for your pony. It's incredible, and yet I'm just looking
Speaker 3: at our national debt and my eyes are watering because
Speaker 3: this does nothing to address that whatsoever. It is all
Speaker 3: about winning the next election and giving everyone.
Speaker 4: That quick sugar hit.
Speaker 3: Being like oh, we have a surplus, probably the last
Speaker 3: one you'll see in a very long time, especially if
Speaker 3: you stick with this government. I was actually talking to
Speaker 3: someone today and brace yourselves. I'm glad you're both sitting down.
Speaker 3: I was talking about the National.
Speaker 4: I literally said to me, no, we we have a surplus.
Speaker 4: Good glue die.
Speaker 3: Oh no, they literally thought the nine point three billion
Speaker 3: dollar surplus is us being debt free and having that
Speaker 3: little golden egg just sitting there like a nugget.
Speaker 4: I'm still not over it.
Speaker 3: How are we supposed to get ourselves out of this
Speaker 3: mess when the average Australian doesn't even realize how big
Speaker 3: a mess we're in.
Speaker 1: The pointed that you shared that conversation because you told
Speaker 1: me you'd keep that in.
Speaker 2: I can't.
Speaker 4: I kind of admire that.
Speaker 5: The wishful thinking or the blissful ignorance, you know, they say,
Speaker 5: and we sit here every night and talk about the
Speaker 5: troubles of the world, and you watching at home.
Speaker 2: Of course, informed that's why you're watching us.
Speaker 5: So we have to deal with the troubles of the
Speaker 5: world while others just skip through fields of daisies. But
Speaker 5: when you talk about the debt, right, and I mean
Speaker 5: this is such an election budget. And this is going
Speaker 5: back to the point we made earlier about you know,
Speaker 5: this is not just a budget for today. It's a
Speaker 5: budget for decays. It's barely a budget for the next
Speaker 5: few months. It is literally, let's just get us through
Speaker 5: to what will hopefully be an early election. Now there
Speaker 5: will only be an early election.
Speaker 2: I believe if interest.
Speaker 5: Rates go down that will be the trigger for an
Speaker 5: early election.
Speaker 2: But it's it's highly likely.
Speaker 5: I mean, a charmer says we'll get some inflation down
Speaker 5: to two point seventy five percent by the end of
Speaker 5: the year. I think that's a bit of a lofty ask,
Speaker 5: and without that coming down, you're unlikely to get that
Speaker 5: reduction in interest rates. But beyond what has been put
Speaker 5: forward here, which is all about winning that election, there
Speaker 5: is nothing. There is no plan whatsoever. There's no plan
Speaker 5: for debt reduction. There's no future proofing. I mean, net
Speaker 5: debt goes from this financial year four hundred and ninety
Speaker 5: nine point nine billion dollars to six hundred and ninety
Speaker 5: seven point five in financial year twenty seven to twenty eight, right,
Speaker 5: it just keeps going up. Real debt is more than
Speaker 5: a trillion dollars. There is no plan whatsoever.
Speaker 1: Chalmers is betting everything on this budget in that we're
Speaker 1: distracted by some shiny things three hundred dollar energy rebate.
Speaker 1: He's betting that inflation goes down, then they go straight
Speaker 1: to an election because they've proved they can manage the economy.
Speaker 1: But if inflation goes up, then he is completely screwed
Speaker 1: because he's bet everything that it won't. You've got the
Speaker 1: Reserve Bank warning that we can't have any inflationary pressure.
Speaker 1: He'll be blamed for it and then they're in big trouble.
Speaker 1: Speak of elections, it's not just Albanezi who's excited about
Speaker 1: this budget for an election, but Stephen Miles is very
Speaker 1: excited about the federal budget because of course Queensland has
Speaker 1: a state election in October, and he tweeted tonight all
Speaker 1: Queenslanders will now get a thirteen hundred dollar energy rebate.
Speaker 1: He actually said, the olben Eezy government has these the
Speaker 1: words topped up our one thousand dollars rebate with another
Speaker 1: three hundred dollars.
