Speaker 1: Late General, welcome the Late Debate.
Speaker 2: Well thanks for joining us on the Late Late Debate.
Speaker 2: I'm James Macpherson with this story and Caleb Bond coming
Speaker 2: up tonight along with all of the federal budget coverage.
Speaker 2: A man in South Australia has been charged with the
Speaker 2: crime of sacrilege. Yes, that's a crime and it carries
Speaker 2: a life sentence. We'll tell you what he's alleged to
Speaker 2: have done a little later when we.
Speaker 1: Get to the papers.
Speaker 2: Of course, how tomorrow's newspapers are reporting on Jim Chalmer's
Speaker 2: budget trigger warning it's not good and an interesting story
Speaker 2: in tomorrow's Can's Post twenty five percent of residents in
Speaker 2: the city arming themselves with machetes and guns to ward
Speaker 2: off youth criminals. We'll get to that a little later,
Speaker 2: but as I said, the big story tonight is the
Speaker 2: federal budget, and of course the headline doing the rounds
Speaker 2: tonight was the shock at tax cuts. I'm still not
Speaker 2: sure whether the shock was that tax cuts were offered
Speaker 2: or that, having been offered, they were so pitiful. But
Speaker 2: before we get to Caleb's run through of Jim Charmer's speech,
Speaker 2: I want to show you a couple of tomorrow's front pages.
Speaker 2: The Adelaide Advertiser had a lot of fun with the budget.
Speaker 2: They went with the headline Mike Happy meal Jim, because
Speaker 2: of course, the tax cut is just five dollars a week,
Speaker 2: which is sorry the Adelaide Advertiser, What did I say,
Speaker 2: he says.
Speaker 3: The advertiser, your second guess.
Speaker 1: The Adelaid advertising I know, Jim.
Speaker 3: Chalmers has your second guessing yourself because he promised you
Speaker 3: a tax cut that isn't really a tax cut. But
Speaker 3: still learn second gainst.
Speaker 1: Yourself after that tax cut. Yeah, I'm second guessing everything.
Speaker 1: MC happy meal Jim. They said five.
Speaker 2: Dollars a week, the Adelaid advertisers worked out, is enough
Speaker 2: to buy you a McNugget, a six nugget Michappy meal
Speaker 2: once a week, which is sure going to alleviate the
Speaker 2: cost of living crisis. I like what they've done though,
Speaker 2: is they've compared the five dollars a week tax cut
Speaker 2: we will get in more than a year from now
Speaker 2: with the fifteen thousand dollars a week the pandas at
Speaker 2: Adelaide Zoo will get from the federal government to keep
Speaker 2: them fed. So if you want to know where the
Speaker 2: government's priorities are there.
Speaker 4: You go keeping China's panda bears chovvy to the front
Speaker 4: page of the Daily telling now they got the second
Speaker 4: gong from us. Chalmers grand offer to voters a five
Speaker 4: dollars tax cut Jim Pickings, The Splash reads Treasurer Jim
Speaker 4: Charmers has fired the starting gun on the federal election
Speaker 4: with a pitifully small tax cut and deficits as far
Speaker 4: as the eye can see. Of course, everyone's attention is
Speaker 4: on the fact that there is nothing bold in this budget.
Speaker 4: It is more of the saying, despite the very thorough
Speaker 4: summarization of this.
Speaker 5: Budget that you would have heard if you've been watching
Speaker 5: all day to day.
Speaker 6: I think Paul Murray did the best job when he.
Speaker 4: Said, this thing reads like someone's assignment that they wrote
Speaker 4: the night it was due. It's very simplistic and it's
Speaker 4: just more of the same case.
Speaker 3: And then that's what he said, it was the easiest
Speaker 3: budget he's ever had to analyze. And I kind of
Speaker 3: have to concur with that, because much like the Daily
Speaker 3: Telegraph is saying, you know, this is a budget that
Speaker 3: is the starting gun for the election. Last year, Jim
Speaker 3: Charmers said that that budget last year was a budget
Speaker 3: for the future, and I said at the time, it's
Speaker 3: barely a budget for the here and now, let alone
Speaker 3: in the future. This is not a budget for the
Speaker 3: next five years. I heard someone else in the evening say,
Speaker 3: it's a budget for the next five weeks. And if
Speaker 3: you listen to the language that Jim Charmers, the Treasurer,
Speaker 3: was using tonight, he's setting this up as you know,
Speaker 3: we've come this far, We've just got to go a
Speaker 3: little bit further.
Speaker 7: This budget builds on the progress that we have made together.
Speaker 7: Our economy is turning the corner. Inflation is down, incomes
Speaker 7: are rising, unemployment is low, interest rates are coming down,
Speaker 7: debt is down, and growth is picking up momentum. We've
Speaker 7: come a long way together, but there is more work
Speaker 7: to do. This budget is our plan for a new
Speaker 7: generation of prosperity in a new world of uncertainty. It's
Speaker 7: a plan to help finish the fight against inflation.
Speaker 3: You know he's talking about we've done this together, we
Speaker 3: have to finish the fight. We are turning the corner.
Speaker 3: All of this language is pointing to the campaign that
Speaker 3: the Albanese government is setting up. That is, you've helped
Speaker 3: us get this far in fighting inflation. You've helped us
Speaker 3: get this far in fixing the books, though we'll talk
Speaker 3: a little later about how they haven't really fixed the books.
