Speaker 1: From the sky Center. This is Paul Murray Live. Thank you, Cherry.
Speaker 1: Enjoyed time with that beautiful family of yours all right now,
Speaker 1: last night I went on a little bit of a limit.
Speaker 1: I showed you a whole bunch of examples of stuff
Speaker 1: that I think is really dumb when it comes to
Speaker 1: how political communication is working, particularly on social media. Most
Speaker 1: of it starts on TikTok, but a lot of it
Speaker 1: is coming up and getting reborn in your real section
Speaker 1: of your Instagram. Now there is a chance that maybe
Speaker 1: this is just my feed and I've got a little
Speaker 1: too lost in some of this stuff, but it seems
Speaker 1: pretty dumb, like literally trying to pretend that family guy
Speaker 1: characters have an opinion on which way you should or
Speaker 1: shouldn't vote in the Tasmanian election. The absolute abuse that
Speaker 1: was there forwards Peter Dutton in the federal election. And
Speaker 1: I got a huge number of people who sent me
Speaker 1: an email and you can always send me one Paul
Speaker 1: at skynews dot com dot au who agreed and then
Speaker 1: had their own examples of their own concerns about the
Speaker 1: type of political discussion that is being pumped out to
Speaker 1: try to in many ways, go around the media and
Speaker 1: just try to simplify things into really good guys and
Speaker 1: bad guys. But the reality is that the world is
Speaker 1: a lot more complicated than that. For example, a Queensland
Speaker 1: budget now in it is of course a whole series
Speaker 1: of priorities and decisions and move a little money here,
Speaker 1: spend a little more there about things like hospitals and
Speaker 1: police and education, because of course state government is where
Speaker 1: so much of the rubber hits the road in actually
Speaker 1: dealing with the everyday problems. A lot of federal politics
Speaker 1: sometimes sounds like state politics because the stuff they are
Speaker 1: responsible for ends up in the two hard basket. But
Speaker 1: an example of again what I think is the not
Speaker 1: even dumbing DWM, but just the stupid, not even dealing
Speaker 1: with the detail or the bare minimum detail of the
Speaker 1: stuff that we should demand of the people who write
Speaker 1: our laws or hold those people to account, was several
Speaker 1: Queensland Labor MPs who couldn't be by the dealing with
Speaker 1: any of the details inside the Queensland budget. Instead they
Speaker 1: wanted to complain about the color of the books of
Speaker 1: the budget. Now, this is about as dumb as it
Speaker 1: can get when it comes to what did you think
Speaker 1: of the state budget.
Speaker 2: Why is our.
Speaker 3: State budget blue?
Speaker 2: It was supposed to be marone.
Speaker 3: Why is the LMP trying to rebrand the whole of
Speaker 3: Queenslander's Blue the state of origin season blue budget?
Speaker 4: Eh?
Speaker 1: And when we were working on the show tonight, I
Speaker 1: was having a chat with the team and I started
Speaker 1: to also talk about the attitudes that we have to
Speaker 1: big and complicated problems. Now often we talk about the
Speaker 1: too hard basket and people know what that means. We
Speaker 1: know what the never never money is. But I had
Speaker 1: one of those little moments where they were sort of
Speaker 1: lost in transation generational moment when I referred to the
Speaker 1: terms she'll be right, and my wonderful, talented, passionate team
Speaker 1: didn't know where that had come from. So let me
Speaker 1: do a version on TV about a conversation we had
Speaker 1: in the offices a little bit earlier today. So what
Speaker 1: does slim Dusty have in common with its degenerational debt,
Speaker 1: climate change, the failure to get good school results, and
Speaker 1: the number of people who are being assaulted in our
Speaker 1: communities each and every day. Well, it goes back to
Speaker 1: one of his most famous songs, which was about She'll
Speaker 1: be right Now. For those who use this term have
Speaker 1: heard it from their parents or grandparents. You know what
Speaker 1: she'll be right means. But for those who don't, and
Speaker 1: there's plenty, including many that will be watching us on
Speaker 1: the internet or YouTube's later than the live program that's
Speaker 1: going out right now, she'll be right essentially is don't
Speaker 1: worry about it. It'll all be okay one day. Eventually
Speaker 1: everything will be put right. It's not as bad as
Speaker 1: it seems. The musical version of this is Slim Dusty
Speaker 1: singing his song about she'll be right mate, bear with me,
Speaker 1: there's a point coming still very right mate, shell, very
Speaker 1: right right. So the idea that she'll be right, it'll
Speaker 1: work out eventually is an attitude that is fundamental to
Speaker 1: many Australians, which is to not get overwhelmed by problems.
Speaker 1: But also it's if you put the work in, you
Speaker 1: put the effort in, that eventually the problems that are
Speaker 1: there now can be fixed. And certainly when it comes
Speaker 1: to the priorities of modern governments. A perfect example where
Speaker 1: she'll be right is not the accepted way to deal
Speaker 1: with an area of public policy is the issues in
Speaker 1: and around climate change. Now, multiple governments, multiple generations now
Speaker 1: of political conversation has been in and around this issue.
Speaker 1: But the reality is that she'll be right. It'll all
Speaker 1: work itself out. Sometimes people take to the streets or
Speaker 1: the water doing stupid things when it comes to protests,
Speaker 1: but certainly in terms of governments, they're not just sitting
Speaker 1: back and saying, sure, we're one percent of the world's problem,
Speaker 1: she'll be right. The reality is we have to do
Speaker 1: our bit for the one percent. Now I think we
Speaker 1: do probably a little more than the one percent problem
Speaker 1: that exists considering China is the actual problem littlone, the
Speaker 1: slave labor that they use to put into the very
Speaker 1: things that we consider to be the solution to the
Speaker 1: problem that we can't just let be She'll be right.
Speaker 1: But the reality of that is power bills go through
Speaker 1: the roof. That's just the reality is you move from
Speaker 1: the technology that has worked for decades to the one
Speaker 1: that they fingers cross hope will work to decades into
Speaker 1: the future. The reality of building that technology is hundreds
Speaker 1: of billions of dollars, nay close to a trillion dollars.
Speaker 1: So the attitude on that public policy area is she'll
Speaker 1: be right is not an okay way to deal with things.
