Speaker 1: From the Sky News Center.
Speaker 2: This is Paul Murray Live.
Speaker 1: Good evening, and welcome to the program. You're watching Paul
Speaker 1: Murray Live. I'm James Morrow here sitting in for the
Speaker 1: Great Man from the Man Cave. And guess what it is,
Speaker 1: All killer, no filler tonight, and we are gonna have
Speaker 1: tons of fun and get stuck into tons of controversy
Speaker 1: with some of your absolute favorites tonight. But before we
Speaker 1: get to our all star panels, look, is it just
Speaker 1: me or does Peter Dutton seem to have really struck
Speaker 1: a nerve here with this whole nuclear power option and saying,
Speaker 1: you know, twenty thirty, that's a bit too soon to
Speaker 1: be doing what Labor's talking about. I mean when I
Speaker 1: watch the reaction to what the opposition is saying these days,
Speaker 1: namely that there's no way that we are going to
Speaker 1: hit our twenty thirty carbon reduction targets without causing massive
Speaker 1: pain in the economy, and that if we have a
Speaker 1: hope in hell of getting the next zero by twenty fifty,
Speaker 1: well nuclear is going to have to be part of
Speaker 1: the mix. I think they are worried. I think they're
Speaker 1: worried that the jig is up and that the more
Speaker 1: people here Dutton say what I think are actually some
Speaker 1: pretty sensible and non controversial truth, the more support will
Speaker 1: bleed away from a Labor party that is already in
Speaker 1: need of a serious transfusion of primary votes. Here's a
Speaker 1: little bit of what mister Dunt had to say this
Speaker 1: morning to two GB's Ray Hadley about the continuing hikes
Speaker 1: and energy prices as we put more of what Labor
Speaker 1: keeps insisting is the cheapest form of energy into the grid,
Speaker 1: and about reports by this station's own Sherry Markson that
Speaker 1: Labor has even more extreme targets planned for as soon
Speaker 1: as twenty thirty five. Have a listen.
Speaker 3: Well, I just can't believe how I just connected that
Speaker 3: from people are at the moment, in their own paying
Speaker 3: budgets and in their own small business budget, people can't
Speaker 3: afford another twenty or thirty percent increase in their electricity process.
Speaker 3: We already pay the highest prices.
Speaker 4: In the world, and now they're talking about the sixty
Speaker 4: five to seventy five percent target by twenty thirty five.
Speaker 4: I haven't said any of the economic model, and I
Speaker 4: don't think the Prime Minister has on there, so it
Speaker 4: needs to be transparent and honest with the Australian public
Speaker 4: about what does it mean and particularly if the economy
Speaker 4: goes into recession.
Speaker 1: Well, indeed, yet remarks like this and a growing concern
Speaker 1: about this whole scheme whereby a bunch of renewables investors
Speaker 1: get rich while the rest of us are left with
Speaker 1: more expensive electricity, the threat of brownouts and oh so
Speaker 1: called smart meters that allow power companies to dial down
Speaker 1: your AC when there's not enough renewable electricity in the
Speaker 1: grid coincidentally on days when some months from now you're
Speaker 1: most likely to eat it. Well, they've got labor and
Speaker 1: the renewable energy types in it. Tis that's why they
Speaker 1: spun Peter Dunn's energy policy as a threat to get
Speaker 1: out of the Paris Agreement on Climate, to frighten the
Speaker 1: horses and get all the teal seats worked up. Here's
Speaker 1: what a Legraspender had to say about nuclear and the
Speaker 1: threat of getting out of Paris.
Speaker 5: There are other things that we should be doing right
Speaker 5: now that are really about helping Australian households, but it
Speaker 5: is not the answer is not to stop the transition,
Speaker 5: because the cheapest form of new energy is renewable energy.
Speaker 5: So if you're trying to hold people, help people with
Speaker 5: their power bills, it's not to commit to nuclear because
Speaker 5: we know that is the most expensive form of energy
Speaker 5: and will be the most expensive form of energy going forward.
Speaker 1: Well, that's not true about renewables being the cheapest form,
Speaker 1: and we've got to talk about that in a little bit.
Speaker 1: But it is also pretty hilarious when people fret about
Speaker 1: Australia getting under the Paris Agreement, given that seventy percent
Speaker 1: of the electricity in Paris, home of the Paris Accords,
Speaker 1: and indeed all of France comes from nuclear energy, and
Speaker 1: the French, who want to retain manufacturing and jobs and prosperity,
Speaker 1: have just committed to building eight more reactors. Anyway, what
Speaker 1: are the French known? Nuclear? Maybe expensive Vispender, But how's
Speaker 1: that snow a hydra working out for you? I know? Right?
Speaker 1: And also here's what Chris Bowen, Energy Minister had to
Speaker 1: say the other day.
Speaker 6: And of course it's not just about the Pacific. You
Speaker 6: look at what's happening in our region. You look at
Speaker 6: the partnerships in Australia as engaging with with United States,
Speaker 6: as climate and Energy, as the third pillar of our alliance.
Speaker 6: You look at what we're doing with Germany on green hydrogen.
Speaker 6: Peter Dutton would be a wrecking ball, a risky wrecking
Speaker 6: ball when it comes to our foreign policy.
Speaker 1: You can see this air campaign coming. You know, it's
Speaker 1: not just the energy builds, not just as the climate.
Speaker 1: It's a foreign policy thing now too. It's all really
Speaker 1: really cynical. And Simon Benson at the OHS belled the
Speaker 1: cat on this today and said this is all about
Speaker 1: a potential early election, maybe as soon as hold onto
Speaker 1: your hats September fourteen, writes Benson. Quote the coalition would
Speaker 1: be caught off guard and Albanesi could seek a mandate
Speaker 1: on renewables over nuclear with the accompanying scare campaign of
Speaker 1: mushroom clouds and three headed fish, and make it about
Speaker 1: anything other than the economy un quote, well as you
Speaker 1: would want to. Oh, and then there's this. If you
Speaker 1: needed any more proof that the renewables mob, labor and
Speaker 1: the teals and everybody who is lining their pockets with
Speaker 1: the billions in subsidies being chucked at the transition are nervous.