Speaker 3: We need your vote to help us finish off the job,
Speaker 3: which funnily enough, is exactly the same campaign that Bob
Speaker 3: hawkran in nineteen eighty seven. We're on our way, We're
Speaker 3: on the right track.
Speaker 2: Australia have always been good at fighting.
Speaker 1: That with a little more strength and patience.
Speaker 4: Really are stress you'll vote?
Speaker 3: Weren't happen ever?
Speaker 5: Happenne together? Let's see.
Speaker 3: Then? It makes you yearn for a better time, doesn't it.
Speaker 3: Why can't a political party come up with a positive
Speaker 3: message like that anymore? Great jingles, but of course the
Speaker 3: only thing anyone really cares about at the moment is
Speaker 3: cost of living, and it's got a few shows in
Speaker 3: this budget speech.
Speaker 7: It's a plan to help with the cost of living.
Speaker 7: This is a responsible budget with five main priorities helping
Speaker 7: with the cost of living. The cost of living is
Speaker 7: front of mind for most Australians and it is front
Speaker 7: and center in this budget. New plans for cost of
Speaker 7: living and health are accompanied by new investments in housing.
Speaker 3: He Ada Ada at a cost of living. Never mind
Speaker 3: the fact that you and your government have made it worse,
Speaker 3: Doctor Charmers over at the last three years. But there
Speaker 3: weren't that many cost of living measures in this budget.
Speaker 3: The major one, though, the plank of their cost of
Speaker 3: living relief is a measly tax cut.
Speaker 7: Every Australian taxpayer will get a tax cut next year
Speaker 7: and the year after to top up the tax cuts
Speaker 7: which began in July. This will take the first tax
Speaker 7: rate down to its lowest level in more than half
Speaker 7: a century. These additional tax cuts are modest, but they
Speaker 7: will make a difference. The average urner will have an
Speaker 7: extra five hundred and thirty six dollars in their pocket
Speaker 7: each year when they're fully implemented. Combined with our first
Speaker 7: round of tax cuts, this is two thousand, one hundred
Speaker 7: and ninety dollars, and the average total tax cut will
Speaker 7: be two thousand, five hundred and forty eight dollars, or
Speaker 7: about fifty dollars a week.
Speaker 3: I mean, seriously, what he's talking about there is the
Speaker 3: Stage three tax cuts that he changed, so a lot
Speaker 3: of people actually got fewer tax cuts last year, and
Speaker 3: then adding that on to the measly tax cut. He'll
Speaker 3: give you this year, which is well, actually it's not
Speaker 3: this year, it's next year. Five dollars on July the first,
Speaker 3: twenty twenty six, and then ten dollars on July the first,
Speaker 3: twenty twenty seven. It's hardly a major tax cut. And
Speaker 3: he tries to make it sound like we are putting
Speaker 3: more money back in your pocket, but we know, thanks
Speaker 3: to the illusion of bracket creep, they're not putting any
Speaker 3: more money back in your pocket. This is the reality
Speaker 3: of what the Albanesi government has done to take more
Speaker 3: money from you. A decade ago, the income tax receipts
Speaker 3: that the federal government took in were two hundred and
Speaker 3: fifty eight point eight billion dollars. Remember that number, two
Speaker 3: hundred and fifty eight point eight billion dollars just ten
Speaker 3: years ago. This financial year there'll be four hundred and
Speaker 3: ninety seven point six billion. Now that's one and a
Speaker 3: half billion dollars more than we were told in the
Speaker 3: midyear financial update they would be. And it's ninety two
Speaker 3: two point two seven percent more than they were taking
Speaker 3: from you ten years ago. The income tax take has doubled,
Speaker 3: almost doubled in ten years now. In that time, inflation's
Speaker 3: gone up by about thirty percent, and the working population
Speaker 3: is increased by about twenty five percent. So yes, they
Speaker 3: will have taken more money in income tax, but that
Speaker 3: doesn't explain a near doubling in the money they have taken.
Speaker 3: So keep that in mind. Four hundred and ninety seven
Speaker 3: point six billion this financial year. Next financial year, they're
Speaker 3: going to take five hundred and twenty two point seven billion,
Speaker 3: yet more tax from you. Then here after that, which
Speaker 3: is when you get your five dollars off every week.
Speaker 3: Remember this is when the tax cup comes through. They're
Speaker 3: still taking more money five hundred and forty seven point
Speaker 3: five two billion, twenty twenty seven, twenty eight, five hundred
Speaker 3: and seventy billion, twenty twenty eight, twenty nine, six hundred
Speaker 3: and five point three five billion over the forward estimates
Speaker 3: in the budget they released tonight. That's another one hundred
Speaker 3: billion dollars in income tax they're going to take from
Speaker 3: you over the next four years. And the Treasurer has
Speaker 3: the gall to stand up and say we've given you
Speaker 3: tax cuts of thousands of dollars, or any tax cut
Speaker 3: you've been given has been eaten up by bracket creep
Speaker 3: and the increased in costs you've had to pay, and
Speaker 3: all this extra money he's taken from you, what's he
Speaker 3: done with it?
Speaker 7: In this term, we've banked around seventy percent of tax
Speaker 7: receipt upgrades.