Speaker 1: Because despite the fact that the reality of our problem
Speaker 1: is that one hundred percent of our problem is one
Speaker 1: percent of the global problem, she'll be right is not
Speaker 1: an acceptable position to take, But funnily enough, she'll be
Speaker 1: right is something that we are too often willing to
Speaker 1: sit with when it comes to problems that are even
Speaker 1: more immediate than things like climate change. For some reason,
Speaker 1: state and federal government does take the attitude of she'll
Speaker 1: be right, mate about things like assaults. Now, nobody says
Speaker 1: assault is okay, But think about how we are dealing
Speaker 1: with one percent of the world's climate problems versus the
Speaker 1: public debate and conversation that we have about actually bringing
Speaker 1: crime down, not by a little bit, but trying to
Speaker 1: wipe it out. Now we know that certain crimes, the
Speaker 1: public discourse and the public conversation is we must bring
Speaker 1: it down to zero cases of offense is no victims,
Speaker 1: no people that are the perpetrators. But the reality of
Speaker 1: crime in Australia is far close, far too close to
Speaker 1: she'll be right, as opposed to let's do everything we
Speaker 1: can to change the problem. I say this because today
Speaker 1: the Australian Bureau of Statistics released some crime numbers into
Speaker 1: the financial year of twenty twenty three twenty twenty four,
Speaker 1: and this is the number of people who police accused
Speaker 1: of committing a crime. The problem is, despite the fact
Speaker 1: that there are three hundred and forty thousand, six hundred
Speaker 1: and eighty one people in just one year in Australia
Speaker 1: who were accused by police of committing a crime, it
Speaker 1: is not vastly higher or vastly lower than it was
Speaker 1: the year before, the year before that, the year before that,
Speaker 1: the year before that, the year before that, the year
Speaker 1: before that. Instead, it's all basically the same number. Now,
Speaker 1: certain categories and certain states can be spikes, particularly on
Speaker 1: things youth crime. But because it's in and around between
Speaker 1: three and four hundred thousand each and every year, that
Speaker 1: she'll be right of it all is fingers cross. It
Speaker 1: doesn't happen to you. As long as those numbers stay
Speaker 1: kind of where they were last year, than it's okay.
Speaker 1: But the reality is that, yes, even in a country
Speaker 1: with twenty seven twenty eight million people, there's still three
Speaker 1: and a bit mcgs that you could feel with people
Speaker 1: who are accused of committing a crime each and every year.
Speaker 1: Why is that okay? Why is that number Okay, why
Speaker 1: is that number not being shoved down with the massive
Speaker 1: public resources that we would deal with things like one
Speaker 1: percent of the climate change problem? Are you with me here?
Speaker 1: When you actually break down some of these stats, about
Speaker 1: a third of all of those crimes were people who
Speaker 1: committed acts that intended to cause injury. So that is
Speaker 1: still ten of thousands, nay, almost a little over somewhere
Speaker 1: between one hundred and one hundred and fifty thousand people
Speaker 1: who if they committed a crime, means there was at
Speaker 1: least one victim on the other side of it. Why
Speaker 1: is that she'll be right way? Fourteen percent when it
Speaker 1: comes to a list of drug offenses, ten percent when
Speaker 1: it comes to theft, and ten percent of the three
Speaker 1: hundred and forty thousand were public order offenses. But all
Speaker 1: of that together is still not one hundred percent of
Speaker 1: the problems about sixty one percent. But when these numbers
Speaker 1: came out today that three hundred and forty thousand people
Speaker 1: had committed a crime or six hundred well sorry, or
Speaker 1: another three hundred and forty thousand people were the victims
Speaker 1: of a crime, was that anywhere in the six PM
Speaker 1: news tonight? Was that the lead story? No? Because dare
Speaker 1: I say the attitude is she'll be right, and we
Speaker 1: won't be the same number of panel conversations on television,
Speaker 1: let alone government money alone, laws, let alone. Public attitudes
Speaker 1: should be as aggressive about interpersonal violence as it is
Speaker 1: about intergenerational issues such as the health of the planet.
Speaker 1: And remember where one percent of the world's problem. Another
Speaker 1: example of when she'll be right made is seemingly okay.
Speaker 1: It's when politicians win elections because we the voters love
Speaker 1: the F word, and I'm not talking about the one
Speaker 1: the President used this week pre public.
Speaker 3: Transport free, free, free, free, through free, through free, three free.
Speaker 1: But of course nothing is free. Someone somewhere is providing
Speaker 1: a service. The service costs money, and we learned today
Speaker 1: again vice excellent reporting about the size of the bill
Speaker 1: that is coming to our generations when it comes to
Speaker 1: everything being free. The federal budget this year tells us
Speaker 1: that we are already in a trillion dollars worth of debt.
Speaker 1: Next year it'll be one point h nine trillion, Then
Speaker 1: it'll be one point one trillion a men by twenty
Speaker 1: twenty eight, twenty twenty nine, so fiscally speaking, within four
Speaker 1: years will be at one point two Tee for trillion
Speaker 1: dollars in debt, and that's just the federal government, another
Speaker 1: massive source of debt that we are handing on to
Speaker 1: our next generation. And if again, the theory is we
Speaker 1: must go all in on dealing with climate change because
Speaker 1: what is not done now will be passed on to
Speaker 1: the future generations, why does this not apply to the
Speaker 1: amount of debt that we hand on to future generations.