Speaker 1: Check this out. A story about none other than Simon Holmes,
Speaker 1: a court and an apparent silencing of a nuclear advocate
Speaker 1: an engineer at his behest. Just a little while ago,
Speaker 1: John Keiho at The Australian Financial Review reported that a
Speaker 1: nuclear energy scientist said that he is a victim of
Speaker 1: cancel culture after the nation's peak Engineering Professional group called
Speaker 1: off his scheduled pro nuclear speech following pressure from billionaire
Speaker 1: renewable energy advocate Simon Holmes. A Court engineer and nuclear
Speaker 1: energy advocate Rob Parker was due to present to more
Speaker 1: than four hundred people registered for an Engineer's Australia webinar
Speaker 1: on Wednesday on Wednesday night in a scheduled address titled
Speaker 1: avoiding an Energy Blunder down Under. But just twenty four
Speaker 1: hours before the talk, mister Holmes the Court slammed Engineer
Speaker 1: Australia on social media for hosting mister Parker. Holmes Court tweeted, Seriously,
Speaker 1: Engineers Australia, you're hosting an anti renewables event for nuclear
Speaker 1: for climate. He posted on x I would have thought
Speaker 1: your body was dedicated to improving understanding, not muddying the waters. Well.
Speaker 1: Ko's report continued quote minutes after his social media post
Speaker 1: that Simon Holmes Court's post on Tuesday, the engineer's Australia
Speaker 1: X profile responded, thanks, Simon, this event has been pulled.
Speaker 1: This does not meet our guidelines and we are investigating
Speaker 1: how it was scheduled. Unquote Seriously, Simon, what are you
Speaker 1: afraid of? Well, if you ask me, there's a lot
Speaker 1: he and all the others in that renewable anti nuclear
Speaker 1: mob should be afraid of. My read on this is
Speaker 1: that nuclear power is going to be the next voice debate.
Speaker 1: Remember how that went. On the one side, you had
Speaker 1: all the elites, the teals, the c suites of all
Speaker 1: the major ASX companies urging a yes vote and telling
Speaker 1: the great unwashed they were dumb and ignorant and didn't
Speaker 1: know what they were talking about. And then you had
Speaker 1: that great and washed that said, well, how's this song
Speaker 1: gonna help me? And how is this not going to
Speaker 1: make the country worse off? While a bunch of virtue
Speaker 1: signalers feel good about themselves, increase their power and in
Speaker 1: some cases line their pockets. See the parallels. When the
Speaker 1: debate started, the yes vote was well ahead in the polls,
Speaker 1: and in the end, though the referendum failed something like
Speaker 1: sixty forty very similar energy here. I think with nuclear
Speaker 1: versus all these renewables, all the big end of town
Speaker 1: types who talk climate and investing in things with guaranteed
Speaker 1: government returns and who don't care if it costs war
Speaker 1: to heat the pool. Everyone else, of course they say
Speaker 1: not so much. By the way, John Keho it should
Speaker 1: be at the AFR has also written an excellent dissection
Speaker 1: of those claims by the CSIRO and their gen cost
Speaker 1: report that nuclear is the most expensive form of energy, noting,
Speaker 1: among other things, CSIRO's analysis claim that nuclear power plants
Speaker 1: last only thirty years when more than eighty years is
Speaker 1: the norm, That the CSIRO alleged that nuclear plants only
Speaker 1: run it between fifty three and eighty nine percent capacity,
Speaker 1: when in fact they generally run it over ninety percent,
Speaker 1: And that the CSIRO bizarrely assumes cold is more expensive
Speaker 1: than renewables. But remember CSRO, they're scientists, not economists, so
Speaker 1: when it comes to gen cost, probably not the best
Speaker 1: people for the job. But in the end does any
Speaker 1: of this matter? I mean, look at this chart global
Speaker 1: annual CO two emissions over time. There you see the
Speaker 1: world up top, and then China lower down powering ahead.
Speaker 1: Then there's the US tailing off a bit but still
Speaker 1: big in India's on the rise, and then all the
Speaker 1: way down at the bottom, Little Lord Australia with nuclear
Speaker 1: powered France two or three times population by the way,
Speaker 1: taking up the rear. Big question I have then is
Speaker 1: why are we putting ourselves through this? Now? I've got
Speaker 1: a lot to talk about today. Let's bring in Keith
Speaker 1: Pitt from the Nationals and my Sky News colleague, Senior
Speaker 1: porter Caroline Marcus. Welcome both of you to the panel
Speaker 1: to night, guys. Let's start with Anthony Albinezi and Peter
Speaker 1: Dunton's war of words this week over Australia's twenty thirty
Speaker 1: climate target. The Prime Minister spoke yesterday and refused to
Speaker 1: commit to Australia's twenty thirty five target before the next
Speaker 1: election when he was pressed by reporters, have a look.
Speaker 7: You, I'm guaranteeing the twenty thirty target that we have legislided,
Speaker 7: as well as and zero by twenty fifty. What we're
Speaker 7: concentrating on is delivering forty three percent by twenty thirty
Speaker 7: and we've got a mechanism to get there.
Speaker 1: Well, guys. Albert has insisted that all the pastoring this
Speaker 1: week of the climate targan will have no bearing on
Speaker 1: an early election and whether that be called, but two
Speaker 1: dates have been tossed up by some liberal and peace
Speaker 1: including September fourteenth and December seventh. Keith Pitt, let's go
Speaker 1: to you first. Do you think the Prime Minister is
Speaker 1: setting us up for an early election?
Speaker 8: It's the golden rule of politics. You go when you
Speaker 8: can win. And I'm confident that this Prime Minutes is
Speaker 8: not like every Prime Minutes the before, and.
Speaker 9: We'll go when he thinks the best opportunity is for
Speaker 9: Labor to win government again. And I think that will
Speaker 9: come down to a couple of things, mostly around the economy,
Speaker 9: whether interest rates have come off, whether inflation is back
Speaker 9: in target, and of course if they want to have
Speaker 9: a big fight around nuclear. Our issue will be one
Speaker 9: of time, because this is a difficult policy to educate
Speaker 9: people on. We need to be in the field, and
Speaker 9: the earlier that the Prime Minister goes at, the better
Speaker 9: Labor's chances, would be my view.
Speaker 1: And Caroline, you know, there's all these stories out today
Speaker 1: that show that there's a necessity of getting some nuclear
Speaker 1: into the grid. We saw France eight new reactors, new
Speaker 1: Zealand is now having a blackout problem. Warning you know,
Speaker 1: after just into our durn Do you think that Keith
Speaker 1: sends a big education piece here, will Australians ultimately back
Speaker 1: in Dutton on this scheme?
Speaker 10: Well?