Speaker 3: So you don't cut spending in line with the extra
Speaker 3: money that you've taken. You just squirrel that money away
Speaker 3: and put it somewhere else and say, we'll fantastic we've
Speaker 3: been able to take it from you without you even
Speaker 3: noticing we've done it, and then we'll tell you you've given
Speaker 3: we've been giving you a tax cut. If you're getting
Speaker 3: more tax from us, how about your offset that with
Speaker 3: less spending so you don't have to keep taxing us?
Speaker 3: More strange thought, I know. The only other cost of
Speaker 3: living measure, of course, was one that we already knew,
Speaker 3: and that's an increase in the power rebate.
Speaker 7: Electricity prices in the official data went down twenty five
Speaker 7: percent last year, but they're still putting pressure on households
Speaker 7: around the world. Two rounds of energy rebates have helped
Speaker 7: take some of the sting out of energy costs. Tonight,
Speaker 7: we're providing another one point eight billion dollars in energy
Speaker 7: bill relief.
Speaker 3: Did anyone else hear that he said power bills went
Speaker 3: down by twenty five percent last year. Twenty five percent,
Speaker 3: Jim Charmers, what planet are you living on. None of
Speaker 3: us who looked at our power bills over the last
Speaker 3: year could possibly say that they've gone down by twenty
Speaker 3: five percent. What he's trying to tell you is the
Speaker 3: subsidy that we brought in means you paid less for power.
Speaker 3: It didn't mean the actual power bill went down. It
Speaker 3: was money that the federal government took from your taxes
Speaker 3: and then handed to power companies so that when they
Speaker 3: sent you your bill it didn't look quite as large as
Speaker 3: it actually was. It did not change the cost of energy.
Speaker 3: A power bill. The average power bill in New South
Speaker 3: Wales on July the first this year will be one
Speaker 3: thousand dollars more than the Albanesy government promised before it
Speaker 3: came to power. Remember they said two hundred and seventy
Speaker 3: five dollars off by twenty twenty five, but we'll give
Speaker 3: you another one hundred and fifty measly dollars in a rebate,
Speaker 3: not an actual cut to your bill by the end
Speaker 3: of this year. And despite all of this that it's
Speaker 3: not actually working. We're not getting these real cuts. They're
Speaker 3: still going to spend more on green energy and metals.
Speaker 7: In this budget. We're investing more than three billion dollars
Speaker 7: to support the production of Australian made green metals like
Speaker 7: aluminium and iron, building on the tax incentives for critical
Speaker 7: minerals and green hydrogen that we legislated last year.
Speaker 3: Now, I will note that he never really mentioned renewable
Speaker 3: energy in this budget speech, for very good reason, because
Speaker 3: he knows that's why our power bills have gone up.
Speaker 3: But he's still talking about, oh, we're going to invest
Speaker 3: in green metals. He must have missed the story in
Speaker 3: The Australian earlier this month that said ninety nine percent
Speaker 3: of green hydrogen projects in this country haven't gotten past
Speaker 3: the concept stage and it's green hydrogen that is so
Speaker 3: important to making green metals work in this country. He
Speaker 3: must have also missed, of course, that the smelter at
Speaker 3: Port Agusta in South Australia the still work. Sorry in
Speaker 3: South Australia have fallen apart in the last month. It's
Speaker 3: not happening, and yet they're spending more money. And he
Speaker 3: had the gall Dr Chalmers to say that this government
Speaker 3: had exercised spending restraint.
Speaker 7: Next year's deficit is forty two billion dollars, lower than
Speaker 7: what was forecast at the last election and lower than
Speaker 7: at the midyear update. Gross step will hit nine hundred
Speaker 7: and forty billion dollars this financial year, one hundred and
Speaker 7: seventy seven seven billion dollars lower than what we inherited
Speaker 7: this man's will. I've avoid around sixty billion dollars in
Speaker 7: interest costs over the decade. These are some of the
Speaker 7: dividends of our responsible economic management, achieved through a combination
Speaker 7: of spending restraint, finding savings and banking revenue upgrades.
Speaker 3: Spending restraint pull the other one, doctor Chalmers. He fails
Speaker 3: to mention, of course, the gross debt is going to
Speaker 3: go up to a trillion dollars next year. Are trillion
Speaker 3: dollars the first time it's ever happened, something for which
Speaker 3: he hammered the Morrison government when it turned up in
Speaker 3: their Ford estimates. But he's about to do it, and
Speaker 3: he couldn't even mention it in that speech. And you
Speaker 3: want to talk about spending restraint, mate, Let's go through
Speaker 3: the cost of your budget starting with your first budget
Speaker 3: in twenty twenty two. To twenty three, which was six
Speaker 3: hundred and fifty billion dollars. Then your ex budget twenty
Speaker 3: three twenty four was six hundred and eighty five point
Speaker 3: nine billion dollars, and then the one after that last
Speaker 3: year was seven hundred and sixty two point eight billion dollars,
Speaker 3: which was actual up from the seven hundred and thirty
Speaker 3: four point five billion dollars they told it would be
Speaker 3: in May last year. And next financial year the budget
Speaker 3: is going to be seven hundred and eighty five point
Speaker 3: seven billion dollars, So you put more than one hundred
Speaker 3: billion dollars extra on top when you've been in government
Speaker 3: and you tell us if you've exercised spending restraint. I
Speaker 3: look forward to the budget speech every year because I
Speaker 3: just want to see how much nonsense and lies you
Speaker 3: can fit into a half hour speech. And this one
Speaker 3: did not fail to deliver.