Speaker 1: Because I'll give you the tip. She'll be right, mate,
Speaker 1: turns one billion into one trillion, and one trillion into
Speaker 1: two and three and four. And while I'm not suggesting
Speaker 1: we're about to be Greece anytime soon. In Victoria, in
Speaker 1: their top five things that they spend their money on
Speaker 1: in their state budget, I think number three, bigger than
Speaker 1: some government departments, is paying off debt. So if you
Speaker 1: keep running a budget deficit, all you do is add
Speaker 1: to the previous budget deficit, which is the overall amount
Speaker 1: of debt, which of course will eventually be paid over
Speaker 1: time by future generations. So why is the logic about
Speaker 1: climate change urgency not being applied to this again? Today
Speaker 1: reporting about state budgets and state budgets are in a
Speaker 1: world of financial pain this week we got budgets in
Speaker 1: New South Wales and in Queensland we've already got one
Speaker 1: from Victoria, and even one from the local council known
Speaker 1: as the Act. I'll have a little more to say
Speaker 1: about that, believe it or right at the moment or
Speaker 1: two's time. But in the Financial Review today they actually
Speaker 1: divvied up the amount of money that all of the
Speaker 1: different state governments owe the rest of the world, and
Speaker 1: it is almost a trillion dollars themselves. So you've got
Speaker 1: a federal government in a trillion up to one point
Speaker 1: two trillion dollars worth of debt, and you've got state
Speaker 1: governments going from nine hundred billion on their way up
Speaker 1: towards a trillion on their own. Of course, that makes
Speaker 1: two trillion dollars. Yet no urgency anywhere to deal with this,
Speaker 1: with the same public policy urgency as there would be
Speaker 1: something like climate change. Again, can I read from the
Speaker 1: Financial Review for you? The state government grows debt will
Speaker 1: surge past nine hundred billion by the end of the decade,
Speaker 1: more than triple the pre pandemic levels. As premier struggle
Speaker 1: to reign in burgeoning infrastructure programs and cut back on
Speaker 1: cost of living support and public ser wages. State government
Speaker 1: debt has increased one hundred and fifty percent since twenty
Speaker 1: nineteen to six hundred and sixty one billion dollars, prompting
Speaker 1: warnings from credit ratings agencies and calls for economists for
Speaker 1: premiers to reduce their spending. If you prefer things in
Speaker 1: chart form, here's an example. You can have a look
Speaker 1: for your state. The blue is the current number, the
Speaker 1: red is where it is going to be in a
Speaker 1: few years time. So it's about two hundred billion in Victoria,
Speaker 1: but it's going to go to more than a quarter
Speaker 1: of a billion dollars in just that one state. Quarter
Speaker 1: of attrillion. I should say the same. Of course New
Speaker 1: South Wales. You can see what's happening in Queensland and
Speaker 1: even in the Northern Territory, their debt is going to
Speaker 1: be eighteen billion dollars. So if you turned around and
Speaker 1: you grabbed a calculator like Saul Eslake did the Independent economist,
Speaker 1: guess what you will end up finding out that the
Speaker 1: Independent economist saw les Lake said the situation in which
Speaker 1: state and federal government debts per capital stood at eighteen
Speaker 1: hundred dollars, the net debt per capita was forty five thousand,
Speaker 1: one hundred and eighty three dollars. So that's per every
Speaker 1: individual federal government state government debt right now, forty five grand.
Speaker 1: And as we continue to have more deficits than we
Speaker 1: will have surpluses, forty five becomes fifty, fifty five becomes
Speaker 1: sixty the frog in the pot. So could somebody please
Speaker 1: explain to me how she'll be right? Is the acceptable
Speaker 1: attitude to the debt that we rack up in a
Speaker 1: country like Australia, because it's not if she'll be right
Speaker 1: is not an acceptable attitude on climate change? How is
Speaker 1: she'll be right an okay attitude when it comes to debt?
Speaker 1: How is it okay that in the most recent napland
Speaker 1: results just one in three students we're not meeting or
Speaker 1: should I say one in three students we're not meeting
Speaker 1: the basic literacy and numeracy expectations. As slim Dusty sang,
Speaker 1: she right, sheer, but it won't be. You can't have
Speaker 1: a generation when a third of those kids, and it's
Speaker 1: been like this for a decade, are not able to
Speaker 1: meet the basic standards of education. That's our failure. It's
Speaker 1: also our failure that almost three million Ozzies are this
Speaker 1: close to homelessness that three point four million Australian households
Speaker 1: will have run out of food by a Thursday each
Speaker 1: and every week. She'll be right mate is not an
Speaker 1: okay thing, but for some reason it keeps being okay.
Speaker 1: It's okay on crime, it's okay on poor schools, it's
Speaker 1: okay when it comes to poverty. But if it's kind
Speaker 1: of change, it must be dealt with. It must be
Speaker 1: dealt with absolutely urgently, all guns blazing. But the bit
Speaker 1: that people forget about She'll be right mate is that
Speaker 1: when you actually listen to the song from which many
Speaker 1: people know the term, the reality of why you can
Speaker 1: say She'll be right mate is because people with their
Speaker 1: backs to the wall in this country work their backsides
Speaker 1: off to fix the problem. Here is the longer version
Speaker 1: of the song. I don't remember.
Speaker 5: That you.
Speaker 1: Just me? Or do you doubt that airbus Elbow is
Speaker 1: going to have the sense of his back to the
Speaker 1: wall and giving us all No. He and the political
Speaker 1: class have got four pay rises since he became the
Speaker 1: Prime minister. He and his ministers look like they will
Speaker 1: govern for a very long time. So will they feel
Speaker 1: any urgency on schools, on crime, on poverty, or will
Speaker 1: it only be on climate change because that is seemingly
Speaker 1: the only thing that they think should be right. Mate,
Speaker 1: is not the right attitude to have. Now, Yes, this
Speaker 1: week things have come to an end in terms of
Speaker 1: Israel and Iran, and that is in my view because
Speaker 1: the President drew a line and he's trying to hold
Speaker 1: everyone to the line of the ceasefire. Now again, we're
Speaker 1: on near a couple of days in and I certainly
Speaker 1: hope that we'll still be in the same place by
Speaker 1: this time next week. But it is not all over
Speaker 1: in terms of the Australians who are caught up in
Speaker 1: this in either of those countries. In fact, according to
Speaker 1: news dot com dot Au today, evacuations are difficult, specifically
Speaker 1: from the country of Iran, and there are more than
Speaker 1: four thousand people that are registered in both Iran and
Speaker 1: Israel who would like to come home. These are not
Speaker 1: people who want to be citizens. These are not people
Speaker 1: who want protection visas. These are citizens of this country
Speaker 1: who were in Israel or in Iran for any reason
Speaker 1: why any of us would be in any other country
Speaker 1: from a holiday to visiting their families and they have
Speaker 1: every right to come back and to come back with safety.
Speaker 1: It does seem that there are more people who are
Speaker 1: wanting to come back from Iran than come back from Israel.
Speaker 1: And according to the ABC, they profiled a series of
Speaker 1: people about this today. Nay said that Francis is one
Speaker 1: of around three thousand Australians and their families that are
Speaker 1: registered with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for
Speaker 1: the assistants to leave almost two weeks after the Israeli
Speaker 1: bombings were falling in the capital of Tehran. So yes,
Speaker 1: I'm glad there's a cease fire. I loved that the
Speaker 1: President of the United States was throwing f bombs around
Speaker 1: to calm things down. But if you think it's over,
Speaker 1: there are the very least four thousand Australians who would
Speaker 1: like to come home. I hope that just because this
Speaker 1: thing will slowly move its way off the front page,
Speaker 1: that the urgency of the government to get those people
Speaker 1: out does not fade now. I said over and over
Speaker 1: again during the federal election that your preferences matter. Your
Speaker 1: preferences matter, because with a third of the country voting blue,
Speaker 1: a third of the country voting red, there was a
Speaker 1: third of the country who probably weren't going to get
Speaker 1: who they wanted, which was somebody other than red or blue.
