Speaker 1: Why On Sky News Australia. This is to Nika de Georgio,
Speaker 1: Hello and welcome to the show coming up tonight. Labour
Speaker 1: tries to sell an uncosted emissions reduction target with no
Speaker 1: clue about what it means for your power bills. Plus
Speaker 1: i'll explain why it's time for the coalition to get
Speaker 1: serious and dump net zero, and the debate over a
Speaker 1: big Australia continues. Is it time to close the door
Speaker 1: and say where full? But first tonight, now is the
Speaker 1: time for the coalition to get serious and dump net
Speaker 1: zero by twenty fifty pull out of Paris, set the standard.
Speaker 1: Get us off this magical carpet ride fantasy. Because Labor
Speaker 1: is out there peddling an uncosted twenty thirty five emissions
Speaker 1: reduction target with absolutely no clue what it means for
Speaker 1: your power bills and how much it will cost you.
Speaker 1: And this really sums up where it's energy plan.
Speaker 2: Is that there's no particular advice that flows from that
Speaker 2: about the good There we go, Thank you, I'll be
Speaker 2: on all someone's going to someone's going to jump in
Speaker 2: and hold it.
Speaker 1: There we go, someone hold out it very good? Well,
Speaker 1: there it is the energy plan is quite literally falling over,
Speaker 1: and this fumbling exchange by the Minister in charge is
Speaker 1: all the proof you need about the con we are
Speaker 1: on and how quickly we need to pull the pin.
Speaker 1: Do you have an estimate of projection for when the
Speaker 1: prices will get cheaper?
Speaker 2: Well, i'd put you to the modeling, the AMC model yesterday.
Speaker 2: That's not a political promise, it's a statement of modeling
Speaker 2: by expert agency.
Speaker 3: So is there an idea of when we won't need
Speaker 3: subsidies when that money?
Speaker 2: Well, again, we've already, we've already, we've already made decisions
Speaker 2: about subsidies and they're levels at different points, and that
Speaker 2: work will continue.
Speaker 1: So the minister doesn't know. How about the Prime Minister?
Speaker 1: Does he know what's going on?
Speaker 4: There's modeling is out there. The modeling that you've quoted
Speaker 4: is modeling, which is the.
Speaker 5: Can you guarantee that you will get the policy settings
Speaker 5: right moving forward that prices will one hundred percent fall
Speaker 5: for Australians they're struggling with their bill.
Speaker 4: Well, I can guarantee that the cheapest form of new
Speaker 4: energy is renewables. The cheapest form of new energy is renewables.
Speaker 4: The modeling is that it's not government modeling, it's modeling
Speaker 4: that's been done by the energy market operator.
Speaker 1: So let me get this straight. We have been warned
Speaker 1: time and time again by experts and AEMO that we
Speaker 1: will not breach our emissions reduction targets as it is
Speaker 1: via an experiment of transmission lines, giant wind turbines, green hydrogen,
Speaker 1: solar farms and batteries. Labor has been told it cannot
Speaker 1: even get to forty three percent by twenty thirty. It
Speaker 1: has had some sort of bizarre come to Jesus moment
Speaker 1: and thought to increase it to sixty two to seventy
Speaker 1: percent by twenty thirty five. Make that make sense now?
Speaker 1: This is an economic and environmental disaster. The energy sector
Speaker 1: has become reliant on subsidies taxpayer funded, of course, and
Speaker 1: what happens when those subsidies end. The costs go up.
Speaker 1: It's so diabolical. Labour's former climate advisor, Ross Garno recently
Speaker 1: warned that supersizing subsidies for solar and wind projects won't
Speaker 1: get us to twenty thirty targets and risks blowing a
Speaker 1: hole in the country's budget just to quote by failure.
Speaker 1: Yet Labor comes out yesterday with an uncosted plan, and
Speaker 1: Chris Bowen can't even put a figure on what it
Speaker 1: means for your energy bills.
Speaker 3: When do you expect energy prices will be achieve under
Speaker 3: this plan?
Speaker 2: Well again, you know, Well, you'll have a default market
Speaker 2: offer out in a few months that will reflect how
Speaker 2: the market's going. What will show is continued impact. As
Speaker 2: I said, sixty thousand people have reduced their bills by
Speaker 2: up to ninety percent. That's just in you know, since
Speaker 2: the first of July.
Speaker 3: Do you expect we'll always need to have subsidies in
Speaker 3: order to.
Speaker 2: Have I think I've answered that question.
Speaker 1: And the best bowl and can do his point to
Speaker 1: the modeling, Well, gee, remember the last time Labor told
Speaker 1: us about what the modeling said.
Speaker 4: Reducing power prices by two hundred and seventy five dollars.
Speaker 2: Reducing power prices by two hundred and seventy five dollars.
Speaker 5: By twenty twenty five, two hundred and seventy five dollars
Speaker 5: a year.
Speaker 4: Two hundred and seventy five dollars a year.
Speaker 1: And yet fast forward to after this year's election, that
Speaker 1: modeling that told us our bills would be two hundred
Speaker 1: and seventy five dollars cheaper was suddenly irrelevant.
Speaker 4: It's reputexas modeling, it's reputexas.
Speaker 1: Modeling co ownership of that modeling.
Speaker 4: It's reputexas modeling from that time. It's reputexas modeling based
Speaker 4: upon the circumstances at that time.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's all bit of con isn't it. Yet? We
Speaker 1: are bending over backwards financially and environmentally, despite omitting one
Speaker 1: percent of global emissions. Why are we the ones doing
Speaker 1: the heavy lifting to save the world from the alleged
Speaker 1: climate change doomsday armageddon? And for what? It's not going
Speaker 1: to stop the rain, it's not going to stop the sun,
Speaker 1: and it's certainly not going to do anything for our bills.
Speaker 1: Yet we are spending like crazy to get there.
Speaker 4: Two billion dollars for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation New
Speaker 4: Net zero five billion dollar fund, one point one billion
Speaker 4: dollars to encourage more production of clean fuels in Australia,
Speaker 4: forty million dollars to accelerate the roll out of curbside
Speaker 4: and fast ev charge.
Speaker 2: Fifty million dollars to support Australis sporting clubs reduce their
Speaker 2: bills and emissions at the same time two billion dollar,
Speaker 2: five billion dollar fund one point one billion dollars forty
Speaker 2: million dollars.
Speaker 1: I'm bliming. It's like a game of the price is right.
Speaker 1: According to the IPA's analysis of budget documents, spending on
Speaker 1: climate change and net zero in the most recent federal
Speaker 1: budget reached around nine billion dollars annually, up from around
Speaker 1: six hundred million a decade earlier, an unbelievable fifteen fold increase.
Speaker 1: A Business Council of Australia report found cutting emissions by
Speaker 1: seventy percent or more would carry a price tag of
Speaker 1: up to five hundred and thirty billion dollars. Yes, Chris
Speaker 1: Bowen is still lying to you. What will the total
Speaker 1: cost of net zero be by twenty fifty, Prime Minister.