Speaker 11: I think Australians will ultimately back in whoever they think
Speaker 11: can deliver energy affordability and long term security, and that
Speaker 11: if they can be educated on it, which I think
Speaker 11: they will need to be because there has been such
Speaker 11: a scare campaign around nuclear energy for such long time,
Speaker 11: then I absolutely think that this could be a winner
Speaker 11: for the coalition. As the reports that I have pointed out,
Speaker 11: every time Liberals take a similar stance to Labor on
Speaker 11: energy promising equal meeting the same kinds of targets the
Speaker 11: Labor has put forward, they don't do well at an election.
Speaker 11: So only when they really take the fight up to
Speaker 11: them in recent years, as we've seen with Tony Abbott
Speaker 11: and Scott Morrison in twenty nineteen, that they've actually succeeded.
Speaker 11: And I think ultimately people can say the right things
Speaker 11: when they asked in surveys if they care about climate change,
Speaker 11: and some people really genuinely do want to see better
Speaker 11: emissions levels for the country. But people mainly care about
Speaker 11: their hip pocket and that's what recent polls have shown.
Speaker 11: So if he can pick, if he can back energy
Speaker 11: that's going to be more affordable in the long run
Speaker 11: for people, we can and they can convince people of
Speaker 11: that that. I absolutely think he's onto a winner.
Speaker 1: Well, Keith, I mean the old rule of politics is,
Speaker 1: of course, you know, it's the economy stupid. And Keith,
Speaker 1: I want to just come to you one more question
Speaker 1: on this topic because it is fascinating to me. Caroline
Speaker 1: points out this whole idea of points of difference between
Speaker 1: the coalition and Labor going into an election. I spoke
Speaker 1: a moment ago about the parallels I see between the
Speaker 1: Voice campaign and how that worked out for the Liberals
Speaker 1: and the No side going up against a very similar
Speaker 1: coalition of people that are all in favor of renewables.
Speaker 1: Is there a parallel here, Keith Pitt, with the way
Speaker 1: the No case was prosecuted from a point where everybody said, oh,
Speaker 1: there's no way that's going to get up, because you know,
Speaker 1: all the received wisdom says yes, it's a smart way
Speaker 1: to go. Is there a parallel here with renewables versus nuclear?
Speaker 9: Well, you have to form a contest otherwise the voter
Speaker 9: sprays all over the place. If there's no differential between
Speaker 9: the major parties, well why vote for one side or
Speaker 9: the other. It's like Barnaby said the last election where
Speaker 9: sign whre on them and they signed it's our turn.
Speaker 8: And I don't think that went well for anybody. The
Speaker 8: primaries were very, very low.
Speaker 9: But there is one other big issue in place, and
Speaker 9: I don't think people are really identifying just how bad
Speaker 9: it is.
Speaker 8: Like out in the real world. People are really really struggling.
Speaker 8: I've never seen anything like this. It is incredibly difficult.
Speaker 9: They can't pay their rates bill, they can't pay their rent,
Speaker 9: they can't pay their mortgage, they're flat buying food, they
Speaker 9: spend all of their savings. And this is the everyday
Speaker 9: Australian who's out working hard, who's doing the right thing
Speaker 9: by the country, and they're having kids, they're trying to
Speaker 9: pay for a house, and yet they are just getting
Speaker 9: absolutely slaughtered in an economic manner because of Labour's policies.
Speaker 9: And a big part of that is their climate policies
Speaker 9: and their energy policies.
Speaker 8: I mean, we're in the middle of the.
Speaker 9: Big beta test here and no one can say to
Speaker 9: me that the changes that have been made haven't driven
Speaker 9: up prices because they have.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, Caroline, is it correct too that, like
Speaker 1: it's basically an admission that renewables are not the cheapest
Speaker 1: form of power. When Jim Chalmers had to in the
Speaker 1: budget give us back three hundred bucks to pay for
Speaker 1: our higher bills, which are higher because of all the.
Speaker 11: Renewables, I know, and we're still waiting for the two
Speaker 11: hundred and seventy five dollars discount energy bills they had that,
Speaker 11: I think that they've completely forgotten about that because clearly
Speaker 11: it can't be delivered. So instead they're bribing people with
Speaker 11: this three hundred dollars of our own tax payer money
Speaker 11: being given back to us. Ultimately, I think you're going
Speaker 11: to have to convince the Party's going to have to
Speaker 11: convince people about whether the short term expense of building
Speaker 11: the infrastructure that's needed for nuclear is going to pay
Speaker 11: off in the long term. But if we're seeing all
Speaker 11: these countries around the world, like the irony, the great
Speaker 11: irony is that in France where they have the Paris
Speaker 11: a qorters at the Paris Agreement, as you point out,
Speaker 11: that's where they have such a strong investment in nuclear
Speaker 11: and yet we're here with these great uranium stores and
Speaker 11: we're not putting them to use. It just is an
Speaker 11: awful waste.
Speaker 1: It doesn't make any sense to me. It's never made
Speaker 1: any sense to me. But anyway, let's move on because
Speaker 1: I've got another big issue I think we got to
Speaker 1: talk about here, and that is CFMU boss John Setka,
Speaker 1: who is building support over his threats to the afl
Speaker 1: umpiring boss Steve McBurnie. He of course was the head
Speaker 1: of the A Triple AB Triple C before. Here's Setka
Speaker 1: saying yesterday it's absolutely not a threat, though I.
Speaker 2: Will not make any threat. So I'm we're talking about
Speaker 2: exposing people. I mean, people like McBurney can't attack workers
Speaker 2: and their conditions and be so undemocratic they make in
Speaker 2: North Korea look like a democracy and then just right
Speaker 2: off into the sunset like nothing's ever happened. I mean,
Speaker 2: there is going to be consequences.
Speaker 1: Well, anyway, everybody rest assured because Prime Minister Anthony Albanezi
Speaker 1: today delivered an absolute rejection of this kind of bullying.
Speaker 1: Oh no, sorry, wait no, he didn't say anything about.
Speaker 7: That, and obviously is absurd to suggest that the decision.
Speaker 7: I've never heard of this blike to be honest, AFL,
Speaker 7: I'm not even sure what the job is running the
Speaker 7: judiciary or the refs, the umpiring, the umpiring there you go, uh,
Speaker 7: the umpiring, that's a matter for the I f L frankly,
Speaker 7: and I don't know. There's too much uh except to
Speaker 7: say that that's the case. Common sense tells you that.
Speaker 1: They kind of let that one wash over him and
Speaker 1: Anaka Wells, the Sports Minister, was even less ready to
Speaker 1: criticize Setka I love this year. An Aid had to
Speaker 1: spring to her defense to stop a dreaded question on
Speaker 1: the topic.