Speaker 1: So what you do with your number two matters. And
Speaker 1: again I want to pay tribute to the work that's
Speaker 1: been done by the Australian Financial Review who actually, along
Speaker 1: with a bunch of other academics, went through and had
Speaker 1: a look at how the different preferences broke down. Now
Speaker 1: we know the government did not have enough votes to
Speaker 1: form government on its own. It only got to where
Speaker 1: it was going because of preferences. So again, as I
Speaker 1: said about something else this week, they may well have
Speaker 1: ninety four seats, and they may well have what looks
Speaker 1: like electoral support that's a mile wide, but the reality
Speaker 1: is it's an inch deep. This is what they had
Speaker 1: a look at where they had to look at. Say now,
Speaker 1: red votes start out as red votes and end as
Speaker 1: red votes. Blue votes start out as blue votes and
Speaker 1: end as blue votes. Green votes mostly go to the
Speaker 1: Labor Party. Orange votes in terms of one nation, they
Speaker 1: of course go to the Liberal Party. But there were
Speaker 1: some fascinating things that they were able to work out
Speaker 1: in terms of Green's preferences. Can you believe there's almost
Speaker 1: twelve percent of people who walk into a ballot box
Speaker 1: and say I want the Greens to be the government.
Speaker 1: And if they can't be the government, I want the Libs.
Speaker 1: Eighty eight percent of their supporter base goes to Labor.
Speaker 1: But who are these almost twelve percent of Greens. So
Speaker 1: if they can't have the Greens, if they can't have
Speaker 1: Sarah Hanson Young, they wanted Peter Dutton. In terms of
Speaker 1: the people who vote for the so called independence, sixty
Speaker 1: seven percent of their preferences went to Labor, a third
Speaker 1: went back to the Liberal or National Party. Remember I
Speaker 1: told you one of the differences between the twenty twenty
Speaker 1: two election in the twenty nineteen election was where one
Speaker 1: nation preferences went. If they go fifty fifty, the Libs
Speaker 1: were in a world of trouble. But the Lib's vote
Speaker 1: was already down. But three quarters of people who voted
Speaker 1: one nation decided to send their preferences to the Libs.
Speaker 1: But a quarter of people who said, you know what,
Speaker 1: Pauline Hanson number one, albow number two. And in terms
Speaker 1: of the trumpet of patriot, could somebody please tell me
Speaker 1: how anyone who was voting for the Trumpian net zero
Speaker 1: is terrible that a third of those people preferenced labor.
Speaker 1: Fascinating to see, isn't it about exactly where the preferences
Speaker 1: ended up going. Now again, it's not challenging the result.
Speaker 1: It's not pretending something is weird here. It's just could
Speaker 1: somebody please explain to me? And if you are one
Speaker 1: of these people, can you send me an email? Are
Speaker 1: you somebody who voted number one for the Greens, but
Speaker 1: then when you know, what, if I can't have the Greens,
Speaker 1: I want the lips. Are you somebody who voted for
Speaker 1: the trumpets, the Palmer people who wanted Albow, I don't
Speaker 1: get it. I'd love to know if you're one of them. Though.
Speaker 1: It also gives us a real indication as we start
Speaker 1: to read the polls about how those will be weighted
Speaker 1: over the next three years. Send men Ema paults Gunews
Speaker 1: dot com dot au. Another thing worth mentioning after that
Speaker 1: federal election was, of course the over and over and
Speaker 1: you know you saw that how many times and you
Speaker 1: heard this how many times.
Speaker 3: Medicare, Medicare, Medicare, Medicare, Medicare, Medicare, and the Prime Minister
Speaker 3: specifically saying.
Speaker 1: All they need is this their Medicare card. Well, we
Speaker 1: learn this week that the Local Council otherwise known as
Speaker 1: the Australian Capital Territory Government, which is a majority labor government,
Speaker 1: that you'll need your credit card as well if you
Speaker 1: want to go to a hospital. They made an announcement
Speaker 1: this week that every single rate payer in the Act
Speaker 1: is now going to have to pay two hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty dollars to be able to access a hospital. The
Speaker 1: tax slug included a new annual two hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: dollars health levy which we added to rates bills paid
Speaker 1: by residential, commercial and rural property owners. It will raise
Speaker 1: two hundred and five million dollars over the next four years.
Speaker 1: Quick out of the gauge is the Shadow Health Minister
Speaker 1: and Rushton, who said, among other things that the Act
Speaker 1: is two hundred and fifty dollars tacks essentially is a
Speaker 1: co payment for the use of the city's two public hospitals.
Speaker 1: It was outrageous because of so much lecturing from Labor
Speaker 1: during the campaign that you only need your Medicare card.
Speaker 1: It makes a mockery of Anthony Aberinesi's claims that all
Speaker 1: you need to access healthcare is a Medicare card. When
Speaker 1: confronted about this little asterisk that essentially the policy of
Speaker 1: the federal government was being undermined by the Act government,
Speaker 1: Mark Butler said at the end of the day that
Speaker 1: government is accountable to the good Burghers of the Act
Speaker 1: for the decisions that they take in their budget. Or
Speaker 1: she'll be right. A couple of other quick things to mention.
Speaker 1: Do you want to all feel old together? Let's hold hands.
Speaker 1: Fifteen years this week since Julia Gillard became Australia's first
Speaker 1: female Prime minister. Can you believe that in twenty ten
Speaker 1: those dramatic days I remember sitting as being part of
Speaker 1: the live coverage was also bizarre. But literally this weekend, sorry,
Speaker 1: this week just passed fifteen years since Julia Gillard was
Speaker 1: sworn in as Prime minister. Now, for those who, of
Speaker 1: course don't really care about their history, this will be
Speaker 1: particularly offensive for those of you who do. Never forget
Speaker 1: that if her finest moment was the misogyny speech, Remember
Speaker 1: it was in defense of Peter Slipper, who had said
Speaker 1: the most grotesque things about the female form. And that
Speaker 1: for all of the carrying on about how evil Tony
Speaker 1: Abbott was for denying us the first female prime minister,
Speaker 1: the one who actually undermined her, the one who actually
Speaker 1: stabbed her in the back, is the bloke they put
Speaker 1: back in the job, whose deputy Prime Minister is Anthony Albernezi.
Speaker 1: And finally Bret Sutton. Remember Bret Sutton, the former Chief
Speaker 1: Health Officer of Victoria. Somebody who who was there all
Speaker 1: the way through, just nodding and agreeing with every stupid
Speaker 1: decision that Daniel Andrews had made, all the way through
Speaker 1: those COVID briefings, was more than happy for Victoria to
Speaker 1: be the most lockdown location in the country, for Melbourne
Speaker 1: to be the most lockdown city in the world. The
Speaker 1: bloke who told us that we had to deny people
Speaker 1: being able to go outside, especially into things like playgrounds,
Speaker 1: and we had to have curfews because people were selfish
Speaker 1: for going outside. This was the bloke who gave a
Speaker 1: scientific tick to stupidity like.