Speaker 4: Well, it depends what figures you look for. If you
Speaker 4: look for investment for twenty thirty five, the Business Council
Speaker 4: of Australia saying that the cost will be around about
Speaker 4: four hundred to five hundred billion dollars. If you ask
Speaker 4: for what our policy is, yessay, we announced it an
Speaker 4: additional eight point three billion dollars of investment, meaning our
Speaker 4: total investment is seventy five billion dollars.
Speaker 2: Canion ab Yeah, six hundred billion was the cost of
Speaker 2: Peter Dutton's plan. Yesterday we announced an eight point five
Speaker 2: billion dollar investment that takes total government expenditure to around
Speaker 2: seventy five billion what will be the.
Speaker 3: Total cost of net zero by twenty fifty in.
Speaker 2: Terms of the budget. That's seventy more than seventy five
Speaker 2: billion dollars that we've outlined the total cost of not
Speaker 2: achieving net zero as his outline in the National Risk assessments,
Speaker 2: many times more than that. We've got a bit of
Speaker 2: noise coming in. I think that's a good rap.
Speaker 1: Thanks guys. Noise coming in. That's it. By off, he
Speaker 1: goes press conference over, he's done, he's had enough for
Speaker 1: the day. Doesn't want to answer questions, not serious at all.
Speaker 1: And look, the reality is Labor is doubling down on
Speaker 1: climate targets while we are shutting down coal plants with
Speaker 1: no plan B for energy generation to keep the lights
Speaker 1: on in this country, and the cost will, inevitably, as
Speaker 1: we've been warned, be passed on to us as consumers
Speaker 1: on top of every other cost under this government. The
Speaker 1: Coalition and Susan Lee now have a real opportunity to
Speaker 1: set the standard and put Australia's energy future first. Here
Speaker 1: was Susan Lee today.
Speaker 6: We don't believe in setting targets at all, from opposition
Speaker 6: or from government because the reality is that energy policy
Speaker 6: is not about a target that is never going to
Speaker 6: be reached.
Speaker 1: Now, within minutes of that press conference ending her office
Speaker 1: release to clarification saying we don't support setting targets in opposition.
Speaker 1: We do recognize the importance of targets in government when
Speaker 1: we have the full information in front of us. But look,
Speaker 1: I think she should have just stuck to what she
Speaker 1: actually said in that press conference. The fantasy targets are
Speaker 1: never going to be reached and that is coming from
Speaker 1: experts across this country. We need energy that is cheap
Speaker 1: and reliable and not one based on a lie. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's no coincidence countries around the world are dumping net zero,
Speaker 1: So if you want to give voters a choice at
Speaker 1: the ballot box, get rid of it. The majority of
Speaker 1: liberal or national parties across the country have now voted
Speaker 1: to abandon net zero. And bear in mind these branches
Speaker 1: have done this by themselves. They've said enough is enough.
Speaker 1: Staying in Paris is holding the country back. And if
Speaker 1: you want to differentiate from labor, do it today. Start
Speaker 1: campaigning today against net zero, make a difference, build a platform,
Speaker 1: and gee, get us off this costly fantasy as soon
Speaker 1: as possible. Let's go straight to Shadow Cabinet Secretary Andrew Wallace. Now, Andrew,
Speaker 1: good to see you. What do you make of the
Speaker 1: Prime Minister and Chris Bowen out there today with all
Speaker 1: these tricky figures, all the while actually avoiding the elephant
Speaker 1: in the room one what will this cost us? And two?
Speaker 1: How much will our power bills come down under this
Speaker 1: twenty thirty five target?
Speaker 7: Well, Tanika, you'll have to excuse me for the big
Speaker 7: smile on my face, but I can just see Chris
Speaker 7: Bowen saying, oh, you're not going to get me on
Speaker 7: that one again. And I'm not going to talk about
Speaker 7: how the policies are going to reduce power prices.
Speaker 1: Ninety seven times.
Speaker 7: They told Australians in the lead up to the twenty
Speaker 7: two election that they were going to see a two
Speaker 7: hundred and seventy five dollars price reduction in their power prices,
Speaker 7: and we're paying thirteen hundred dollars more so, he wasn't
Speaker 7: going to have his little feet on the sticky paper.
Speaker 7: I can assure you of that.
Speaker 1: But look.
Speaker 7: What happened over the last couple of days. What happened
Speaker 7: yesterday we saw an uncosted basically a fantasy on the
Speaker 7: part of the Labor Party. You know they have emissions
Speaker 7: reduction has not altered one bit. They have flatlined since
Speaker 7: the coalition lost government. So the government has been spending
Speaker 7: billions and billions and billions of dollars and they haven't
Speaker 7: altered the dial. That is the reality. And Australians are
Speaker 7: paying through the nose for power while fat cats, fat
Speaker 7: cats and multinationals are getting richer.
Speaker 1: No. Look, you're absolutely correct, and you're right. The minister
Speaker 1: in charge today I didn't want to answer the questions.
Speaker 1: He heard a noise apparently and even scurried off. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's how much he cares about the energy future in
Speaker 1: this country and all the while we're going broken backwards
Speaker 1: because of it. Look, I just want to ask you
Speaker 1: about the Prime Minister's failure to secure a treaty with
Speaker 1: Papua New Guinea. This comes after China has urged p
Speaker 1: and G not to sign any bilateral treaty that quote
Speaker 1: prevents a sovereign country from cooperating with a third party.
Speaker 1: But Andrew, this was the second Pacific security agreement with
Speaker 1: Australia to have collapsed. While the Prime Minister spent the
Speaker 1: last week over there, could anything have been done in
Speaker 1: your view to actually have gotten these agreements over the line.
Speaker 1: Could more have been done?
Speaker 7: Well, Look, the Coalition absolutely support these types of bilateral
Speaker 7: security arrangements between Australia and our Pacific island friends. You know,
Speaker 7: we want to these arrangements and agreements succeed. But the
Speaker 7: reality is the government there's spin units were out there
Speaker 7: talking about how the defense arrangement between Australia and Papua
Speaker 7: New Guinea this week was done and dusted and it
Speaker 7: was great. It was going to be signed off by
Speaker 7: the Prime Minister. Last week it was a similar security
Speaker 7: arrangement with Australia and van Uatu worth five hundred million dollars.
Speaker 7: The problem is they hadn't actually been signed yet. Now,
Speaker 7: anybody who has been in business would know that you
Speaker 7: don't spook about something until the deal is done, until
Speaker 7: the ink has dried, And the Labor Party have demonstrated
Speaker 7: once again that they all talk and no action in
Speaker 7: relation to foreign policy. Now, can you imagine what Penny
Speaker 7: Wong would have said, what the Prime Minister Anthony Albanezi,
Speaker 7: what he would have said if the shoe was on
Speaker 7: the other foot, If we had have come out there
Speaker 7: and made these the grandiose announcements and yet come back
Speaker 7: empty handed, we would have had on our face. And
Speaker 7: that's exactly what the Prime Minister in Penning wom have got.