Speaker 12: Effect, can I just take the Australian representatives of wife
Speaker 12: that's again.
Speaker 1: I think, sorry, well that's a real profile encouraged right there.
Speaker 1: But to his credit, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton declared, the
Speaker 1: Prime Minister needs to stand up to John's and the CFMEU.
Speaker 13: We know the CFMU donates four and a half million
Speaker 13: dollars a year to the Labor Party, but the Prime
Speaker 13: Minister needs to stand up for Australians and to stand
Speaker 13: up against this bullying. The Prime Minister would be the
Speaker 13: first out of the blocks as any of us would
Speaker 13: to condemn bullying in the workplace.
Speaker 1: Keith. We've seen this government get bullied by Palestine activists
Speaker 1: and dragged the left. Now they seem to be getting
Speaker 1: bullied by unions and not calling out this outrageous behavior. Now,
Speaker 1: unions have their place, but surely you know what John
Speaker 1: Setka has been talking about. That's unacceptable.
Speaker 9: Well, James, whatever happened to your rights at work? I
Speaker 9: seem to remember something about your rights at work? What's
Speaker 9: wrong with an individual who did his best and the
Speaker 9: Raleigh had previously and he's now got another job and
Speaker 9: the union wants to get rid of him because they
Speaker 9: didn't like the job he did last time. I mean,
Speaker 9: that's just it's an outrageous attack on an individual's right
Speaker 9: to actually earn a living.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 9: I don't know the gentleman involved. I don't think I've
Speaker 9: ever met him. But for every single Austrie that changes
Speaker 9: jobs or picks up another one, if the union gets
Speaker 9: a bent against you because if your previous role, apparently
Speaker 9: you can't be imployed again ever anywhere, I just think
Speaker 9: this is outrighteous.
Speaker 1: Just unbelievable. In Caroline, also here in Sydney, you know,
Speaker 1: we've seen this crazy situation where the light rail drivers
Speaker 1: and boy, they're going to be so happy when the
Speaker 1: driverless light rail comes in, aren't. They have been trying
Speaker 1: to strike and they did do strike because they want
Speaker 1: a twenty three percent pay increase. Is the figuring now
Speaker 1: on the part of the union's well, we've got labor
Speaker 1: wall to wall. Let's just, you know, get as many
Speaker 1: runs on board as we can.
Speaker 11: I mean, I would like a twenty three percent pay increase,
Speaker 11: true play pretty please. I mean most of the country would.
Speaker 11: We're all going for a cost of living crisis. But
Speaker 11: it's I mean, they do they I guess it is.
Speaker 11: That's what you get when you pretty much have a
Speaker 11: political party and the governing political party in your pocket.
Speaker 11: And it couldn't come at a worse time because we
Speaker 11: have vivid here at the moment, which is already chaos
Speaker 11: for the city, and now they're are all these strikes
Speaker 11: and closures happening on the road. We cannot afford this
Speaker 11: at this time.
Speaker 1: And it comes down to how, you know, the only
Speaker 1: growth and employment now is in the government government sectors.
Speaker 1: But anyway, that's another topic because I want to talk
Speaker 1: to you Caroline you have had an exclusive to Day
Speaker 1: about well, embarrassing is not even the word appalling, horrifying
Speaker 1: new campaign about cervical cancer that's been supported by Labor,
Speaker 1: The campaign, which has been granted millions of dollars in
Speaker 1: taxpayer funding, uses messages such as people with a cervix
Speaker 1: and I can't even believe I have to say this
Speaker 1: front Hall, Caroline, well done? What more can you tell
Speaker 1: us about about this?
Speaker 11: I felt the same way, have to say those words
Speaker 11: as part of my new story today. Well, this is
Speaker 11: a campaign, as you say, the government has poured millions
Speaker 11: of dollars into three point three millions of dollars giving
Speaker 11: it to this organization called Acorn, which was originally set
Speaker 11: up in the eighties to tackle HIV and AIDS, which
Speaker 11: obviously impacts mainly people within the LGBTQ community. As they're
Speaker 11: now known, it's moved on to become more of an
Speaker 11: activist organization generally, and then their most recent cervical cancer campaign,
Speaker 11: the one that's running currently, doesn't even use the word
Speaker 11: women in its campaign video about a disease that is
Speaker 11: deadly for women. It is the fourth most deadly cancer
Speaker 11: for women in the world, and more than two hundred
Speaker 11: women in Australia die from it every year, something like
Speaker 11: nine hundred women. This is a women's disease. Shouldn't be
Speaker 11: afraid to point out that biological fact that it affects
Speaker 11: women because the cervix is part of us, is a
Speaker 11: reproductive organ of women. But because the government wants to
Speaker 11: target particular groups, and among them are LGBTQ groups, which
Speaker 11: are one of the groups along with Indigenous migrant low
Speaker 11: education women to be more likely of not getting screened,
Speaker 11: they've poured funding into this activist organization. Now the problem
Speaker 11: with that is they've come up with this campaign. We
Speaker 11: don't know what the new campaign is going to look
Speaker 11: like exactly. We can only base it on what they've
Speaker 11: currently been doing, which is using words like front hole
Speaker 11: and people with a cervix.
Speaker 1: People you mean women?
Speaker 11: Yeah, they did women in some of their campaign material,
Speaker 11: but not in this particular video which I've shown. They
Speaker 11: they they're trying to appeal to everyone, and it just
Speaker 11: doesn't work because it's confusing language. When you have a
Speaker 11: public health message, the experts say you have to keep
Speaker 11: it as plain easy to understand as possible. A lot
Speaker 11: of people don't even know what a cervix is even women.
Speaker 11: So if you're trying to reach those people by saying
Speaker 11: anyone with a cervix, it's not especially clear. So you're
Speaker 11: alienating and offending a large proportion of people. I find
Speaker 11: it offensive to have words like front hole being used
Speaker 11: to describe parts of my anatomy. I'm sorry I said it,
Speaker 11: but I do know.
Speaker 1: Look, you're absolutely right. Cyril cancer is a really serious disease.
Speaker 1: As you say, it deserves a lot more respect than this. Keith,
Speaker 1: my question for you is, you know, labor, the left,
Speaker 1: the progressives, they love to say, oh, we're the party
Speaker 1: of science, We're the party of you know, reality and
Speaker 1: trusting evidence of all this sort of stuff, and yet
Speaker 1: the federal government has let something like this through. How
Speaker 1: does this happen?