Speaker 4: My idea was so great theave.
Speaker 2: Copy topped it up.
Speaker 1: Let's go to the front page of the Adelaide Advertiser
Speaker 1: The headline says, three hundred dollars drop in the ocean.
Speaker 1: Voters whether in huge bill rise, will get a seventy
Speaker 1: five dollars a quarter energy bill rebate as charmers bets
Speaker 1: the next election on the modest cost of modest is
Speaker 1: true cost of living relief cutting through and of course
Speaker 1: they talk about how there's also the revamped Stage three
Speaker 1: tax cuts that the article goes on to talk about
Speaker 1: the fact that the gross debt will blow out to
Speaker 1: more than one point one trillion dollars, the Labour's budget
Speaker 1: surplus and the cost of living trying to deal with
Speaker 1: the cost of living stuff, they've got this little budget surplus.
Speaker 1: Adam Bant today, let me show you an Adam Bant
Speaker 1: tweet because this is why Adam band should never be
Speaker 1: allowed near the national accounts. He said, Labour's budget surplus
Speaker 1: is your cost of living increase? With millions stuck in poverty?
Speaker 1: Do we have millions stuck in poverty?
Speaker 4: Millions?
Speaker 2: Wonder them?
Speaker 1: Isn't this unable to afford rent, medication, groceries or degrees? Accurrently,
Speaker 1: if you can't afford a uni degree poverty, he says,
Speaker 1: labor are proud of hoarding nine point three billion dollars
Speaker 1: from people doing it the toughest. That's not responsible, that's cruel. So,
Speaker 1: according to the Greens, a budget surplus is cruel responsive
Speaker 1: because you are hoarding money.
Speaker 2: Yeah, cut down death is hoarding.
Speaker 3: What is responsible is spending every last pen.
Speaker 4: And then some like this government hasn't done that.
Speaker 3: But I just love this three hundred dollars drop in
Speaker 3: the ocean headline because we all know that's going to
Speaker 3: absolutely everyone. It hasn't mean means tested. Every bajillionaire in
Speaker 3: the country also gets this. I'm sure they'd happily forego
Speaker 3: it and give it to people actually in need and
Speaker 3: choosing between I don't know, eating today and paying their
Speaker 3: energy bill. But this government is essentially compensating us for
Speaker 3: their own energy policies. They're like, oh, well, look it's okay,
Speaker 3: we'll give you free money. Hey, it's our money anyway,
Speaker 3: we'll take it.
Speaker 1: We were promised to reduction in energy prices. Remate is
Speaker 1: not a reduction.
Speaker 3: Rather than reduce the two hundred and seventy five, there's
Speaker 3: no reduction. They're now just handing out free money, being like,
Speaker 3: spend this voucher at the door and well that's some wrong.
Speaker 1: So taxpayers are spending three billion dollars and then some
Speaker 1: in order to try and cover up a government failure,
Speaker 1: of course, and while the budget pours.
Speaker 3: More billions into their jolly green dream, which is only
Speaker 3: going to result in more ex.
Speaker 2: Courrect three hundred dollars.
Speaker 5: You know, it's if you are earning fifty grand a year,
Speaker 5: three hundred dollars perhaps does mean something to you, sure,
Speaker 5: but if you're earning more than that, three hundred dollars
Speaker 5: is basically a drop in the ocean. And let's not
Speaker 5: forget of course that. Of course, he talked to broadly
Speaker 5: tonight about the changes to Stage three tax cuts and
Speaker 5: how great that is, and that delivers a tax cut
Speaker 5: to every Australian if you are one of those low
Speaker 5: earning Australians, so you know you've been delivered a tax
Speaker 5: cut in these changes to Stage three. It's what fifteen
Speaker 5: dollars a week or something like. It is a minuscule
Speaker 5: tax cut that has been delivered by this government and
Speaker 5: they're crowing about it. And as Ross Greenwood pointed out
Speaker 5: straight after the Treasurer's speech tonight, even though you have
Speaker 5: had a tax cut, this is still the highest taxing
Speaker 5: government Australia has seen in.