Speaker 1: Now, yeah, you're not wrong. I mean, if the she
Speaker 1: was on the other foot, can you imagine the carry on?
Speaker 1: But yeah, he's gone over there, was meant to sign
Speaker 1: at least two of these deals and has come back
Speaker 1: empty handed. I just find it extraordinary. Andrew, Before we
Speaker 1: go tonight, where are you joining us from?
Speaker 7: I am at the Calandra RSL at the Function Center.
Speaker 7: We are celebrating Fisher's Night of Nights tonight.
Speaker 1: We've got a.
Speaker 7: Sellout crowd, three hundred and thirty local constituents here. We've
Speaker 7: got Chris cob warming up in the background. I don't
Speaker 7: know if you can hear him, and we're going to
Speaker 7: have an absolutely fantastic night celebrating the community of Fisher
Speaker 7: and the great place it is to work, rest and play.
Speaker 1: Oh how good's that? Well, it looks like it's going
Speaker 1: to be a wonderful night ahead. Andrew Wallace, always appreciate
Speaker 1: your time. Thanks so much as always for joining me
Speaker 1: on the show. Well, I want to return now to
Speaker 1: that con that is l it was twenty thirty five
Speaker 1: emissions reduction targets. Joining me is Adam Morrison, the Energy
Speaker 1: program director at the Center for Independent Studies Aidan, good
Speaker 1: to see you, thanks for joining me. I just want
Speaker 1: to remind our viewers of what the Energy Minister and
Speaker 1: the Prime Minister said today when they were asked when
Speaker 1: prices will be cheaper under this plan.
Speaker 2: Have a listen, Well, i'd point you to the modeling,
Speaker 2: the AAMC modeling YESTERA, that's not a political promise, it's
Speaker 2: a statement of modeling by expert agencies.
Speaker 4: Well, there's modeling is out there. The modeling that you've
Speaker 4: quoted is modeling, which is there.
Speaker 1: Aiden, So the Prime Minister and the Minister don't know
Speaker 1: when power prices will be cheaper under the twenty thirty
Speaker 1: five fantasy. Therefore none of us actually know what it means.
Speaker 1: But they keep referring to the modeling. What does the
Speaker 1: modeling actually tell us.
Speaker 8: That particular document they're referring to, the aemc's latest Residential
Speaker 8: Retail Electricity Price Trends are p that. Actually it is
Speaker 8: one of the most odd and bizarre and I think
Speaker 8: it has been now politicized documents because the AMC used
Speaker 8: to do the Market Commission used to do excellent work
Speaker 8: doing that retail price trends report. They had a proper
Speaker 8: terms of reference and it was anchored in an actual year,
Speaker 8: and it was forward projected with all the components. But
Speaker 8: now it just stopped. As soon as the Labor government
Speaker 8: took office. It was stopped. The Ukraine War was the excuse,
Speaker 8: and then they kept that excuse running from of the
Speaker 8: year in twenty twenty three and they didn't produce it,
Speaker 8: and then just in time for the election late last year,
Speaker 8: they did produce it in an entirely different format that
Speaker 8: had no resemblance to the actual terms of reference. And
Speaker 8: they've just been able to basically say, repeat all the
Speaker 8: crazy assumptions in their policies, like that consumers will buy
Speaker 8: hundreds of billions of dollars worth of equipment and then
Speaker 8: give them back freely to the grid, and assuming all
Speaker 8: those unrealistic things, including hydro bidding in at a tenth
Speaker 8: the cost they generally bid into the grid.
Speaker 1: They've been able to.
Speaker 8: Produce a tiny reduction from a price that's now higher
Speaker 8: than what it was when that plan was that when
Speaker 8: that report was last written. So it's an absolutely absurd,
Speaker 8: absurd and I think, frankly, very politicized piece of work
Speaker 8: that the muck Commissioner has produced there. And so I'm
Speaker 8: really interested to see them drawing attention to it, because
Speaker 8: we should lookt that document very fairly and squarely, and
Speaker 8: it has been absolutely wroughted and rigged to produce a
Speaker 8: thin slither of a price reduction that we all know
Speaker 8: is completely impossible because it assumes all their fantasy assumptions
Speaker 8: come true. So if that's all they've got, they've got nothing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and this is a fantasy. And you mentioned hydrogen,
Speaker 1: And it was only this week that Chris Bowen said
Speaker 1: that green hydrogen would be a niche, a niche power
Speaker 1: player in our overall aim to get to net zero.
Speaker 1: I mean, what happened with that? That's going to be
Speaker 1: that the big star of the show. It's just been
Speaker 1: a con from the beginning. But this plan released yesterday,
Speaker 1: aiden it's uncosted. Chris Bowen claimed today that total government
Speaker 1: expenditure for net zero is seventy five billion dollars. Do
Speaker 1: you think that that figure is correct?
Speaker 8: Look, this is a totally new number. I can't see
Speaker 8: that in any official documents, so it's just something plucked
Speaker 8: out of the air so far as I can tell,
Speaker 8: unless they can point to some other sources. So I
Speaker 8: don't know why we would take it seriously it is.
Speaker 8: I mean for government direct expenditure, it's still a lot
Speaker 8: of money. We shouldn't be cheering that on, I don't think.
Speaker 8: But they've judged so badly and so poorly what this
Speaker 8: would cost in the past. There was never meant to
Speaker 8: be under their original Powering Australia plan. Whatever it takes subsidies,
Speaker 8: which is what we now have to build renewable energy.
Speaker 8: There are no projects moving forward without whatever it takes
Speaker 8: subsidies being signed individually, and Chris Bowen is the individual
Speaker 8: who signs off on each one of those. We never
Speaker 8: get to know what the price is and the cost
Speaker 8: for is for each project, so I take it very
Speaker 8: lightly those numbers. It's a large number. We shouldn't be
Speaker 8: cheering about it, but I can't see where it comes
Speaker 8: from at all.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's been plucked out of the never never clearly,
Speaker 1: and I've got to say, you know, we're spending so
Speaker 1: much money as it is. I had a laugh today
Speaker 1: Aid and Chris Bowen recruited cricket captain Pat Cummins for
Speaker 1: a fifty million dollar funding announcement over four years to
Speaker 1: help five hundred sporting clubs tackle climate action. Yet how
Speaker 1: many cricket clubs around the country actually utilize solar panels?
Speaker 1: Have a listen? Yeah, I reckon it's probably be low
Speaker 1: ten percent, well aiden below ten percent for a fifty
Speaker 1: million dollar investment. How financially reckless is this race to renewables.