Speaker 6: That playgrounds are closed. Again a difficult decision. It affects
Speaker 6: my family, it affects thousands and thousands of families across Melbourne.
Speaker 6: But as I said yesterday, the reality is there's a
Speaker 6: risk of transmission in those settings.
Speaker 1: Well, he now works for the CSIRO. And we learned
Speaker 1: this week that Bret Sutton, the bloke who was trying
Speaker 1: to say there was something scientific about the stupidity of
Speaker 1: banning people from being outside, when we knew way back
Speaker 1: there and even five years ago that being outside was
Speaker 1: one of the least dangerous places to be. The reality
Speaker 1: was being inside in confines that was going to be
Speaker 1: more of a problem. And he gave a tick to
Speaker 1: that sort of nonsense, didn't stand there and call it
Speaker 1: out as bs of the time. Well, he has a
Speaker 1: new cause that he is involved with, and we turn
Speaker 1: to the Age to read about this. For years, Brett
Speaker 1: Sutton lived on the front lines, Victoria's former chief health officer,
Speaker 1: has scars and death threats to prove it. And now
Speaker 1: he's trying to do something about it by attempting to
Speaker 1: launch what he hopes will be a big new player
Speaker 1: in Australia's science sector, a Coalition for Trust in Science. Quote.
Speaker 1: People want to know what is real and what is
Speaker 1: not real, says Sutton, who was now director of the
Speaker 1: csio's Health and Biosecurity Research Unit. I think we're all
Speaker 1: stronger by working together. Well, Brett, well, I agree with
Speaker 1: you that we must follow the science. You stood there
Speaker 1: and clapped on decisions that had nothing to do with
Speaker 1: science and everything to do with control, and everything to
Speaker 1: do with keeping people locked in their houses. In the
Speaker 1: case of the poorest of the kids, they were locked
Speaker 1: in with their abuses, they didn't go to school, and
Speaker 1: even five years later, some of those people have never
Speaker 1: been back to school. So yes, would I like to
Speaker 1: see a coalition for trust in science? Sure? Do I
Speaker 1: think that the bloke who stood next to the north
Speaker 1: faced jacket man and agreed with every decision he made
Speaker 1: publicly should be the front person of that No? Can
Speaker 1: you know what you think? You can always send me
Speaker 1: an email, Paul. It's gonews dot com dot au quick
Speaker 1: break back with more who's the winner and loser of
Speaker 1: the week? You can jump ont of the socials and
Speaker 1: tell us, Or maybe you're just seeing She'll be right
Speaker 1: for the rest of the night. I know it's in
Speaker 1: my head. Thank you so much for watching. I'm so
Speaker 1: pleased we got too great mates to wrap up our
Speaker 1: week here before the late debate in about half an
Speaker 1: hour's time, none other than the wonderful Joe Hildebrand here
Speaker 1: in the man caversh Bless you.
Speaker 3: It is an honor to serve sir.
Speaker 1: You can hear his podcast and all the places you
Speaker 1: normally find a podcast. Their names are Joe.
Speaker 3: The Real Story with Joe Hildebrand and another new one
Speaker 3: which is for the Record.
Speaker 1: Fo you are get out in Blackwell.
Speaker 3: Where he asked me four questions about the biggest yarn
Speaker 3: of the weeks.
Speaker 1: Lisa God. It will help you out with a bit
Speaker 1: of crisis management if you want it with the dony media,
Speaker 1: but plenty of other things, and these us in Canberra.
Speaker 1: What are you doing in Canberra? But are you there
Speaker 1: to help?
Speaker 4: I'm always here to help all Now I'm done doing
Speaker 4: some media training, but I can tell you it is
Speaker 4: freezing down here, so I'm.
Speaker 2: Happy to be in studio. She'll be right, it'll be
Speaker 2: a Queenslander.
Speaker 1: Yeah, bloody oath, bloody oaths. I've got your mate down
Speaker 1: from the Sunny coast staying with us at the moment
Speaker 1: and going why did I come south? God? To love
Speaker 1: your Queensland, best place to be in winter, well and
Speaker 1: every other season as well. Now, a couple of things
Speaker 1: have happened in the courts the past couple of days
Speaker 1: which I thought we should have a little chitty chat
Speaker 1: about which is about our rights at work. One of
Speaker 1: these stories is a council worker. The council worker in Victoria,
Speaker 1: a street sweeper I'm not a massive fan of the
Speaker 1: welcome and acknowledgment to country, was apparently booted because of
Speaker 1: the failure to sufficiently kiss the ring. I guess what
Speaker 1: gets his job back. And then, of course there was
Speaker 1: the person who was hired strangely by the ABC, strangely
Speaker 1: in the lead up to Christmas, strangely, and they decided,
Speaker 1: despite the fact she was only there for a week,
Speaker 1: that it all must end. And then, of course we
Speaker 1: all know the saga that goes on. But essentially, as
Speaker 1: Chris Merritt wrote in The Australian Today, it may well
Speaker 1: set up the political president here or the legal president,
Speaker 1: which means your political views are not going to be
Speaker 1: grounds for someone to lose their job. So, Joe, this
Speaker 1: is very interesting because people in private sectors who may
Speaker 1: well find little lines in their contracts that say, you know,
Speaker 1: you know, Joe, do not bring the company into distribute
Speaker 1: with your social media behavior. Well, guess what if it's
Speaker 1: about your political opinions, you might.
Speaker 3: It is a really interesting way I think, firstly, we
Speaker 3: have to be pretty careful before we start, you know,
Speaker 3: piling on on someone who was sacked in inverted comments
Speaker 3: because she was just there as a casual but from
Speaker 3: a job for expressing a political view. I think once
Speaker 3: you start saying that's great when it happens to someone else,
Speaker 3: but if it happens to me, it's an infringement of
Speaker 3: free speech.
Speaker 1: I mean, I hope that has been said, Yeah, that's
Speaker 1: it can't be sec.
Speaker 3: That's exactly right. But at the same time, that doesn't
Speaker 3: mean that it doesn't also, as Chris Merritt said, set
Speaker 3: a precedent for activists becoming utterly insufferable in the workplace.
Speaker 3: But I think this is this is where we actually
Speaker 3: have to look at this issue in a much broader way.