Speaker 1: That would be a new record, I would assume.
Speaker 2: And do you reckon that people are going to vote
Speaker 2: labor because they're getting five dollars a week in twelve
Speaker 2: months or so from now, I doubt it. All the
Speaker 2: newspapers are describing this as a modest tax break, so.
Speaker 1: Very steel line from me.
Speaker 2: Churchill Jim Chalmers is a modest man with much to
Speaker 2: be modest about.
Speaker 1: But I love his language.
Speaker 2: As you mentioned, Caleb, he talks about credit to all Australians.
Speaker 1: It's collective efforts.
Speaker 2: We've made a lot of progress together, we've turned a
Speaker 2: corner together. This language assumes that we are already partners
Speaker 2: with the Labor government. Don't worry about the ballot in
Speaker 2: five weeks time. We're already lockstep with them. It's like
Speaker 2: a sales technique where if you go to a car
Speaker 2: dealer and you're looking at it, I don't know an
Speaker 2: Audi A five, and instead of saying, so are you
Speaker 2: going to buy the car, he says, do you reckon?
Speaker 1: You'd like it in black or in red?
Speaker 2: The assumption is you're with us already, And very clearly
Speaker 2: his language was trying to convince voters you're already voting
Speaker 2: for us. We've already come this far together, We've just
Speaker 2: got a little bit further to go together.
Speaker 1: Your vote is assumed.
Speaker 4: I genuinely don't think that many voters watch the budget
Speaker 4: speech or the budget in reply. That's for us and
Speaker 4: you educated folk at home who take the time to
Speaker 4: June in and find out what the flogs running our
Speaker 4: country are actually doing. I mean, this is an embarrassment
Speaker 4: of a budget period, but it means that Dutton has
Speaker 4: a complete free field when he gives his budget in reply.
Speaker 4: He has the opportunity laid this week to actually make
Speaker 4: the bold moves that the Albanese government have clearly found.
Speaker 4: There's not a single one in there where you're like, oh,
Speaker 4: actually I like that one.
Speaker 5: We can take that one to the bank.
Speaker 4: Dutton can go helter skelter if he wants to, and
Speaker 4: we know, and we've discussed previously, that that is what
Speaker 4: his party room wants to see.
Speaker 5: He is being.
Speaker 4: Implored by people whose jobs rely on it to be
Speaker 4: bolsheer the in the walk up to this election, to
Speaker 4: make bolder moves right now, got to say I agreed
Speaker 4: with Jack Lamby earlier tonight. There doesn't seem other than
Speaker 4: the promise of nuclear. When you think, okay, what's the
Speaker 4: biggest difference between what we've heard from the major two
Speaker 4: parties so far?
Speaker 5: Other than the promise of.
Speaker 4: Nuclear, there's no really clear laid out plan of Okay,
Speaker 4: this is our plan forward and how do you like
Speaker 4: it compared to the Albanesis. This is his opportunity to
Speaker 4: do that loud and clear, and given how utterly pathetic
Speaker 4: this budget is.
Speaker 5: It shouldn't be hard. The Libs cannot fail this.
Speaker 2: It's a low bar for him to clear on Thursday night.
Speaker 1: I would have thought.
Speaker 2: The other interesting thing, calib is you pointed out Charmers
Speaker 2: has announced one hundred and fifty dollars towards energy rebates.
Speaker 2: But that's only for the next six months, right, which
Speaker 2: begs the question what happens after that? Because we all
Speaker 2: know how prices are going to continue to climb. It's
Speaker 2: what one point eight billion dollars over the next six months,
Speaker 2: But after that, what happens more energy rebates?
Speaker 1: How long does this continue?
Speaker 3: Well exactly, I mean presumably it has to go go
Speaker 3: on in perpetuity if you actually wanted to keep delivering
Speaker 3: any kind of cost of living relief to people. And
Speaker 3: this is the problem. It happens so much with budgets now.
Speaker 3: It used to be a thing everyone would sit down
Speaker 3: on budget night and they tune in for the Treasurer's
Speaker 3: speech because they wanted to learn what was going to
Speaker 3: be in the budget. These days, everything gets leaked before
Speaker 3: the budget speech is actually delivered, so we basically already
Speaker 3: know what's going to be in a part from the
Speaker 3: nasties that they don't want us to know, which is
Speaker 3: what we then pick a park on the night. But
Speaker 3: there was nothing in this apart from the tax cuts
Speaker 3: that were actually new. There was nothing you could walk
Speaker 3: away with and say, yeah, I can actually see some
Speaker 3: vision in this government for what they want to do
Speaker 3: if they're re elected. They're only thinking as far forward
Speaker 3: as the election, and that's why they don't know what
Speaker 3: they would do when they get to the end of
Speaker 3: the year and they potentially go, oh god, we'll put
Speaker 3: on more rebats. They'ven't even thought about that because at
Speaker 3: the moment they're not worried about that. They're just worried
Speaker 3: about getting through an election.
Speaker 2: Well, to be fair to Jim Chalmers, I think a
Speaker 2: couple of weeks ago he wasn't even thinking he.
Speaker 1: Would be delivering a very budget point.
Speaker 2: As you said, this has been a last minute sort
Speaker 2: of schoolboy essay compiled together. The other interesting thing was
Speaker 2: the NDIS will cost fifty two million dollars, which is billion,
Speaker 2: which is a billion dollars more than Defense.