Speaker 8: Look, I think what we're seeing here is the adoption
Speaker 8: of Darryl Kerrigan economics, where it's all about the vibe
Speaker 8: really and there's no substantial analysis about whether this is
Speaker 8: the right thing to be done or the cost is
Speaker 8: going to pay off. And we're seeing that repeated over
Speaker 8: and over again. Where again you mentioned hydrogen. The CSIRO's
Speaker 8: modeling that got released just late last night actually shows
Speaker 8: that we do depend on green hydrogen to be a
Speaker 8: very large share and they've made it very clear that
Speaker 8: they assume all that's going to start working again. So
Speaker 8: there's a huge contradiction there between that niche statement and
Speaker 8: the CSIRO today basically assuming for their modeling that supports
Speaker 8: that announcement that all that is going to start working
Speaker 8: again suddenly. So it's just a completely unhinged attached from reality.
Speaker 8: There's an complete credibility gap now opening up in all
Speaker 8: these claims.
Speaker 1: Yeah now is you know they're recruiting cricket captain Cricket
Speaker 1: Australia to try and sell the con further seriously and
Speaker 1: meanwhile our power price as they're still going in the
Speaker 1: wrong direction, and that is key to this argument. Adam Morrison,
Speaker 1: good to see you. Thank you so much for joining
Speaker 1: me on the show. We're coming up after the break.
Speaker 1: We'll get stuck into the big Australia debate with my
Speaker 1: panel plus Victorian taxpayers hit with a big bill to
Speaker 1: cover policing at pro Palestine protests. That's next. Welcome back. Well,
Speaker 1: we've spoken a lot about mass migration in the last
Speaker 1: few weeks, particularly after the March Is for Australia, where
Speaker 1: every day Aussies were tarnished with the racist brush just
Speaker 1: because a small group of neo Nazis rocked up to
Speaker 1: the events. And this is the problem. When you raise
Speaker 1: the issue, you were labeled as some sort of far
Speaker 1: right wing nutcase when the facts and the truth are
Speaker 1: right in front of our faces. And I want to
Speaker 1: point out how captured the left wing media are when
Speaker 1: it comes to this issue. This week, the editor of
Speaker 1: the Sydney Morning Herald, Bevin Shields pender note titled talking
Speaker 1: about immigration is uncomfortable but essential Now he says it.
Speaker 1: He's right there in what he says. We need to
Speaker 1: have a conversation. It was not front and center at
Speaker 1: the last election, and it's always an issue that brings
Speaker 1: up the R word racism. I mean, look what happened
Speaker 1: to justinto nampajimp Price. She made comments about Indian migrants,
Speaker 1: which sure was sloppy, but raise an important issue. Labor
Speaker 1: claimed racism and the Liberal Party went into panic mode.
Speaker 1: We just cannot seem to have a civilized debate. But
Speaker 1: in his September twelve email to subscribers, BEVN. Shields said, quote,
Speaker 1: migration has been and continues to be undoubtedly good for Australia.
Speaker 1: We are a culturally and financially richer country for it. Well,
Speaker 1: let's unpack this. In my opinion, I believe that migration
Speaker 1: in recent years has failed in Australia. In fact, I
Speaker 1: would say multiculturalism itself has failed. And it's not always
Speaker 1: been like this. We are a multicultural nation. The majority
Speaker 1: of us come from migrant families. I come from a
Speaker 1: migrant family, So I'm not sitting here today being a hypocrite.
Speaker 1: But that ship has sailed that we are a migrant
Speaker 1: rich culture. Why well, firstly, we have allowed people into
Speaker 1: this country some whose values are incompatible with a Western democracy,
Speaker 1: and based on what we have witnessed here since October seven,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty three, the complete fraying of our social fibers,
Speaker 1: I don't think we have control over the multicultural culture
Speaker 1: we are trying to create here anymore, because hatred has
Speaker 1: been imported and we are all paying the price for it.
Speaker 1: Bevern Shields then went on to say the Herald also
Speaker 1: has a great history of advocating for a big Australia,
Speaker 1: and that is the problem. Big Australia is getting even bigger.
Speaker 1: High migration suits labor. Politically, it's the only thing propping
Speaker 1: up our Ponzi scheme, economy labor has let migration numbers
Speaker 1: saw out of control, with more than one point one
Speaker 1: million people coming here since twenty twenty two. BEVN. Shields
Speaker 1: then went on to say, there is a wealth of
Speaker 1: evidence that there is little to no link between immigration
Speaker 1: and challenges such as housing affordability, cost of living and
Speaker 1: social cohesion. But we can't hide from the reality that
Speaker 1: many people believe it to be the case. Absolutely, we
Speaker 1: can't hide the reality when it is the reality. Big
Speaker 1: Australia is a big problem and if you want the evidence,
Speaker 1: have a listen to economist leaf Fan Nonsolin.
Speaker 9: So our protivity growth stinks and unfortunately the easiest leave
Speaker 9: it a pull, and that's one we've been pulling for
Speaker 9: the last twenty years is just ramping up immigration and
Speaker 9: just growing that growing the economic pies quickly she can
Speaker 9: by adding people but not tearing about the slice of
Speaker 9: the pie. And unfortunately our economy has become overly reliant
Speaker 9: on this population fete Australia's population if you go by
Speaker 9: the ABS population clock, can you basically look at the
Speaker 9: number at now, which is about twenty seven point seven
Speaker 9: million minus where we're at the turn of the century
Speaker 9: around out of the time of the Sydney Olympics are
Speaker 9: populations grown by eight point seven million people nationally. That's
Speaker 9: forty six percent. That is the strongest growth in the
Speaker 9: advanced world. Anybody who lives in a major city in
Speaker 9: Australia has felt this right. We fell at it with
Speaker 9: housing becoming increasingly extensive, harder to harder to buy, also
Speaker 9: poorer equality because nowadays you know, people have to live
Speaker 9: in apartments instead of houses. It's further out if you're
Speaker 9: in a house, and you.
Speaker 1: Don't need an economist to tell you that, you're experiencing
Speaker 1: this yourself as your children and grandchildren. Rents are up,
Speaker 1: housing affordability is at its worst level in more than
Speaker 1: two decades, and building approvals are at decade lows. Too
Speaker 1: many Aussies cannot afford to buy a home and incomes
Speaker 1: are going backwards. Yet migration remains double pre pandemic levels.
Speaker 1: In fact, net overseas migration for the March quarter was
Speaker 1: just over one hundred and ten thousand. That's one thousand,
Speaker 1: two hundred and twenty three arrivals each and every day
Speaker 1: between the start of the year and the end of March.
Speaker 1: I mean, where are we going to put all these people?
Speaker 1: So this premise that migration continues to be undoubtedly good
Speaker 1: for Australia, in my view, is absolutely wrong. Yet the
Speaker 1: SPS will tell you there are a number of driving
Speaker 1: forces between far right anti immigration mobilization in the UK
Speaker 1: and Australia. Far right. Has the SBS gone and spoken
Speaker 1: to everyday mums and dads who can't get a roof
Speaker 1: over their heads? Are they far right too if they
Speaker 1: are concerned about mass migration? Then Over at the ABC,
Speaker 1: an opinion piece this week claimed social cohesion is not
Speaker 1: threatened by diversity itself. It is undermined when people feel
Speaker 1: it excluded. Cohesion cannot be built by restricting who comes
Speaker 1: to this country or demanding newcomers assimilate overnight. It emerges
Speaker 1: when all people feel they belong. What rubbish? Diversity is
Speaker 1: not our strength. As former Prime Minister John Howard made
Speaker 1: the point, the idea that every culture is equal is nonsense.