Speaker 9: Well, it's just you know, that creeping incursion. If you
Speaker 9: allow this language to start and then take hold and
Speaker 9: then become common, well it becomes every And these are
Speaker 9: the reasons that I think people need to stand up
Speaker 9: and stop this sort of nonsense. And I a great
Speaker 9: complaintly with Caroline. I think it's highly offensive. And let's
Speaker 9: look at what the outcoming is here. You were trying
Speaker 9: to get people to do something about their health and
Speaker 9: what is a very very serious matter, and yet it
Speaker 9: gets caught up in all of this white gender mannerism.
Speaker 9: I can tell you a hot tip your day and
Speaker 9: I don't lie one or the other.
Speaker 8: That's just how it is.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, exactly, exactly right now, I want to end
Speaker 1: this segment here with China. On the subject of China,
Speaker 1: as Anthony Albinizi announced on Tuesday that China's premier Lee Kang,
Speaker 1: is coming here to Australia next week for a four
Speaker 1: day visit. It's the first visit to Australia about Chinese
Speaker 1: preer since twenty seventeen. Now you may recall that Lee
Speaker 1: Kang was the guy who referred to Albo when he
Speaker 1: visited China as a handsome boy coming from Australia last November.
Speaker 1: So how will Albo treat our distinguished guest, especially just
Speaker 1: nine days after Penny Wong's weak statement commemorating the thirty
Speaker 1: fifth anniversary of the Canaman Square masker Keith Anthony Albani
Speaker 1: is going to be Is he going to be intimidated
Speaker 1: by China's premiere and We're going to see more of
Speaker 1: the kind of weakness over major issues like those naval
Speaker 1: incidents and other things. When we see Lee Kyang visit here.
Speaker 8: Unfortunately the Prime Minister has got form.
Speaker 9: You can't play both sides of the street here and
Speaker 9: at what cost to our sovereignty? Are these decisions being
Speaker 9: made now? China has reopened tried in a number of
Speaker 9: areas and that's very valuable for Austria's economy in Austrie
Speaker 9: and produces, But once.
Speaker 8: Again, at at what cost?
Speaker 9: And on a liner note, will Bill Shorten be back
Speaker 9: from measuring up the curtains in Europe?
Speaker 8: We'll d here's it be out of the fraser? Will
Speaker 8: any of them be there? It came out on company tax?
Speaker 14: And well, this is a great question to me because
Speaker 14: you know, Carolyn Marcus, what you know We've got Bill
Speaker 14: Shorten off in Switzerland next week when.
Speaker 1: He's going to be at a Ukraine peace summit. What
Speaker 1: does this have to do? What does sending the NDIS
Speaker 1: Minister to do with Zelensky and are frankly not always
Speaker 1: that forthcoming aid to Ukraine have to do with Bill
Speaker 1: Shorten and the NDIS. Is this just like a cynical
Speaker 1: play to get him off the front pages.
Speaker 11: It must be because there's all these stories about fraud
Speaker 11: happening within the NDIS. It's costing us billions, it's going
Speaker 11: up every year. Just get him out of the country
Speaker 11: and then he doesn't have to face those tough questions
Speaker 11: because unless they're going to suggest that Putin has some
Speaker 11: kind of learning disability, what does someone with the NDIS
Speaker 11: portfolio have to do with a negotiating piece for Ukraine.
Speaker 11: It makes absolutely no sense. But they're also sending ann
Speaker 11: Ali over to Jordan to help negotiate for peace in
Speaker 11: the Middle East. It's what does that have to do
Speaker 11: with the early childhood portfolio unless they're going to tackle
Speaker 11: the issue of how Palestinian children in Gaza are being
Speaker 11: brainwashed and indoctrinated to hate Jewish children. And I don't
Speaker 11: think she's going to be a Jews. I don't think
Speaker 11: she's going to be tackling that. I dare say she
Speaker 11: doesn't have a lot to do with them.
Speaker 1: Yeah. No, last word to you, Keith Pitt, I mean,
Speaker 1: why isn't Penny Wong off on this important mission. Every
Speaker 1: other major country is going to have somebody of that caliber.
Speaker 1: And also Albo skipped D Day. What do you make
Speaker 1: of that?
Speaker 9: Well, Firstly, I think Senator Wong's not playing up. You've
Speaker 9: got Edie Whusick out calling for company tax changes.
Speaker 8: Hey got put in the freezer.
Speaker 9: You've got Bill Shorton's overseas, and I think it's in Switzerland.
Speaker 8: That's not too far from France.
Speaker 9: He might drop into Paris to measure the curtains over
Speaker 9: there for an opportunity as an ambassador.
Speaker 8: Oh and you know, there's.
Speaker 9: Some serious issues at hand. And I've got to give
Speaker 9: Penny wonger joie. I mean, she's she's quite a formidable
Speaker 9: foreign minister, there's no doubt about that. I'd agree with it,
Speaker 9: with all of her positions, but she is a good performer.
Speaker 9: And why wouldn't you send the foreign minister to these
Speaker 9: types of events. I think they just try to hide
Speaker 9: the trouble before anything gets completely out of hand.
Speaker 1: Exactly right, Keith Pitt, Caroline Marcus, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for your time this evening, and we'll be back after
Speaker 1: the break. Coming up. Australian universities are wasting billions of
Speaker 1: dollars who knew on administrative staff. Plus a radical proposal
Speaker 1: to listen more troops to the ADF and solve the
Speaker 1: housing crisis after the break. Welcome back to Paulbury Live.
Speaker 1: James Morrow here sitting in for the great Man. Now
Speaker 1: let's bring in my next panelist, Queensland lnp MP LNPMP
Speaker 1: Henry Pike. I can get that and from PR Council.
Speaker 1: Christy mcsweetey, thank you so much for joining us here
Speaker 1: on the program tonight. I want to talk first about
Speaker 1: this story we had in the Daily Telegraph today that
Speaker 1: revealed that Australian universities are spending billions on administrative staff
Speaker 1: instead of professors who knew more administrative staff are now
Speaker 1: employed at universities than actual lecturers and researchers fifty seven
Speaker 1: percent compared to forty three percent. At the University of Sindey,
Speaker 1: which has been littered with pro Palestine protests and encampments.