Speaker 3: The problem is not that these people and I work
Speaker 3: with Antonette and a Channel ten and she's a lovely
Speaker 3: person and everything, and I'm never happy when Jerno's gets sacked.
Speaker 3: But the problem is not that people say these things.
Speaker 3: The problem is that they think these things. The reason
Speaker 3: why people are all up in arms about what Antoninette
Speaker 3: did or didn't post or whatever, or that she carries
Speaker 3: on about Palestine, it's because they disagree with her. Right now,
Speaker 3: I'm obviously a boring, pragmatic kind of moderate who thinks
Speaker 3: we need.
Speaker 1: To all find them. Can't we just a compromise? Can't
Speaker 1: we can't everyone get along?
Speaker 3: But again, what the ABC does? The problem is the
Speaker 3: ABC should, in many ways, should never have hired her.
Speaker 3: If they truly believe that their staff had to be
Speaker 3: impartial and couldn't be political. Then hiring someone who is
Speaker 3: clearly extremely passionate about Palestine and extremely active about it
Speaker 3: on social media and will not shut up about it,
Speaker 3: and I don't mean that in a derogatory way, don't
Speaker 3: hire them. But also if you don't hire them, hire
Speaker 3: someone who is impartial. So instead of hire so what
Speaker 3: they do. The thing is that the ABC is run
Speaker 3: by people like Antoinette for people like Antoinettes, and so
Speaker 3: hiring someone like that and saying, oh, but don't tell
Speaker 3: anyone you're a socialist, or don't tell anyone you're pro Palestine,
Speaker 3: or don't tell anyone you agreeen is bollocks. That's exactly
Speaker 3: the wrong thing. What they should be doing is looking for,
Speaker 3: you know, boring pragmatic mainstream moderates like Mijoe Hildebrand. Yeah,
Speaker 3: I say whatever because you know, yeah, you know it's
Speaker 3: going to be reasonable or balanced or in line with
Speaker 3: mainstream Australia. That is what they cannot get right, and
Speaker 3: that's how they managed to stuff up what should have
Speaker 3: been an unstuff uppable event.
Speaker 1: At least. What I like here is that, of course
Speaker 1: you are an employer, and no doubt we know that
Speaker 1: things have got very difficult for many employers over a
Speaker 1: long period of time. About you know, look, even if
Speaker 1: I catch you with your hand in the cookie jar,
Speaker 1: I've got to give you three warnings, and you've got
Speaker 1: to be caught three times, and you've got to make
Speaker 1: sure that there's no other extenuating circumstances where oh she
Speaker 1: only sacked me because I was a fat bloke with
Speaker 1: a beard, you know, or all of that garbage. So
Speaker 1: what have you thought about these things in this week
Speaker 1: where the council worker and not just the ABC of
Speaker 1: it all, but your rights to be political while employed somewhere?
Speaker 4: Well, I think all of us looked at that council
Speaker 4: worker story and we all felt for him because at
Speaker 4: any point we've all meetings or we've attended events, and
Speaker 4: at some point we have all, if you're honest, rolled
Speaker 4: our eyes to say, here we go again with another
Speaker 4: welcome to country. So look, I think what was really
Speaker 4: interesting about this one was the fact that it's come
Speaker 4: out tonight about the online training that he was supposed
Speaker 4: to have done.
Speaker 2: And I believe it was a module on racism as well.
Speaker 4: But his bosses have received so many notifications that he
Speaker 4: hadn't yet done that training that while he was on
Speaker 4: holidays allegedly playing golf, his boss used his password and
Speaker 4: went in and did that online training for him. So
Speaker 4: that was the falldown in this particular incident. But I
Speaker 4: think more broadly, we all questioned, we're sick of what
Speaker 4: is the point if you go onto a zoom meeting
Speaker 4: now and you're going to have to sit through a
Speaker 4: welcomed a country. So I think there's probably I think
Speaker 4: two thirds of people who responded to that news dot
Speaker 4: com survey about Welcomed a Country all said we've had enough.
Speaker 4: I think there are a lot of Australians quietly applauding
Speaker 4: this tonight. And as an employer, you know you have
Speaker 4: to be careful about what you allow in and out
Speaker 4: of your workplace.
Speaker 1: The Prime Minister of course, speak of his powers. Parliament
Speaker 1: has not even resumed yet. As much as those of
Speaker 1: us would love to get as far into the three
Speaker 1: years as possible, the reality is we are just in
Speaker 1: these early days. Hence why in part I was talking
Speaker 1: just again for information, so everyone was across about how
Speaker 1: those preferences split up again the Greens voter, who did
Speaker 1: the twelve percent of Green's voters who put the coalition
Speaker 1: as their number two. I want to meet you. I
Speaker 1: want to know how you get there, because I'm fascinated
Speaker 1: about how that works. But the Prime Minister has made
Speaker 1: a decision which is to remove the standard amount of
Speaker 1: staffing that would be there for a federal opposition, and
Speaker 1: has removed a significant number of staff from the cross
Speaker 1: bench in the Senate we're talking about, as James Ashby
Speaker 1: when he was sitting in that seat was saying Joe
Speaker 1: that despite the fact that one Nation has doubled the
Speaker 1: number of senators from two to four, under these changes
Speaker 1: they will have exactly the same amount of staff as
Speaker 1: when they had just two. Now, obviously, part of the
Speaker 1: reasons why the fluffing was there when it came to
Speaker 1: staff as in the last parliament, was because oh well,
Speaker 1: if we go an already government, we're going to need
Speaker 1: those people. Let's not offend anyone. Now, we're ninety four
Speaker 1: seats that will rule forever, so push them all out
Speaker 1: of the way. Great, But I hate this because I
Speaker 1: want sitting down everyone. I want the Teals, the Greens,
Speaker 1: One Nation, the Liberal Party and the Parmy United Party
Speaker 1: senator to have the maximum number of people that they're
Speaker 1: allowed to come up with alternitive ideas to be able
Speaker 1: to challenge your government. Otherwise we're going to end up
Speaker 1: where Victoria's been for a long time Queensline has been
Speaker 1: for a long time, which is, once you've got access
Speaker 1: to the full machine, it is just about robbing any
Speaker 1: political opponent of the ability to be able to oppose you.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Look, in principle, i'd probably agree with you.
Speaker 1: But because of elbow. Tell me why practice albow?