Speaker 1: Will receive in the next twelve months.
Speaker 2: That's a big thing too that deserves a lot of discussion,
Speaker 2: because of course defense is something that should be prioritized,
Speaker 2: but we're spending more on disability pens.
Speaker 4: The NDIS is going to be continue to be a
Speaker 4: poison chalice for whoever's in government.
Speaker 1: Meant the gift.
Speaker 3: Look at those numbers on screen. He was trying to
Speaker 3: crow tonight charmers that, oh, you know, we're reducing spending
Speaker 3: in the NDAs. I mean, it's like saying we've reduced
Speaker 3: the debt. You make minuscule changes to what it's said
Speaker 3: over the forward estimates, even though it's still going up,
Speaker 3: and then try to claim that you've had a cut.
Speaker 2: I mean, come on, it's going to grow still by
Speaker 2: eight percent per year for the next four years. The
Speaker 2: only performance worse than Jim chalmers performance tonight is the
Speaker 2: performance of school teaching graduates when they're given at the
Speaker 2: end of their studies a basic literacy and numeracy test.
Speaker 2: Reports today that ten percent of graduating teachers fail that
Speaker 2: basic test, which means they're unable to use basic punctuation
Speaker 2: in sentences and can't spell words like exaggerate or disappoint.
Speaker 2: That's double the number of teachers who are failing this
Speaker 2: exam in twenty sixteen. Now, educators are clearly the product
Speaker 2: of the education system. But I think a clue as
Speaker 2: to why the education system is so bad is the
Speaker 2: response to this news by various teacher representatives. The Education
Speaker 2: Union of Victoria, in response to news that ten percent
Speaker 2: of graduating teachers are failing this basic test, the Education
Speaker 2: Union of Victoria criticized the test, saying it was an
Speaker 2: inappropriate way to assess whether or not people were capable
Speaker 2: of teaching. The Australian Catholic University had a professor come
Speaker 2: out and.
Speaker 1: Say, well, the problem was the order of the questions.
Speaker 2: Caleb, because you normally have a test that goes from
Speaker 2: easy to difficult, but.
Speaker 1: In this test all the questions were jumbled up.
Speaker 2: Then there was the Central Queensland University professor who said, no, see,
Speaker 2: the way to understand what's really happening is to understand
Speaker 2: who failed this test by gender, by ethnicity, and by
Speaker 2: low caation.
Speaker 1: Then we really understand what's going on.
Speaker 2: And then to top it all off, the Education Minister
Speaker 2: Jason Clare, upon hearing about the terrible results here, said well,
Speaker 2: what we're going to do to fix this is instead
Speaker 2: of holding the test at the end of their studies,
Speaker 2: We're going to hold the test at the beginning of
Speaker 2: their studies. That way, this is what he said, they
Speaker 2: can have multiple opportunities to pass.
Speaker 1: Problem solved.
Speaker 2: There you go, That is why we've got so many
Speaker 2: problems in our school.
Speaker 6: This is incredible.
Speaker 4: Remember it was just last August that we learned via
Speaker 4: napland results across the nation that one in three school
Speaker 4: kids were failing the expected standard of literacy and numeracy.
Speaker 4: Really simple stuff. You've got to ask yourself, what the
Speaker 4: heck are our children being taught in school if it's
Speaker 4: not literacy and numeracy. We've talked a nauseum about how
Speaker 4: our schools and universities has become hot bear zess pools
Speaker 4: of indoctrination, but it never becomes more obvious when you
Speaker 4: look at stuff like this going so our kids are failing,
Speaker 4: and then we find out our teachers aren't up to scratch,
Speaker 4: So how the heck are the kids supposed to be
Speaker 4: above the cut?
Speaker 5: Anyway?
Speaker 4: This also back in twenty twenty three, I remember the
Speaker 4: government did. It was just a consultation paper, but the
Speaker 4: FEDS released in July twenty twenty three, this consultation paper
Speaker 4: where they've gone to the.
Speaker 6: Schools being like, how can we make.
Speaker 4: Schooling in Australia freer and fairer and all round better?
Speaker 4: And that paper, I'll never forget this noted that only
Speaker 4: one percent of teachers in Australia, just under one percent,
Speaker 4: actually we're accredited to teach at the highest levels. There's
Speaker 4: only four levels available, but they all get to graduate standard.
Speaker 4: And all the teachers go, well, I'm paid now, I'm employed,
Speaker 4: I'm getting it done.
Speaker 6: Why would I advance?
Speaker 4: And so less than one percent of teachers in Australia,
Speaker 4: and there's hundreds of thousands of them, have actually taken
Speaker 4: it upon themselves to be like, well, I want to
Speaker 4: be the best in my field. I want to be
Speaker 4: paid a bit more. I'm going to put in a
Speaker 4: few more hard yards. And it does make you wonder,
Speaker 4: where's the passion for teaching?
Speaker 5: God?
Speaker 3: You know what, though, there was a time where teachers
Speaker 3: didn't go to university. They went to teachers college and
Speaker 3: they got a teaching diploma. And I would argue those people,
Speaker 3: of course did less in the way of tertiary education
Speaker 3: before they became teachers than anyone who's going into teaching today.
Speaker 3: And yet they were infinitely better teachers because a they
Speaker 3: were there specifically to be teachers, and when they went
Speaker 3: to teachers college they were taught how to be teachers.