Speaker 1: This year, the university spent six hundred and three million
Speaker 1: dollars on forty nine hundred and nine administrative staff, compared
Speaker 1: with five hundred and seventy seven million on thirty five
Speaker 1: hundred and seventy four academic staff, according to the latest
Speaker 1: publicly available figures that've been released, Christy, what do you
Speaker 1: make of this gross miscalculation by our universities, and at
Speaker 1: a time when the universities are saying, oh no, you
Speaker 1: can't cut foreign students because you know that's how we
Speaker 1: fund all of our research and teaching and all the
Speaker 1: great stuff. Well, it sounds like the soliv word war,
Speaker 1: doesn't it.
Speaker 15: Well, James, you and I have done this over enough
Speaker 15: budget cycles and enough government change now to know that
Speaker 15: the universities number one concern is going cap in hand,
Speaker 15: no pun intended, particularly what we call the Gaight Universities,
Speaker 15: which is the group of establishment university Sandstone universities of
Speaker 15: which the University of Sydney is won, going to the
Speaker 15: government every budget and every election cycle to seek commitments
Speaker 15: for we need more money for research. And their point
Speaker 15: of view and their argument is always Australia it's going
Speaker 15: to lose its international standing. It's going to lose numbers
Speaker 15: of the number of universities on the top one hundred
Speaker 15: times university list, which is their benchmark standard that they
Speaker 15: measure against, in which they use as a selling point
Speaker 15: to get more international students who come to Australia as
Speaker 15: part of our twenty six billion dollar international education sector.
Speaker 15: Do not cry poor at election time or budget time.
Speaker 15: If you are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on
Speaker 15: administration stuff, not teaching stuff, and not research stuff. And
Speaker 15: I want to know, James, is this an FTE account
Speaker 15: or does this include the hundreds of thousands of stuff
Speaker 15: on flexi time and part time contracts and people working
Speaker 15: one day week from home remotely. I would like to
Speaker 15: know that breakdown as well.
Speaker 1: Well. Yeah, and Henry, I mean it begs the question,
Speaker 1: what do you reckon these people are doing all day?
Speaker 1: And if you know you're a student who's paying for
Speaker 1: this university, if you're paying off a hex dat, if
Speaker 1: you're a parent helping a kid through university, where's the
Speaker 1: money's worth here?
Speaker 10: That's a very good question, James. I think that the
Speaker 10: bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the growing bureaucracy,
Speaker 10: and I think that seems to be as true in
Speaker 10: university campuses as it is in government bureaucratic establishments across
Speaker 10: our cities. I think that it's clear that the universities
Speaker 10: have got their priorities wrong here. They're not really focused
Speaker 10: on achieving those educational outcomes they should be focused on. Instead,
Speaker 10: it seems that they are building little empires to feed
Speaker 10: more and more mouths. It's just getting ridiculous and I
Speaker 10: think it's high time that these vice chancellors have a
Speaker 10: proper look at this and every other issue that we're
Speaker 10: seeing pure on campuses at the moment.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean that's before we get even into the
Speaker 1: whole question of vice chancellors and their salaries, but that
Speaker 1: might be another topic for another night. Now, Henry, I
Speaker 1: want to ask you about this year question, your deputy
Speaker 1: chair of the Parliament's Human Rights Committee, where Labor is
Speaker 1: pushing a human rights bill which aims to you say,
Speaker 1: devalue societal norms around free have thought, religion and belief.
Speaker 1: Now you've got six thousand signatures on a petition against this.
Speaker 1: Tell us, Henry Pake, what is this all about and
Speaker 1: what's the real danger here?
Speaker 10: Well, James, this is very much about an attempt by
Speaker 10: the left of the human rights establishment to try to
Speaker 10: create a trojan horse to get into our legislation. They're
Speaker 10: essentially trying to find a way to create some sort
Speaker 10: of super quasi constitutional bit of legislation that will essentially
Speaker 10: take out of the hands of the Parliament the ability
Speaker 10: to legislate on matters related to human rights and give
Speaker 10: the power to interpret these laws through to the judiciary,
Speaker 10: who are going to be asked to make all sorts
Speaker 10: of different calls on all sorts of contentious issues. We've
Speaker 10: seen this create all sorts of issues in the United Kingdom,
Speaker 10: and unfortunately the left in Australia are trying to create
Speaker 10: the same problem for us here. We saw massive conference
Speaker 10: last week of left wing academics and different figures, probably
Speaker 10: some of the people we discussed in the first question
Speaker 10: there who came together and discussed what, you know, what
Speaker 10: they want to see within this act. And I've seen
Speaker 10: what the draft act is. It doesn't make pretty reading.
Speaker 10: We lodged it, senting report against it, and I'm trying
Speaker 10: to blow the whistle here to say everyone please pay
Speaker 10: close attention to what the government's going to be proposing
Speaker 10: through this Human Rights Act, because it's certainly not going
Speaker 10: to be good for faith groups in this country, and
Speaker 10: it's not going to be good for anyone who likes
Speaker 10: to exercise their freedom of speech.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, Christy, you know, I come from the
Speaker 1: United States, where obviously the thing is that you know,
Speaker 1: we've got a Bill of Rights, not a Human Rights Act,
Speaker 1: and it says basically the government will not interfere with
Speaker 1: your freedom of speech and your freedom of religion and
Speaker 1: sort this seems like very much an effort to interfere
Speaker 1: with and meddle with freedom. It's almost only an anti
Speaker 1: freedom act. Christy, what are your thoughts on this?
Speaker 15: What's outsourcing issues that could be controversial? We have seen
Speaker 15: several governments put religious freedom to bed and do their
Speaker 15: best to try and put that away or sweep it
Speaker 15: under the rug, or reform it in various ways, so
Speaker 15: it's not controversial. This is a way of doing that.
Speaker 15: But of course, as we've seen with immigration, when you
Speaker 15: outsource decision making to the judiciary, or when the judiciary
Speaker 15: already has those decision making powers as in the immigration case,
Speaker 15: the judiciary can catch the government by surprise. It's incumbent
Speaker 15: upon the government to take the advice from the Australian
Speaker 15: Government solicitor to make sure they know what the judiciary
Speaker 15: is going to do and implement and is thinking of doing.
Speaker 15: And any government who wants to outsource controversial decisions to
Speaker 15: the judiciary needs to pull up their desk make sure
Speaker 15: it sits directly next to the Australian governments solicitor. You're
Speaker 15: creating more proper then you're trying to get away from often.