Speaker 3: Punishing the Teals and making them cry is like my
Speaker 3: ultimate political spirit animal. This is what I was born to,
Speaker 3: This is what I was born to immerse myself in,
Speaker 3: and I absolutely love it because they have the biggest
Speaker 3: bunch of sooks in the world, so entitled that rich
Speaker 3: they could hire staff is out of their own pocket
Speaker 3: instead of charging it to the taxpayer. They've still got
Speaker 3: like for each MP still has five staff. They've got
Speaker 3: four for their electorate and they've got one just for
Speaker 3: parliamentary business. And there's enough flexibility to wiggle those around.
Speaker 3: For example, Monique Ryan had Sally Rugg. Let's just never
Speaker 3: ever forget that.
Speaker 1: And never forget that Monique Writer has said in that
Speaker 1: court case that she could be Prime Minister.
Speaker 3: One, and she could be Prime Minister one. Let's never
Speaker 3: forget that. And let's also never forget that Monique Ryan
Speaker 3: is a doctor.
Speaker 1: Correct.
Speaker 3: Doctors deserve more staff than normal people. Just the mister, Okay,
Speaker 3: you're winning me up, but you're winning again. Anything that
Speaker 3: teals winge about I am reflexively in favor of. But
Speaker 3: you do look, yeah, you do want to have. Given
Speaker 3: that they are so insufferably sanctimonious and self entitled and
Speaker 3: think that they're right about everything, it'd be great if
Speaker 3: they've got a bit of extra frank and fearless advice
Speaker 3: to tell them correct. But I don't think that.
Speaker 1: But Lisa, I remember David crucif fully told me that
Speaker 1: the entire staff of the Queensland Opposition when they were
Speaker 1: going up against that mega machine that was the Labor
Speaker 1: Party with all of its staffing, who worked for the government,
Speaker 1: worked for the party, worked for the unions, was twenty
Speaker 1: twenty people across the whole of the opposition. Now, how
Speaker 1: on goodness earth are you supposed to hold to be
Speaker 1: across all of the issues and coming up with the
Speaker 1: alternative policies. It just in my view it should be
Speaker 1: as close to a level playing field as possible. Obviously,
Speaker 1: the people with the more seats a canna have more stuff,
Speaker 1: no question right. But the idea that the opposition, depending
Speaker 1: on the size of the opposition, will be robbed of
Speaker 1: the smart people to come up with the alternative ideas
Speaker 1: is bad for a democracy or am I just being asook?
Speaker 2: Well, it is bad for democracy.
Speaker 4: But if you're in government and you are in the
Speaker 4: position that Albaneze's in, why would you give the others
Speaker 4: a helping hand?
Speaker 2: Why would you make it easy for them?
Speaker 4: And as to Joe's point, the tears were all about
Speaker 4: your fiscal responsibility.
Speaker 2: Well, if Albaniz is now having his.
Speaker 4: Own sort of doge moment and going through and cleaning
Speaker 4: out the books and cutting staff, then the tills are
Speaker 4: getting exactly what they want, aren't they?
Speaker 2: But I think what stinks.
Speaker 4: About this is what Pauline Hanson pointed out, They should
Speaker 4: not have learnt about this through the media. I think
Speaker 4: that was she described, I think as a dog act
Speaker 4: and I think that is a really low point.
Speaker 1: Lisa, fifteen years this week since Julia Gillard became Australia's
Speaker 1: first female prime minister. Now having two beautiful little girls
Speaker 1: who are in primary school right now, I know what
Speaker 1: they're being told about Australia's first female prime minister, which
Speaker 1: is nothing was wrong, everything was amazing, and evil men
Speaker 1: robbed her of the greatness that was the prime ministership.
Speaker 1: But thinking on fifteen years later, what is the legacy
Speaker 1: apart from the ndis of the first female prime minister
Speaker 1: or more importantly Julia Gillard as a prime minister?
Speaker 4: And you mean apart from the fact that she gave
Speaker 4: us a reprieve from Rudd, right beyond that win that
Speaker 4: we had there right correctly she is she's held.
Speaker 2: Up as a female champion.
Speaker 4: What I find interesting about this, there's so many of
Speaker 4: the females who are out there with the weed come
Speaker 4: come by our sort of feminist movement right behind Julia Gillard.
Speaker 4: They don't ever look at any of the criticism at all,
Speaker 4: And right now she is held up as a female champion.
Speaker 4: But I'm not quite sure apart from being on the
Speaker 4: talking circuit, what she's actually contributing. And a note in
Speaker 4: Melbourne she's actually joining the world's Australia's largest women's summit.
Speaker 2: I think it is sort of leadership. But she's joining
Speaker 2: as a hologram. So only three.
Speaker 4: Thousand dollars for the ticket plus gst mind, jeez, that's
Speaker 4: her lasting legacy at this point.
Speaker 1: Look the historic nature of it, there's no doubt, right
Speaker 1: and then you know again what my little girls are
Speaker 1: being taught. But just it's again, frankly, it's a little
Speaker 1: bit like Whitlam, right, which is that a lot of
Speaker 1: people sort of our age when learning about it, was, oh,
Speaker 1: this prime minister just.
Speaker 3: Robbed, robbed, the delibrated labor prime minister of all of
Speaker 3: history and also the most spectacularly unseat who lost.
Speaker 1: Two elections after he got the biscuit.
Speaker 3: I only managed to stay in power for was less
Speaker 3: than three years in total.
Speaker 1: And she's completely missing from the Gillard story lately, but
Speaker 1: her own colleagues ended it anyway.
Speaker 3: Having having said that's right, absolutely they did. So there's
Speaker 3: a couple of things to say. One is that Julia
Speaker 3: Gillard is without a doubt the best ex prime minister
Speaker 3: we've had in Australia. She has risen up, she has
Speaker 3: risen above the partisan politics she is not. She did
Speaker 3: not undermine her replacement. She walked away graciously and she
Speaker 3: has behaved with more dignity than frankly, the rest of
Speaker 3: them combined, many of whom.
Speaker 1: Are my friends.
Speaker 3: There is a buve the butt is that. And again
Speaker 3: in that time, if you ask what she's done, she
Speaker 3: headed up a huge international organization promoting education for women
Speaker 3: and girls, especially in countries that are incredibly oppressive and
Speaker 3: misogynistic like Iran. And she also was the chair of
Speaker 3: Beyond Blue as well. There's a lot of fantastic work there.
Speaker 3: So she's done a great job there and she would
Speaker 3: have done much much more and been a much much
Speaker 3: more scessful prime minister except for the fact of the
Speaker 3: way she came to power. And this is why I
Speaker 3: had PTSD caused by the Labor Party as of twenty ten,
Speaker 3: when almost exactly this time fifteen years ago, Julie Guard
Speaker 3: Knife an elected first term prime minister with a mandate,
Speaker 3: who was ahead in the pole and was lured into
Speaker 3: doing this by supporters, and it robbed her of legitimacy.