Speaker 1: Here he was speaking with former Deputy PM John Anderson
Speaker 1: earlier this year.
Speaker 10: I think that we made a mistake in and it
Speaker 10: was politically motivated. I think both sides of politics, particularly
Speaker 10: the labor parties, saw merit in cultivating support from different
Speaker 10: esthny groups. We don't want that.
Speaker 11: Particularly when those ethnic groups are unable to leave behind
Speaker 11: and ancient hatred.
Speaker 1: And that is a very problem. The quiet Australians have
Speaker 1: been left behind by this bolting horse that is a
Speaker 1: captured ideology as well as self loathing under the guise
Speaker 1: of healthy and sustainable multiculturalism. Now there was a time
Speaker 1: when migration was our strength, but now absolutely flooding the
Speaker 1: country with migrants on a daily basis is a sheer
Speaker 1: lazy way to prop up the economy and our social
Speaker 1: fibers are buckling because of it. It is not the
Speaker 1: same Australia we grew up in. We deserve a debate
Speaker 1: on population and migration. And the sooner the mainstream media
Speaker 1: wake up to this and start asking the hard questions,
Speaker 1: the better. And unless someone can actually convince me about
Speaker 1: the merits of a big Australia, I'm sorry, but please
Speaker 1: put up the sign we are full, johny me. Now
Speaker 1: is my panel in New South Wales Independent MP Tanya
Speaker 1: Mahalik and former New South Wales Police Minister David Elliott
Speaker 1: hight To both of you, thanks for joining me. Look,
Speaker 1: I want to start tonight with population. As I just mentioned,
Speaker 1: their net overseas migration for the March quarter was just
Speaker 1: over one hundred and ten thousand. That's one two hundred
Speaker 1: and twenty three arrivals each and every day between the
Speaker 1: start of the year and the end of March. And
Speaker 1: today we find out that nearly one quarter of retirees
Speaker 1: could be renters within the next two decades, as entire
Speaker 1: generations locked out of home ownership, transition out of the
Speaker 1: workforce and directly into poverty. David, that is frightening in itself.
Speaker 1: The reality is is we have not planned for a
Speaker 1: big Australia yet either side of politics don't seem to
Speaker 1: want to have the debate. Why well, you're right.
Speaker 5: I mean for Bevin Chields to say, you know, it's
Speaker 5: uncomfortable to have a debate about this means that he
Speaker 5: has no position to be the editor of a newspaper.
Speaker 5: Debate is debate, and whether it's uncomfortable or comfortable, we
Speaker 5: need to have it. So he's a buffoon, quite frankly,
Speaker 5: for being putting that position forward. And if he wants
Speaker 5: a big Australia, well then how about he started advocating
Speaker 5: for a bigger defense force, the biggest police force, a
Speaker 5: bigger prison system, because that's what comes with a bigger Australia.
Speaker 5: But the reality is we are now going backwards when
Speaker 5: it comes to public infrastructure, when it comes to public works,
Speaker 5: now coming going backwards when it comes to the investment
Speaker 5: into our communities because the taps are being turned off
Speaker 5: and that's that's bad, particularly in a city like Sydney,
Speaker 5: but we're also seeing it in the other capital cities.
Speaker 5: Now I accept, I accept that not everybody can be
Speaker 5: a homeowner, but one in four retirees renting. That's something
Speaker 5: that maybe BEV and Shields might want to consider having
Speaker 5: a look at, because, as I said, a big Australia
Speaker 5: is going to mean that these problems become bigger.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Absolutely, and nobody ever voted for a big Australia
Speaker 1: from the beginning, Tanya. Yet, as I said, two and
Speaker 1: twenty three arrivals a day since the start of the
Speaker 1: year to the end of March, no wonder every day
Speaker 1: Assie's are frustrated.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think every day Australians have really had a
Speaker 3: gutfull of essentially paying more and more tax to accommodate
Speaker 3: people from overseas. I mean, this is the real issue
Speaker 3: here is if you want a big Australia, well, it
Speaker 3: means that we all have to pay more tag to
Speaker 3: be able to provide the housing that's needed, the schools
Speaker 3: that are needed, the hospital infrastructure that's needed. Who's paying
Speaker 3: for it. We're paying for it. And the problem we
Speaker 3: have is we've got a whole generation of young people
Speaker 3: in particular who don't appreciate or understand that they are
Speaker 3: probably never going to own a home. They don't understand
Speaker 3: that if we keep these levels of migration coming into
Speaker 3: Australia twelve hundred a day, that's a ridiculous amount of
Speaker 3: people coming into Australia. We already can't meet housing targets
Speaker 3: for the Australians that we have here, we can't meet
Speaker 3: or provide that level of housing supply. And what people
Speaker 3: don't understand is our taxes that are going to have
Speaker 3: to prop up these levels of migration. I just want
Speaker 3: to add if I can. Labor Party has always been
Speaker 3: a about big Australia. I think they don't even apologize
Speaker 3: for this, from the days of Hawk and Keating and
Speaker 3: even now with alban Ezi, they are and Tony Burke.
Speaker 3: They are all about migration. They see this as a
Speaker 3: vote winner. John Howard is quite right in the comments
Speaker 3: that we heard earlier, him saying that's how they see
Speaker 3: themselves staying in government.
Speaker 1: I completely agree with you because it suits labor politically
Speaker 1: to have a high migration system. I mean, look what
Speaker 1: Tony Burke did in the lead up to the election,
Speaker 1: where you know everyone got a citizenship. It's all deployed
Speaker 1: by labor. Now, look, I want to talk to you
Speaker 1: about this astonishing cost. Victorian taxpayers have been slugged more
Speaker 1: than twenty five million dollars in security and police expenses
Speaker 1: for Melbourne CBD protests. That's according to a Parliamentary Budget
Speaker 1: Office report seen by The Herald Sun, finding that from
Speaker 1: October twenty twenty three and last month, almost twenty four
Speaker 1: thousand police shifts have been taken up by protest activity.
Speaker 1: That's fourteen point nine million dollars in salary costs. David,
Speaker 1: as a former police minister yourself, how do you feel
Speaker 1: hearing those sorts of figures.
Speaker 5: Well, I can tell you that's a lot of money.
Speaker 5: That's a lot of money forfeited from rank and file
Speaker 5: police officers. That's a lot of money forfeited for from
Speaker 5: upgrading facilities. It's a lot of money forfeited taken away
Speaker 5: from new resources and air wing and of course all
Speaker 5: the other things that we need to run an effective,
Speaker 5: modern democratic police force. So I mean, what price democracy?