Speaker 2: Twenty three years.
Speaker 5: Let that sink in, and that's largely because of bracket creep,
Speaker 5: because you know, as inflation goes up, of course your
Speaker 5: wages will have to go up to some degree, and
Speaker 5: so all these people have moved up into the next
Speaker 5: tax bracket. So that lovely pay rise you you just
Speaker 5: hand half of it straight over to the taxman. And
Speaker 5: it means that the federal government's income tax receipts in
Speaker 5: the last five years or so have increased in the
Speaker 5: order of thirty forty billion dollars. They've not raised taxes
Speaker 5: at all. They've actually lowered taxes. But at the same
Speaker 5: time as they've lowered tax rates, they've actually dragged in
Speaker 5: more tax from you because your income has gone up.
Speaker 5: Let that sink in. Try and make it make sense,
Speaker 5: but they don't want you to know that because of course,
Speaker 5: well it's good for them.
Speaker 2: They make more money.
Speaker 5: And while we're on the theme of cost of living,
Speaker 5: let's go over to the Canvra Times tomorrow where it
Speaker 5: says election ready, pain relief, What a surprise, And then
Speaker 5: you see doctor Charmers in all of his doctor gear
Speaker 5: Treasurer Jim Chalmers has cast aside worries of a slowing
Speaker 5: economy to deliver a host of measures designed to help
Speaker 5: millions of Australians struggling with the cost of living. Well,
Speaker 5: good luck really is all I can say, because even
Speaker 5: though he said tonight we're going to essential we have
Speaker 5: the level of migration, we have not seen any inkling
Speaker 5: of that whatsoever so far. I have no idea how
Speaker 5: he thinks he's going to achieve it. I have no
Speaker 5: idea how he thinks he's going to achieve the reduction
Speaker 5: in inflation he says he's going to deliver it could
Speaker 5: all go very Piershe.
Speaker 1: The other little thing from the budget, because remember when
Speaker 1: Albanezi won the election and referendum on a Voice for
Speaker 1: Indigenous people, and we spent four hundred and fifty million
Speaker 1: dollars on the referendum, spent twelve months talking about it.
Speaker 1: That failed, But you'd think there'd be something in the
Speaker 1: budget for Indigenous people. Fifty one words, three centences regarding
Speaker 1: Indigenous people. We're going to go to a break when
Speaker 1: we come back. Joe Biden tells the truth about Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris startling admission we'll show you that in a second. Okay,
Speaker 1: So most of us would admit that Kamala Harris is
Speaker 1: probably the dumbest politician in the world right now, but
Speaker 1: Joe Biden reckons he's found someone even dumber himself.
Speaker 2: Joe Biden, I work for Kamala Harris.
Speaker 1: I asked her to be my vice president. I knew
Speaker 1: I needed somebody smarter than me. I'll tell you what though,
Speaker 1: when he says he works for Kamala Harris, he doesn't
Speaker 1: work for Kamala Harris. He works for Barack Obama. But
Speaker 1: in terms of his acknowledgment that she is smarter than him,
Speaker 1: I reckon. That's the first time Joe Biden has actually
Speaker 1: told the truth.
Speaker 4: Of it question first in that race.
Speaker 3: But here was the Honorable Levy at a health forum
Speaker 3: talking to a pile of young people.
Speaker 4: She's trying to connect and be cool, so she drops
Speaker 4: the F bomb.
Speaker 10: We have to know that sometimes people will open the
Speaker 10: door for.
Speaker 4: You and leave it open.
Speaker 3: Sometimes they won't, and then you need to kick that
Speaker 3: door down.
Speaker 2: Exteals my language.
Speaker 3: Life advice from the Vice President of the United States
Speaker 3: of America.
Speaker 2: Oh for I mean no, no, no, I can't do that.
Speaker 5: I mean, come on, you know, surely you're in front
Speaker 5: of a crowd, you're the vice president.
Speaker 2: You can swear as much.
Speaker 1: As you want behind closed doors, but she always seems
Speaker 1: like she's on drugs. That's it from us, good night,