Speaker 3: They were taught all this other nonsense that your mind
Speaker 3: gets filled with ideological guff. In universities these days, the
Speaker 3: job was to teach you how to be a good
Speaker 3: teacher and to go off into the classroom and do
Speaker 3: your job. There's an old saying, of course those who
Speaker 3: can do those who can't teach. And I know it
Speaker 3: is harsh because there are lots of excellent teachers out there.
Speaker 3: The best teacher I ever had, certainly in primary school,
Speaker 3: missus London. She was an old school, fearsome teacher right
Speaker 3: she went to teachers College. I've still got a Oxford Dictionary,
Speaker 3: a concise oxfordictionary from the nineteen seventies that she took
Speaker 3: to teachers College with her, which he gave me as
Speaker 3: a parting gift when she.
Speaker 6: Retired teachers Pet Taylor.
Speaker 3: No, I wasn't a teacher's pet, but I did like
Speaker 3: that particular dictionary, so she gave it to me when
Speaker 3: I left. But when she left. Sorry, but she is
Speaker 3: the model of what a teacher should be in my mind.
Speaker 3: And you have so many people these days who don't
Speaker 3: seem to be there for the right reason. So is
Speaker 3: it any wonder that they end up not being the
Speaker 3: best people for the job. And I remember maybe eight
Speaker 3: or nine years ago, there were stories coming out about
Speaker 3: people going through teaching degrees or being admitted to teaching
Speaker 3: degrees with eight hours of less than fifty so they
Speaker 3: were the bottom half of all school leavers and they
Speaker 3: were being admitted to teaching degrees. If we're doing things
Speaker 3: like that, is it any wonder that we have people
Speaker 3: coming out the other side who can't read and write properly.
Speaker 3: And what an indictment on the university sector that they've
Speaker 3: been there for three or four years and they still
Speaker 3: can't read and write properly. For heaven safe, of.
Speaker 2: Course, if you've been to a public school and how
Speaker 2: to walk around, you would know why they're not attracting
Speaker 2: the best and the brightest to the profession. Fifty percent
Speaker 2: of people who started teaching degree drop out before concluding it,
Speaker 2: and of those that actually finish the degree, twenty percent
Speaker 2: drop out of teaching altogether within three years. Because there's
Speaker 2: a lot less teaching than there is people management and
Speaker 2: behavioral management and class control.
Speaker 4: They wonder we're not getting the best. Yeah, we're not
Speaker 4: ragging on teachers. By the way, if you're a teacher
Speaker 4: and you're you're at home watching this, I'm sure you're
Speaker 4: one of the good ones. I had my appreciation for
Speaker 4: teachers go to a whole other level when my sister
Speaker 4: became one and I watched the stress the mountains of
Speaker 4: marking she'd bring home. I genuinely used to think, oh, teachers.
Speaker 6: Yeah, there's so many weights of holidays every year. Absolute
Speaker 6: slack rats.
Speaker 5: Everyone must want to be a teacher.
Speaker 4: I've changed my tune a lot over the last ten
Speaker 4: to fifteen years.
Speaker 6: More on Disney's Nosedie.
Speaker 4: We keep talking about these woke projects of Disney, and
Speaker 4: how recently, funnily enough, right on the back of the
Speaker 4: Trump administration coming to power, they've turfed a lot of
Speaker 4: their DEI projects and inserting particularly LGBTIQ indoctrination into cartoons
Speaker 4: and programs that are streamed into the little minds of
Speaker 4: millions around the globe. But their latest foray had already
Speaker 4: been created, that being the idiotically woke version of snow White.
Speaker 4: They'd already produced it, they'd already spent the money.
Speaker 5: So they had a very very low.
Speaker 4: Key opening night with all the stars, but it wasn't
Speaker 4: the usual red carpet. They tried to keep it quite quiet.
Speaker 4: But it's finally been released at the box office, and
Speaker 4: once again the public has.
Speaker 6: Said, we hate your woke bull crap.
Speaker 5: Check this out.
Speaker 4: It has only gotten eighty seven million in its opening
Speaker 4: weekend globally, it with just forty three million domestically. To
Speaker 4: give you an idea of just how poor that is,
Speaker 4: here's a few other movies and how they did on
Speaker 4: their opening weekend. The Lion King one hundred and ninety
Speaker 4: one million, Beauty and the Beast. These are all the
Speaker 4: not the old versions, but the newer versions that Disney
Speaker 4: has pumped out. Alice in Wonderland, what a classic, The
Speaker 4: Jungle Book, and then we've got snow White bringing in
Speaker 4: less than half of any of those. I mean, how ammbarrassing.
Speaker 4: Once again the public has spoken. Disney thankfully has already
Speaker 4: got this memo.
Speaker 5: They're cutting this out.
Speaker 4: But in regards to this snow White movie, they'd already
Speaker 4: done it.
Speaker 2: It's so bad that Dumbo back in twenty nineteen had
Speaker 2: a better first week at the box office than this movie.
Speaker 2: In other words, a flying elephant movie was more watchable
Speaker 2: than Snow White. Some of the reviews have been fantastic.
Speaker 2: Rolling Stone describe it simply as a nightmare. The Guardian
Speaker 2: said it was a.
Speaker 1: Toe curdling coke sorry, toe curlingly terrible, which is conflicting.