Speaker 5: What price? What price freedom of speech? And I accept that,
Speaker 5: and there should be we should be celebrating the fact
Speaker 5: that we can have these celebrations. But when they're saying
Speaker 5: the same thing time and time again, and what does
Speaker 5: disturb me is that these protests have included a calls
Speaker 5: for violence, and they've included the burning of the Australian
Speaker 5: national flag. So they're not necessarily a law abiding citizens.
Speaker 5: They're not people campaigning for higher pensions or against higher
Speaker 5: education fees. These guys are people that are advocating for
Speaker 5: a way of life that is not the Australian way
Speaker 5: of life. So yes, allow them to have one or two,
Speaker 5: encourage them to be part of public discord. Of course
Speaker 5: it might be uncomfortable for BEV and Shields, but everybody
Speaker 5: else can cover it. But I do think that we
Speaker 5: need to I do think that we need to get
Speaker 5: serious about how the opportunity cost of these protests.
Speaker 1: Well yeah, and it's not just flags being burned, of course,
Speaker 1: it's death to the IDF every week. And it's the
Speaker 1: same awful anti Israel slogans that we see time and
Speaker 1: time again, Tanya. And it's happening here obviously in New
Speaker 1: South Wales as well in Sydney. And the key here, Tanya,
Speaker 1: I think is that it's all at the expense of taxpayers.
Speaker 3: Yeah, taxpayers, like always are just expected to pay the bills.
Speaker 3: Twenty five million dollars is an extraordinary amount that Victorians
Speaker 3: have been forced to pay to prop up these ridiculous
Speaker 3: week in, week out protests. David's right. I mean, how
Speaker 3: you know, one or two protests here and they're ak sure.
Speaker 3: But the idea that this becomes a business model I
Speaker 3: think for some of these organizations where every week they
Speaker 3: rally people to come down for these ridiculous causes as if,
Speaker 3: as you quite rightly say, Danika, things that don't even
Speaker 3: affect us here in Australia, but it matters for overseas
Speaker 3: and Australians are forced.
Speaker 1: To pay for it. The problem here, of course is
Speaker 1: when you do.
Speaker 3: Have somebody that does step up and say and say
Speaker 3: and says no, like Premier Min's did when he actually
Speaker 3: said no to the Harbor Bridge march a couple a
Speaker 3: month or so ago. What happened the courts over Inadhi
Speaker 3: and decided that they wanted it anyway. So this is
Speaker 3: a problem we have in Australia. But I've got to
Speaker 3: say it's time to actually make these protesters and organizations
Speaker 3: pay for the costs of all the police that are
Speaker 3: forced to be there to help manage these rallies and protests.
Speaker 3: That's the big issue.
Speaker 1: They've got to pay up. I couldn't agree more with you.
Speaker 1: We're sick to death of our money being paid towards
Speaker 1: these awful, awful slogans being chanted, you know, terrorist flags
Speaker 1: being waved across the Harbor Bridge. Enough is enough. I
Speaker 1: think you're spot on now. Look I want to go
Speaker 1: to the US because late night talk show hosts Jimmy
Speaker 1: Kimmel he was given a big goodbye Nara by the
Speaker 1: ABC after these factually incorrect and quite frankly, really stupid
Speaker 1: comments following the death of Charlie Kirk have a listen.
Speaker 12: He had some new lows over the weekend, with the
Speaker 12: Maga Gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered
Speaker 12: Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and
Speaker 12: everything they can to score political points from it.
Speaker 1: David, did the network make the right decision to get
Speaker 1: rid of him.
Speaker 5: Yeah they did, but not because of the fact that
Speaker 5: he had a political opinion. They should have got ridden
Speaker 5: because he was factually incorrect. He misled, he misled the audience.
Speaker 5: MAGA have not advocated that this guy was anything but
Speaker 5: one of them. In fact, I think it's been quite respectful.
Speaker 5: We've highlighted. Yes, he came from a Republican family. Yes,
Speaker 5: he had in a childhood around firearms, but he clearly
Speaker 5: had a conversion on the Raid of Damascus, and he
Speaker 5: was in a relationship with somebody who was transgender, So
Speaker 5: that brings into obviously fair assumptions of actual persuasion, which
Speaker 5: is fine. But he clearly was no longer a Republican,
Speaker 5: a conservative, or an advocate for Charlie Kirk. So if
Speaker 5: anybody suggesting that what was being put out by the
Speaker 5: Republican Party in the conservative media was incorrect is not right.
Speaker 5: What was incorrect was what we just saw cost that
Speaker 5: Bokey's job.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, exactly, I mean, good riddance to him and
Speaker 1: not to mention the fact that his ratings were constantly
Speaker 1: on the decline as well.
Speaker 5: So it's a good excuse sometimes, you know.
Speaker 1: That's just well it is. But I mean, you know
Speaker 1: that's the way it goes, is it. Tanya Mahalk David Elliott,
Speaker 1: good to see you both. Thanks so much for joining
Speaker 1: me on the show. As always, coming up after the
Speaker 1: break live to London, Donald Trump has given some frank
Speaker 1: advice to kir Starmer on how to stop the boats.
Speaker 1: That's next. Welcome back. Joining me now is National's Deputy
Speaker 1: leader Kevin Hogan. Kevin, thank you for joining me. I
Speaker 1: want to talk about Labour twenty thirty five target. Here
Speaker 1: was Chris Bowen today professing that the regions are on board.
Speaker 1: Have a listen, farmers get it.
Speaker 2: The National Party doesn't get it, but farmers get it now.
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 2: Are there issues around making sure community consultation is fit
Speaker 2: for purpose?
Speaker 10: Yep?
Speaker 2: Are there issues about making sure communities genuinely benefit from
Speaker 2: the renewables in their region. Yes, But this idea that
Speaker 2: somehow people who live east of the Blue Mountain support
Speaker 2: action on climate changing people in the west oppose. It's
Speaker 2: just not right, it's just not true. I know the
Speaker 2: National Party doesn't get it, but their communities get it.
Speaker 1: So there you go, Kevin. The Minister thinks that the
Speaker 1: Nationals have no clue apparently what's going on in regional Australia.
Speaker 1: What's your response, Saniker?
Speaker 11: If that wasn't so serious, it'd be a funny joke.
Speaker 11: I mean, blackout bow And seriously, so, I mean, when's
Speaker 11: the last time you've seen him with farmers on the
Speaker 11: ground in a regional community. He doesn't his you know,
Speaker 11: he does no consultation with this stuff. You know, he's
Speaker 11: a joke and what he just said was a joke.
Speaker 11: And you know, the biggest joke actually, I mean, I'm
Speaker 11: sure you saw this, Taniki yesterday, The biggest joke of
Speaker 11: all was the Prime Minister was asked quite seriously when
Speaker 11: he was announcing his emission's reduction target. He was asked
Speaker 11: by a journalist, you know, have you done the moody?
Speaker 11: What is the cost going to be for your power bill?