Speaker 1: Well, indeed, now I'm glad you mentioned immigration there, Christy,
Speaker 1: because I want to move on to the topic of housing,
Speaker 1: which is of course closely tied to immigrations and a
Speaker 1: lot of big stories on this topic. Three of the
Speaker 1: nation's capitals have been ranked among the ten most unaffordable
Speaker 1: global cities. Keith, what hope is there going to be
Speaker 1: for younger Australians to buy a home get into the
Speaker 1: market after you've seen these sort of figures, which Adelaide
Speaker 1: is ninth and Sydney second in unaffordability, I mean Adelaide's
Speaker 1: in that top ten. Now, what is going on and
Speaker 1: what is the LNP going to do to help break
Speaker 1: this sort of cycle of unaffordability at the next election.
Speaker 1: This seems to be the key to getting the youth vote.
Speaker 10: Absolutely, it certainly is a massive issue out there and
Speaker 10: talking to a lot of young people within my electric
Speaker 10: I know Brisbane isn't quite on the top three list there,
Speaker 10: but luckily we're a little bit further down, but still
Speaker 10: concerningly unaffordable out in my neck of the woods, and
Speaker 10: certainly a lot of young people that I'm talking to
Speaker 10: are talking about the fact that they've basically given up
Speaker 10: on the ability to own their own home, and I
Speaker 10: think that's a terrible thing.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 10: I come from the party of Robert Menzies, who talked
Speaker 10: about in the Forgotten People's Speech about the importance of
Speaker 10: home ownership and the importance of giving Australians that stake
Speaker 10: in the country. And I think it's really important that
Speaker 10: governments turn their mind to how we're actually going to
Speaker 10: address this. And it's not about pumping demand. It's got
Speaker 10: to be about finding new ways to boost supply. You know,
Speaker 10: we are globally unaffordable now that's official. Those numbers demonstrate
Speaker 10: that we need to find ways to boost supply. It's
Speaker 10: about investing in infrastructure. It's about lowering property taxes. It's
Speaker 10: about getting onto councils and ensuring that they get those
Speaker 10: approvals done. And I want to see more of that
Speaker 10: from L and P oppositions, you know, creating those policies
Speaker 10: as we head towards an selections, both at state level
Speaker 10: and the federal level.
Speaker 1: And Chris, we've seen some really interesting solutions proposed in
Speaker 1: the media along with all of this stuff about supply
Speaker 1: and taxes and things like that. There's even been a
Speaker 1: veteran today who proposed giving people who sign up for
Speaker 1: the ADF where we know there's a big recruitment crisis
Speaker 1: fifty grand bang cash on the barrel to help them
Speaker 1: buy a house. Is this a two birds with one
Speaker 1: stone solution or is that just a little too pat Christy?
Speaker 5: Oh?
Speaker 15: Look, I'm not an advocate or a fan of that
Speaker 15: policy just because I don't think it's going to work.
Speaker 8: I think in this.
Speaker 15: Precarious global environment that we're operating goo politically, I don't
Speaker 15: think there's a lot of young people who would see
Speaker 15: the upside tipped in favor of getting fifty thousand dollars.
Speaker 15: I think there's a lot of young people out there, though,
Speaker 15: who would like to access their super at a time
Speaker 15: of life of which they have that available and make
Speaker 15: sure it's paid back into, as is the coalition's policy.
Speaker 15: But I will say that there is absolutely no pathway
Speaker 15: back to victory for the Coalition if it does not
Speaker 15: promote its superannuation access policy to young people in teal seats.
Speaker 15: Because parents are also worried about their children. And I
Speaker 15: say children, but I mean people under forty thirty five
Speaker 15: to forty who can't afford property, who can't afford to
Speaker 15: live in the neighborhood that they grew up with or
Speaker 15: nearby their family, and because of that, they're delaying having
Speaker 15: families because they don't have that economic structure of owning
Speaker 15: a home around them, which they feel quite rightly is
Speaker 15: the most appropriate environment for them to go forth and
Speaker 15: have a family within. So it is a real issue
Speaker 15: and it has to be hammered home to people in
Speaker 15: teal seats, not just the outer suburbs.
Speaker 1: And Henry, let's go back to Queensland, your home state. There,
Speaker 1: Opposition leader dear Chris fully with a bold new proposal
Speaker 1: to see that if a young couple they're building their
Speaker 1: first home, it's buying their first home, and they build
Speaker 1: it no stamp duty, it's going to save tens of
Speaker 1: thousands of dollars potentially. How much is the state's addictions
Speaker 1: to stamp duty helping to cruel the hopes of so
Speaker 1: many people trying to get into the market. What do
Speaker 1: you make of the opposition's policy there. Obviously, I suppose
Speaker 1: you're going to be in favor of that one.
Speaker 10: I am going to be in favor of it. You'd
Speaker 10: be surprised to hear, James. But I think it's broader
Speaker 10: than just that. I mean, the getting rid of stamp
Speaker 10: duty for first home buyers who are going to buy
Speaker 10: a new home is a I think a really strong
Speaker 10: message to send to first home buyers. But getting rid
Speaker 10: of stamp duty, you know, broader than that. It's not
Speaker 10: just about first home buyers. You know, if we can,
Speaker 10: if we can sort of lower the level of stamp
Speaker 10: duty across the board, across states, then we could see
Speaker 10: a lot more older people decide to get into a
Speaker 10: property that might be for the rights for their retirement
Speaker 10: and free up more stock in the housing market. But
Speaker 10: what I was particularly pleased about today with the Coalition's
Speaker 10: policy that they've announced in the budget reply up here
Speaker 10: in Queensland was a big fund to help local governments
Speaker 10: build that sort of trunk infrastructure that they need to
Speaker 10: actually boost supply. We can't currently where the suburbs are
Speaker 10: rolling out into new areas, we just haven't got the infrastructure.
Speaker 10: And I think it's a really important announcement today from
Speaker 10: David Chrisofully and his team, and I think he'll be
Speaker 10: really well received by aspiring first home buyers in particularly
Speaker 10: in southeast Queensland.
Speaker 1: Well, you guys are the box seat to win that election,
Speaker 1: so we might get to see how that plays out.
Speaker 1: Henry Play, Christy McSweeney, thank you so much for your time. Now,
Speaker 1: don't go anywhere, because coming up, we've got child and
Speaker 1: adalystent psychologist Claire Role right here on the program, right
Speaker 1: here on set to break down Peter Dutton's proposal to
Speaker 1: lift the minimum age of access to social media. After
Speaker 1: the break, welcome back to Paul Murray Live. I'm your
Speaker 1: host James Borrow for the evening. Now our position leader
Speaker 1: Peter Dutton has vowed to lift the minimum age of
Speaker 1: social media to sixteen within one hundred days of office
Speaker 1: if he is elected.