Speaker 2: When the Guardian say it's bad, you think maybe I
Speaker 2: should watch it, but no, they're.
Speaker 3: Telling you I'm having visions of toes being curdled down.
Speaker 3: I don't lie.
Speaker 1: It is visual. But my favorite review was Vanity Fair.
Speaker 1: I really like this. They said the movie was good
Speaker 1: enough for TV.
Speaker 3: It's all Mark.
Speaker 1: I think that's called passive aggressive.
Speaker 3: It's a Hallmark movie. Surely they should have worked out.
Speaker 3: There was a slight problem when it changed from Snow
Speaker 3: White and the Seven Dwarves to simply snow White, because
Speaker 3: the Seven Dwarves aren't actually dwarves anymore. They're people of
Speaker 3: various statues and races and sexuality, or.
Speaker 1: A diverse group whatever else there.
Speaker 3: They are a diverse group, and the actress playing snow White,
Speaker 3: Rachel Zegler, is not actually a white woman. She's of
Speaker 3: Colombian descent, and of course, in the original Snow White Tail,
Speaker 3: it's about she's having a daughter whose skin is as
Speaker 3: white as snow and hair as black as ebony, isn't it.
Speaker 3: I mean, what did you think was going to happen?
Speaker 3: We be Joe, specifically this actress for.
Speaker 8: The job, and to everyone who hates when I win
Speaker 8: the wind victory came to the Louver in pieces and
Speaker 8: people still lying them to see.
Speaker 6: Her, and I can only hold.
Speaker 8: That despote my flawers and my craps and make bricks,
Speaker 8: and there are many of them that at every premiere
Speaker 8: and everything I do, people will wait in.
Speaker 3: Line to see. Well, I'm sorry they didn't line up
Speaker 3: to see you love quite clearly based on box office numbers.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's it's so insufferable, And that's what people
Speaker 3: have started to wake up to, the insufferability of the
Speaker 3: worker gender and the people who push the worker gender.
Speaker 3: I mean, look, can you imagine, as a mediocre actress
Speaker 3: who's managed to get herself a gig in a film
Speaker 3: that no one really wants to see, comparing yourself to
Speaker 3: a piece of artwork in the louver? I mean, try it,
Speaker 3: not at all no, no, not at all, not at all.
Speaker 3: This there is no clues as to why this thing
Speaker 3: would have failed. Donald Trump. Meanwhile, he is carrying on
Speaker 3: with his tariff push. This time it's for different reasons.
Speaker 3: He's doing basically a secondary tariff to punish other nations
Speaker 3: for doing things that he doesn't like, in this case,
Speaker 3: taking Venezuelan oil. Now he has beef with Venezuela because
Speaker 3: he says that they have been sending criminals, illegal migrants
Speaker 3: into the US deliberately, and so he is going to
Speaker 3: tell any country that if they want to take oil
Speaker 3: from the greater socialist Republic that is Venezuela, the great
Speaker 3: example of how socialism will work, where they've all starved
Speaker 3: and run out of money. Basically, if you take their oil,
Speaker 3: he will put at tax on any product that you
Speaker 3: try to bring into the United States, of course, to
Speaker 3: discourage them from taking Venezuelan oil. He posted on his
Speaker 3: social media platform Truth. President Donald J. Trump announced today
Speaker 3: that the United States of America will be putting what
Speaker 3: is known as a secondary tariff on the country of
Speaker 3: Venezuela for numerous reasons, including the fact that Venezuela has
Speaker 3: purposefully and deceitfully, as I said before, seat to the
Speaker 3: United States undercover tens of thousands of high level and
Speaker 3: other criminals, many of whom are murderers and people of
Speaker 3: a very violent nature. Now that the biggest purchases of
Speaker 3: Venezuelan oil have actually been the United States at the top,
Speaker 3: but that doesn't matter because you can't tariff things that
Speaker 3: you make in your own country. But it's interestingly China
Speaker 3: has been one of the biggest purchases of venezuela and oil,
Speaker 3: and of course they're one of the biggest exporters to
Speaker 3: every country in the world, followed by India and Spain.
Speaker 3: And India of course, is another country that the United
Speaker 3: States and other Western nations have been trying to build
Speaker 3: good trade relations with in the last few years. He has,
Speaker 3: at every point, I think, tried to use tariffs as
Speaker 3: a bargaining chip with people. He thinks if he can
Speaker 3: get something out of someone else by slapping a tariff
Speaker 3: on them, and then they do something, and then he
Speaker 3: takes the tariff off, which is of course what he
Speaker 3: did with Mexico and Canada when he wanted, you know,
Speaker 3: people stationed on the border for Mexico et cetera. It's
Speaker 3: worked previously, will it work this time?
Speaker 2: You said that it's not just a tariff, but it's
Speaker 2: a tariff on top of tariffs. Right, So China have
Speaker 2: already had a twenty percent tariff slept on all the
Speaker 2: goods they are exporting to the United States. So that
Speaker 2: means if China continue to import Venezuelan oil, their tariff
Speaker 2: on goods export to the US would go from twenty
Speaker 2: percent to forty five percent. Indeed, I can't imagine that would.
Speaker 4: Happen, although it's very unclear as to how Trump would
Speaker 4: actually impose this tariff because you're Venezuela, I'm China, I'm
Speaker 4: buying your oil.
Speaker 6: But Trump is going to tariff me for that.