Speaker 3: And that's a great shame for history.
Speaker 1: And for all of the conversations about what happened in
Speaker 1: the two thousand and twenty five election. Of the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two election, the bloke who broke the Liberal Party
Speaker 1: was Malcolm Turnbull, because if nothing else, the thing it
Speaker 1: was different between the two of them was that they
Speaker 1: don't roll a sitting prime minister. But of course he
Speaker 1: did that and then the real trouble began. All right,
Speaker 1: quick break back with more here on Paul Murray Live,
Speaker 1: including who was the winner and loser of the week
Speaker 1: more than a second. The wonderful Lisa god normally in
Speaker 1: Queensland with thed only media, but her skills and talents
Speaker 1: take her to Canberra at the moment.
Speaker 3: But a lucky woman.
Speaker 1: Oh look at it in winter.
Speaker 2: Enjoy lucky.
Speaker 1: And I know I'll always get complain to him of
Speaker 1: some when I'm a bit dismissive of the act. You know,
Speaker 1: I know that there's about five hundred decent, centerous people left.
Speaker 3: But I know one d and fifty.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't know, You're right.
Speaker 2: Dinner with a few of them tonight, Paul, and.
Speaker 1: God love you all right, I know it's five thousand, okay.
Speaker 1: And of course Joe Hildebrand, our college curates going News,
Speaker 1: read him in the Daily Telegraph, him on the Nova
Speaker 1: podcast platforms. So the bloke who most likely is going
Speaker 1: to end up being the next mayor of New York,
Speaker 1: this guy hard left, right, hard left, unavowedly hard left,
Speaker 1: unavowedly openly socialist right and not hiding anything, and he
Speaker 1: basically is the exact opposite of Donald Trump. Part of
Speaker 1: the way that he was able to win. And by
Speaker 1: the way, there's like what eight million people who live
Speaker 1: in and around the island. About less than a million
Speaker 1: voted at all in this primary. But still, these were
Speaker 1: some of the promises that he has been making. And
Speaker 1: of course it all has to be paid for by someone,
Speaker 1: but you know, someone somewhere else sees some of his stuff.
Speaker 5: I'm Zaramambani, and as mayor, I will create a network
Speaker 5: of city owned grocery stores. It's like a public option
Speaker 5: for produce. We will redirect city funds from corporate supermarkets
Speaker 5: to city owned grocery stores whose mission is lower prices,
Speaker 5: not price gauging. These stores will operate without a profit
Speaker 5: motive or having to pay property taxes or rent, and
Speaker 5: will pass on those savings to you. They'll partner with
Speaker 5: small businesses and nearby farms and sell at wholesale prices.
Speaker 1: Now, the thing leasy is that the knock on this
Speaker 1: Blanke is going to be socialist, socialist, socialist, and all
Speaker 1: of that is true. But the message that people will
Speaker 1: hear who and we know America can be a place
Speaker 1: of incredible wealth and incredible poverty, is if you hear free, free, free, free, free,
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter whether he's going to be called socialist
Speaker 1: or not. So my fee here is that left wing
Speaker 1: economic populism is going to eventually be the counterbalance to
Speaker 1: right wing economic populism.
Speaker 4: Well yeah, and it's this socialist utopia. You're right, everything
Speaker 4: was free, and if you've got looking at sixty percent
Speaker 4: of Americans a living paycheck to paycheck, then this is
Speaker 4: going to appeal to them.
Speaker 2: But he's put.
Speaker 4: Together a very slick marketing campaign. He's telling people there's
Speaker 4: an easy solution to all of this, and the simple
Speaker 4: solution for him is, well, we'll just have the.
Speaker 2: Rich pay for it.
Speaker 4: So if you're out there not able to pay for
Speaker 4: your grocery's, not able to pay for your bills, you know,
Speaker 4: he's offering free transport so you can get to your
Speaker 4: job to earn your wage, to try and.
Speaker 2: Make your ends meet.
Speaker 4: Then it does seem like a very simple solution if
Speaker 4: you are not tapped in to politics, if you don't
Speaker 4: understand that at the end of the day, somebody has
Speaker 4: to pay for this. And I'll tell you what, if
Speaker 4: you keep taxing the top end of town, there won't
Speaker 4: be the jobs for you to get your free transport
Speaker 4: to to go and get your wage to try to
Speaker 4: pay for your groceries. So it is just this frightening
Speaker 4: political campaign that the average person over there just is
Speaker 4: tapping into and saying, yeah, look, oh not a long
Speaker 4: and I'll agree to this because it's going to make
Speaker 4: my life better. But they're just not thinking long term.
Speaker 4: And my question is he's come out and support of
Speaker 4: a run, he's come out and support of Pakistan.
Speaker 2: What's the Jewish community doing? Where were they in all
Speaker 2: of this?
Speaker 1: Well, and he's openly said that he would enforce the
Speaker 1: International Criminal Court and if he goes anywhere near the
Speaker 1: United Nations, he will arrest him on their behalf. I
Speaker 1: want to do Winners and Losers in about sixty seconds.
Speaker 1: But what do you think about this bloke? Should people
Speaker 1: be watching him as a sign of doom to come
Speaker 1: or the way to market yourself to the next generation.
Speaker 3: Look, the answer to riving populism is not left wing populism.
Speaker 3: It's being sensible and being pragmatic and using solutions that
Speaker 3: work and putting ideology aside. Let's see how his grocery
Speaker 3: stores run. I mean, let's just let's just wait and
Speaker 3: say because it's going to go so in much the
Speaker 3: same way as I think America had to get Donald
Speaker 3: Trump out of its system. You want to try Bernie
Speaker 3: Sanders light, which is exactly what he is. Bernie Sanders
Speaker 3: is a big fan. Do it. See what happens?
Speaker 1: All right, Lisa, I got thirty seconds, so take ten
Speaker 1: of them to give me a winner and loser, very.
Speaker 4: Easy, Trump the winner, loser, Richard Miles and that photograph
Speaker 4: with him at the very back right.
Speaker 2: You can't tell me that wasn't on purpose.
Speaker 1: Seven point six seconds for you, Joe.
Speaker 3: Trump the winner, Iotola the loser because Ayatollah Asahola love it.
Speaker 1: Mote, thank you, thank you, Lisa, thank you Joe. Quick
Speaker 1: break back with more. One more thing to say before
Speaker 1: we are done and hand over to the lake to
Speaker 1: Bak