Speaker 13: It's inconceivable that you would just allow your thirteen year
Speaker 13: old to go down to a local park and just
Speaker 13: start mingling with any random person who comes by, Or
Speaker 13: that you would have a magazine on the table with
Speaker 13: all sorts of explicit content in it and that you
Speaker 13: would allow your kid to flick through that content. I mean,
Speaker 13: it's just it's inconceivable. So there's a lot that we
Speaker 13: can do, and the technology is trending in our favor
Speaker 13: to make sure that we can deal with the scale
Speaker 13: of the problem.
Speaker 1: And this comes just a week after a male teenager
Speaker 1: was arrested and released by police as the investigated AI
Speaker 1: generated nude images using the faces of at least fifty
Speaker 1: female students from a Victorian high school that were circulated online.
Speaker 1: The fake images used the schoolgirls' faces on AI generated bodies,
Speaker 1: and there were some pretty disturbing stuff there, believe me,
Speaker 1: but not everybody agrees with all of this. National Center
Speaker 1: of Matt Canavan opposed the proposed law when speaking on
Speaker 1: nine earlier today.
Speaker 16: I don't necessarily think it's something a governmental a law
Speaker 16: can change. It does take, as I say, a village
Speaker 16: to raise a community, and we've all got a chip
Speaker 16: in to try and make sure that young boys understand
Speaker 16: what it means to grow up to be a man
Speaker 16: and live by the standards that to society expects well.
Speaker 1: To sort through all of this now, I am thrilled
Speaker 1: to be joined by child and adolescent psychologist Claire rou Claire.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the program. Now tell me who's right here?
Speaker 1: Is Peter Dutton on the money about restricting access or
Speaker 1: when it comes to things like these horrendous AI generated
Speaker 1: images and all these bands. Are we treating more the
Speaker 1: symptoms rather than an underlying societal disease as Matt Cannavan suggests.
Speaker 8: Okay, well, I think it's a bit of both. But
Speaker 8: first of all, I'd like to.
Speaker 17: Say, I think this is a really strong statement from
Speaker 17: the opposition leader. I mean, I think he's come out there.
Speaker 17: I think this is a play at middle Australia, at
Speaker 17: families about things that parents are really struggling with. I
Speaker 17: would say far more than say the Paris Agreement. I
Speaker 17: think you know, and I think going to what you're
Speaker 17: talking about earlier in the program, I mean it does
Speaker 17: he know something we don't know. I feel like we're
Speaker 17: warming up in election modus with that statement. Actually, you know,
Speaker 17: if you vote for us within one hundred days, we
Speaker 17: will ban this for kids. I mean that's a pretty
Speaker 17: strong and it's come out swinging today. I think with that, look,
Speaker 17: I understand. My position is as a child psychologist, no surprise,
Speaker 17: I am passionately against kids under the age of sixteen
Speaker 17: having any access to social media.
Speaker 1: So you think sixteen is the age?
Speaker 17: I think kids under sixteen shouldn't have a smartphone. Yeah, right,
Speaker 17: I actually think it's broader than social media. I actually
Speaker 17: don't think I don't think we should legislate that, okay,
Speaker 17: but I don't think kids should be given the Internet
Speaker 17: in the pocket all day at age twelve. I just
Speaker 17: I am, you know, very supportive of parents of giving
Speaker 17: them a flip dumb phone if they need to call
Speaker 17: parents and not have access to the internet at thirteen
Speaker 17: years old, on them at all times. But I understand
Speaker 17: the difficulties with how do we enforce this, And from
Speaker 17: a legislative perspective, I can understand that we don't want
Speaker 17: to make laws that can't be enforced. I mean, that
Speaker 17: makes a mockery of laws, right. But from what Matt
Speaker 17: Canavan was saying, that the issue with social media could
Speaker 17: be solved tomorrow and what it would take, it's collective
Speaker 17: action by parents.
Speaker 1: That's true.
Speaker 17: No parent hands their child a mobile phone with Snapchat
Speaker 17: and Instagram and social media at age thirteen willingly and
Speaker 17: happily they hand it over because they're the only ones
Speaker 17: in the classroom without it, okay, and so they're isolated
Speaker 17: and they're not on the messages, and they're like, oh okay,
Speaker 17: roll well, they hand it over. If there was a
Speaker 17: couple more in that classroom that didn't have it, parents
Speaker 17: would feel confident and in boldened to say no, you're
Speaker 17: not having it.
Speaker 1: How much of the problem then is that, you know,
Speaker 1: like these laws are already going to be respected by people,
Speaker 1: the parents who are doing the right thing or what,
Speaker 1: just that bit of backup, but they're being undermined by
Speaker 1: you know, other parents or just by sort of other
Speaker 1: messages in society.
Speaker 17: Well, I think that that's why. I mean, I was
Speaker 17: very opposed to legislating this purely because I don't like
Speaker 17: big brother and people telling you a government telling us
Speaker 17: how to parent. But at the end of the day,
Speaker 17: I think that's what legislation will do. It will give
Speaker 17: parents the confidence to be able to say no, mate,
Speaker 17: it's against the law. And you're not the only ones.
Speaker 17: There's a pocket of view in the class who don't
Speaker 17: have it, and I think that pocket will then grow.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So is there a danger then, though, that if
Speaker 1: everybody has to sign up for the internet, though, you're
Speaker 1: also losing the anonymity which gives government war control over
Speaker 1: other aspects of our lives very quickly.
Speaker 15: Yeah.
Speaker 17: Well, this is a problem, is how it's going to
Speaker 17: be enforced, and I feel very uncomfortable if we're going
Speaker 17: down to kind of the ID identity face recognition thing
Speaker 17: like that. And so the debate that needs to happen
Speaker 17: is not should we ban it? But then, you know,
Speaker 17: what is the process of signing up to these sites?
Speaker 1: A lot to unpack there. Thank you so much, Child
Speaker 1: and adolescent psychologist Claire row Now that's it from me tonight.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for watching, and thanks to Paul
Speaker 1: for letting me host. Paul will be back in the
Speaker 1: man game on Sunday, and I'll be hosting my regular show,
Speaker 1: The US Report tomorrow night at eight. You can also
Speaker 1: see me Sunday morning at nine am for Outsiders with
Speaker 1: Rowan and Rita. In the meantime, the Late Debate coming
Speaker 1: up next Good night,