Speaker 11: The press pack laughed because and then he laughed. He
Speaker 11: thought everyone thought this was a joke. I mean, seriously,
Speaker 11: he's you know, stating what his a mission reductions target
Speaker 11: is and he thinks been asked a question about what
Speaker 11: this will do to power bills as a joke. We
Speaker 11: know it's a joke because obviously they said two seventy five,
Speaker 11: three years ago, your power bill in twenty twenty five
Speaker 11: would be two hundred and seventy five dollars low. Then
Speaker 11: it wasn't two hundred and twenty two. That's a joke.
Speaker 11: But the fact that he treated that question as a
Speaker 11: joke shows how seriously in trouble we are with this
Speaker 11: government energy cost of energy and their emissions reductions targets.
Speaker 1: Yeah, when the minister in charge of our energy green
Speaker 1: thinks it's a laughing joke, we are in serious trouble
Speaker 1: absolutely now. Look Susan Lee today maintained that the coalition
Speaker 1: will not support the twenty thirty five target, but maintains
Speaker 1: that the coalition will not form their own position while
Speaker 1: it conducts this energy review. But if you won't back
Speaker 1: these targets, surely as a team you cannot hide anymore
Speaker 1: from making a decision on this Paris agreement.
Speaker 10: Kevin.
Speaker 11: Yeah, and look, Denika, we don't want to hide from
Speaker 11: making a decision. I don't know, you you know, there'd
Speaker 11: be people maybe yourself, who are frustrated that we haven't
Speaker 11: arrived there yet. But I think what happened yesterday is
Speaker 11: one of the reasons that we do need to do
Speaker 11: our review because what we want to do, as you know,
Speaker 11: Senator Matt Carnavant is leading the review for us as
Speaker 11: the Nationals, because what we want to do is when
Speaker 11: we land on a position is explain exactly why and
Speaker 11: when people say, well, what does it mean for power prices,
Speaker 11: we want to tell you. We want to be able
Speaker 11: to say what we think the government's policy will mean.
Speaker 11: Is this for your power bill? This is what it
Speaker 11: means for industry. This is why smelters and big manufacturer
Speaker 11: is asking for subsidies X, Y and z and give
Speaker 11: a number. And if we say, okay, our plan is
Speaker 11: going to be different from that zero twenty fifty. We
Speaker 11: want to have the cost analysis done and I think
Speaker 11: that's important. I think it's important to say that with
Speaker 11: facts and figures, we're getting very serious independent analysis done
Speaker 11: on this because we want to give the Australian people
Speaker 11: and the Australian voters the figures behind this about why
Speaker 11: we've done it. So I think yesterday highlights why the
Speaker 11: review is important because they can't tell us what it
Speaker 11: means for prices. They can't tell us what it means
Speaker 11: for industry.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, I mean, to be fair, Kevin, there be
Speaker 1: some saying, well, we just want to know what the
Speaker 1: coalition are doing here because our prices keep going up.
Speaker 1: I mean, can you understand it from a consumer perspective?
Speaker 11: I do, and we need to arrive at a position
Speaker 11: as quickly as we can. But I do also make
Speaker 11: the point. And so you know, it's two and a
Speaker 11: half years to the next election. We took an energy
Speaker 11: policy to the election, you know, to the last election
Speaker 11: with our obviously with our nuclear proposal fully costed and
Speaker 11: did all that analysis. What we take next listion will
Speaker 11: be done as well. But I think this review internetzero
Speaker 11: twenty fifty is important because what we do want to
Speaker 11: tell the Australian public and the Australian energy consumer and
Speaker 11: business who will going brope because I can't pay their
Speaker 11: energy bills. We want to give them the facts and
Speaker 11: figures behind it, which this goverment won't do. They'll tell you,
Speaker 11: they'll tell you their emission reductions targets.
Speaker 13: I mean.
Speaker 11: The other thing here, Danika, which is scary as well
Speaker 11: with what they announced yesterday, it's going to beyond energy.
Speaker 11: They'll be coming into the agricultural sector next because they'll
Speaker 11: be looking for reductions within agriculture. What's that going to
Speaker 11: do to food prices? We want that analysis done as well.
Speaker 1: Good point. Yeah, no, look, it's a fair point, Kevin Hogan.
Speaker 1: We've got to leave it there. Really appreciate you joining
Speaker 1: me on the show. Thank you so much for your
Speaker 1: time this evening. Well let's move on now, because US
Speaker 1: President Donald Trump has demanded the hostages in Gaza be
Speaker 1: returned before he has discussions with the Israeli Prime minister. Here.
Speaker 1: He was speaking at a joint press conference alongside so
Speaker 1: Kiir Starmer in the UK.
Speaker 13: I want an end. I want the hostages released. That's
Speaker 13: what the people of Israel want, they want, and we
Speaker 13: want the fighting to stop. Hamas said that they're going
Speaker 13: to put the hostages up as bet. They're going to
Speaker 13: put the hostages in front of any attack, and that's
Speaker 13: pretty brutal. We haven't heard that one in a long time,
Speaker 13: so we have to remember that. So I have a
Speaker 13: disagreement with the Prime Minister on that score.
Speaker 1: Jomie now is Sophie Ellsworth News Corps Europe correspondent and
Speaker 1: Sky News contributor, Sophie. Thanks for joining me. You've been
Speaker 1: following this visit. Keir Starmer is about to of course
Speaker 1: recognize a Palestinian statehood, something Trump disagrees with. But what
Speaker 1: have the pair discussed on the Middle East during this visit.
Speaker 14: They're great to be with you, Jeneica. Look, they had
Speaker 14: this meeting yesterday at Checkers, the Prime Minister's country estate
Speaker 14: here in Buckinghamshire, and they did discuss their disagreement on
Speaker 14: what is happening in the Middle East in terms of
Speaker 14: Sakiah recognizing Palestinian statehood, and President Trump was very clear
Speaker 14: that this is something that he fundamentally disagrees Sakia. On
Speaker 14: Nasakia did say that, you know Hamasa terrorists, this war
Speaker 14: should end. But they are completely different on where they
Speaker 14: are in terms of the Palestinian statehood recognition, which the
Speaker 14: UK will recognize in the coming days. So despite them
Speaker 14: having a very successful meeting here yesterday in the UK,
Speaker 14: this is one of the main issues that they have
Speaker 14: been unable to agree on.
Speaker 1: Well. It's interesting because another issue that they don't agree
Speaker 1: on is Donald Trump telling Britain it should call out
Speaker 1: the military to control its borders. I mean, obviously the
Speaker 1: border is a big issue. But here's what he said.
Speaker 13: I told the Prime Ministry I would stop it. And
Speaker 13: it doesn't matter if you call out the military, it
Speaker 13: doesn't matter what means you use. But it's going to destroy.
Speaker 13: It destroys countries from within, and we're actually now removing
Speaker 13: a lot of the people that came into our country.
Speaker 13: It's a very hard chore.
Speaker 1: Well, Sophie, he's not wrong, or perhaps just look to
Speaker 1: Australia for the blueprint on how to do it. It
Speaker 1: worked for Tony Abbot.
Speaker 14: It did work for Tony Abbott. But the difference Heredaneka
Speaker 14: is it's only a very short distance from France to
Speaker 14: England and it's very easy to jump on a boat
Speaker 14: and get across here and come into the country illegally.
Speaker 14: And we've seen that through the numbers alone. There's more
Speaker 14: than thirty thousand legal migrants that have come to the
Speaker 14: UK up until the start of September. That's well up
Speaker 14: on the same time last year when it was about
Speaker 14: twenty three thousand. So mister Trump has said he's managed
Speaker 14: to stop illegal migration. He made it very clear to
Speaker 14: Sakia that he should do the same, but they do
Speaker 14: have a web of legislation that they have to repeal
Speaker 14: to ensure that they can actually return these migrants and Danika.
Speaker 14: They've introduced the one in one out scheme with France
Speaker 14: where basically they return one illegal migrant in exchllegal migrant
Speaker 14: and they've only seen a couple as part of this
Speaker 14: one in one out program successfully happened, So it really
Speaker 14: has been something that the Sakis government has failed miserably
Speaker 14: on Jamika.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's been a real failure for labor over there, clearly,
Speaker 1: Sophiel's worth. Good to see you as always, thanks for
Speaker 1: joining me on the show. Coming up after the break,
Speaker 1: the winners and losers of the week, including the ABC
Speaker 1: journo who had a run in with Donald Trump, plus
Speaker 1: Wildlife Warrior Robert Irwin steals the show on Dancing with
Speaker 1: the Stars. That's next. It is that time of the
Speaker 1: week where we sought the winners from the losers, and
Speaker 1: helping me to do that is Sky News contributor James Bolt.
Speaker 1: James lovely to see you. Who's your winner this week?
Speaker 15: My winner of this week is John Lyons, the ABC
Speaker 15: journalist who got into a yelling match with Donald Trump. Now,
Speaker 15: if you have seen it, you'd be thinking to yourself,
Speaker 15: why did I pick this guy as a winner of
Speaker 15: the week. Surely I meant loser. But if you haven't
Speaker 15: saying it, take a look at what happened.
Speaker 2: He's appropriate, President Trump that a president in office should.
Speaker 1: Be engaged in so much bitsiness activity.
Speaker 10: Well, I'm really not.
Speaker 13: My kids are running the business and you know at
Speaker 13: the activity. Where are you from. I'm from the Australian
Speaker 13: Broadcasting rage, Paul Horn and pro right the Australias.
Speaker 1: You're hurting Australia right.
Speaker 13: In my opinion, you are hurting Australia very much right
Speaker 13: now that they want.
Speaker 15: To get along with me.
Speaker 1: You know your your leader.
Speaker 13: Is coming over to see me very so I'm going
Speaker 13: to tell him about you.
Speaker 1: You said a very bad tone.
Speaker 15: Well, Nika, there's some moments in life where you realize
Speaker 15: you're currently in the best story you have. John Lyons
Speaker 15: is going to be telling that at dinner parties for
Speaker 15: the rest of his entire career. He's going to be
Speaker 15: the center of every conversation because he's one of the
Speaker 15: journalists that Donald Trump screamed at. Everyone dreams of it.
Speaker 15: He got to live it. I've got to say congratulations
Speaker 15: to him.
Speaker 1: Yeah, whether or not he actually wants that title or not,
Speaker 1: but I agree this is his this is his big
Speaker 1: moment and it's probably the only moment he'll ever get.
Speaker 1: Working for the ABC, I would say, James, now, look,
Speaker 1: I had to give my winner this week to Robert Irwin. God,
Speaker 1: that guy is a legend. He had an incredible debut
Speaker 1: performance on this season of Dancing with the Stars in America.
Speaker 1: He did the jive to a very outback themed set.
Speaker 1: Have a look at this, James. He actually scored the
Speaker 1: highest mark of the night at fifteen out of twenty.
Speaker 1: One of the judges claimed that it was the best
Speaker 1: first dance that they'd ever seen on the show, and
Speaker 1: I just think, good on him. He gives it a go.
Speaker 1: He's not a shame to What about you, James, Can
Speaker 1: you jive? What are your skills?
Speaker 13: Like?
Speaker 15: Congratulations to him. I mean I wish I could dance
Speaker 15: like that, because I got to say for someone like this,
Speaker 15: he's he's talented, he's handsome, he's charismatic, he's got some
Speaker 15: good comment many bones, and now you're telling me he
Speaker 15: can dance as well, it's actually unfair to the rest
Speaker 15: of us.
Speaker 1: He's putting everyone to shave. I say, now, James, You'll
Speaker 1: loser this week is people who watch videos out loud
Speaker 1: in public places.
Speaker 15: Yes, and for a very good reason. Their time is up.
Speaker 15: I've seen a really good Sky News the Contract article
Speaker 15: on this because we have finally got the tip from
Speaker 15: Instagram of how to deal with these awful, awful people.
Speaker 1: Hey, excuse me, what do you watch it? Oh? Nice?
Speaker 1: Can I watch? It's coming in two minutes? Oh two minutes. Oh,
Speaker 1: that's got time for me to watch them.
Speaker 11: For sure, because I thought you wanted to share where
Speaker 11: you were watching with us.
Speaker 1: Sure, you can totally hear it.
Speaker 12: I'll turn it down.
Speaker 15: We've all been captured in these situations where you just
Speaker 15: cannot believe someone would be so rude in public transport,
Speaker 15: bus arlie in that case, a restaurant. But now we
Speaker 15: have the tip. Just ask them if they can watch
Speaker 15: over their shoulder and they will turn down the volume.
Speaker 1: I love it. You know what. It reminds me of
Speaker 1: when people choose so loudly in public, and it literally
Speaker 1: sends shivers up the back of my spine. So I
Speaker 1: love this solution. I think it's brilliant. Now, look, I
Speaker 1: had to give my loser this week to Fatima payment
Speaker 1: after making these comments about Charlie Kirk.
Speaker 16: Charlie Kerre got shot and he's IRIP. Whatever you want
Speaker 16: IRIP to stand for. Some people will say it's not peace.
Speaker 1: So fill in the blanks. People, fill in the blanks.
Speaker 1: I think she's a disgrace. I don't know why she's there,
Speaker 1: to be honest, James, were almost out of time, but
Speaker 1: I'd love your opinion on it.
Speaker 15: I just think the assassination at Charlie Kirk and what
Speaker 15: we learn about the alleged assassin shows what happens when
Speaker 15: we stop seeing people on the other side of politics,
Speaker 15: as say a father of two, and start seeing him
Speaker 15: as a political enemy. So it's unfortunately Fatima of pain
Speaker 15: doesn't see this, but I think we should all sit
Speaker 15: down to be a little bit kinder to each other.
Speaker 1: Spot on, Well said, James Bolt, Nice to have you on.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for joining me on the show
Speaker 1: this evening, and thank you for your company. That's it.
Speaker 1: I'll be back again seven pm on Sunday night. But
Speaker 1: up next is a Friday special Paul Murray Live from Narrabai,
Speaker 1: good night,