Speaker 4: I I everyone's very much hands in the air, going
Speaker 4: how is he actually going to do this, especially when
Speaker 4: you're talking about a big trade partner like China.
Speaker 5: What I think he's actually doing here.
Speaker 4: Because you know, typical Trump, he's weighted in. He's made
Speaker 4: this announcement. They're supposedly kicking in on April seven. Everyone
Speaker 4: buckle your belts. But like you say, Caleb, the US
Speaker 4: also gets a lot of oil from the Venezuela.
Speaker 5: But this would this would make sense.
Speaker 4: He's cracking down on Iranian oil production at the same time,
Speaker 4: while allowing OPEC and coizing up to the Saudis and
Speaker 4: the UAE, who also have a lot of oil, and
Speaker 4: leaving room for US producers at the same time.
Speaker 5: So while he's burning.
Speaker 4: These bridges, he's already made arrangements as to where they
Speaker 4: will get their oil from in future. So it's actually
Speaker 4: quite a significant power shift. Venezuela back in twenty twenty
Speaker 4: three was the owners of seventeen percent of the world's
Speaker 4: crude oil, so these guys are rolling in it. So
Speaker 4: for Trump now to say, sure, they've got a heck
Speaker 4: of a lot of oil, but you guys buy oil
Speaker 4: or gas from Venezuela, I'm going to come down and
Speaker 4: you like a ton of bricks.
Speaker 5: Let's see if he actually does it.
Speaker 2: Well, we're going to go to a break. When we
Speaker 2: come back, we'll look at what's making news tomorrow. Obviously
Speaker 2: the federal budget a big story and a fascinating story
Speaker 2: for North Queensland residents arming themselves with machetes and guns.
Speaker 1: We'll get to all of that in just a moment.
Speaker 2: Okay, let's take a look at how tomorrow's papers are
Speaker 2: reporting Jim Charmers budget. I'll run you through a couple
Speaker 2: of the front pages really quickly. The Herald's Son in
Speaker 2: Melbourne is going with Jim's coffee shot, referring, of course
Speaker 2: to the fact that five bucks a week tax cut
Speaker 2: is worth about a coffee, elections, sweetener, poultry, five dollars
Speaker 2: tax cut amid cost of living crisis, weekly hip pocket
Speaker 2: help barely enough to buy a cuppa and it starts
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty six.
Speaker 1: Then they've gone with.
Speaker 2: A subheading bitter after taste, no doubt. The Mercury front
Speaker 2: page in Tasmania they've got roll of the dice, betting
Speaker 2: the house on cost of living relief. They talk about
Speaker 2: a no frills budget, which I think is rather kind.
Speaker 2: They point out that Jim Charmers has cautiously titled his
Speaker 2: budget turning the corner Together. Of course, the problem is
Speaker 2: we turn the corner and there's absolutely nothing there.
Speaker 1: Or more corners.
Speaker 2: The Canberra Times has gone with a fairly positive take
Speaker 2: on the budget. I think they're trying to help Jim
Speaker 2: Charmers the hard cell, they've said, but then they go
Speaker 2: for a surprise extra tax cut promised, not pointing out
Speaker 2: it's just a poultry five dollars. There's one hundred and
Speaker 2: fifty dollars additional power bill relief PBS medical scripts capped
Speaker 2: at twenty five bucks medical boost to lift bulk billing rates,
Speaker 2: and so they are trying to put a positive spin
Speaker 2: on the budget. I'm not sure it's going to help
Speaker 2: the treasurerer that much.
Speaker 1: But that's how those papers are reporting it.
Speaker 3: Can I just point out if you're looking at the
Speaker 3: front of the Canberra Times, there cat and you've got
Speaker 3: Jim Chalmers, you know he's got his box, are good?
Speaker 3: He's there, and Donald Trump in the background looks like
Speaker 3: some petulant child who's fallen over. Are they seriously trying
Speaker 3: to suggest that Jim Charmers sums out best at Donald Trump?
Speaker 3: Didn't anyone really believe that?
Speaker 1: It does suggest that?
Speaker 2: And I noticed also that he's got he's got eggs
Speaker 2: in his basket there. It's labeled public service, but promise
Speaker 2: wondering how the hell he can afford eggs. I bought
Speaker 2: eggs today more than ten dollars.
Speaker 3: Well, jeez, are you buying the free range stuff?
Speaker 8: What do you do?
Speaker 3: I'm not paying.
Speaker 5: Stuff? No, you busy psychopaths.
Speaker 3: Cage eggs, Hey, you can get cage free, but not
Speaker 3: for free range is a scam. I think you need
Speaker 3: to know. But you probably need to work in the
Speaker 3: public service to buy eggs. That's probably the point they're
Speaker 3: trying to make them.
Speaker 4: You've got of the os which Julie eviscerated, the man
Speaker 4: and the budget election tax cut war. After Jim offers
Speaker 4: cup of coffee relief the splash reads cost of saving Albow.
Speaker 4: I loved that Jim Chalmers has set up a tax
Speaker 4: fight with Peter Dutton weeks out from the May election
Speaker 4: after unveiling seventeen point one billion in modest relief. We
Speaker 4: keep hearing that wor for millions of low income workers,
Speaker 4: which was immediately rejected by the Coalition as a cruel hoax,
Speaker 4: with Laver's tax package promising Australians earning forty five grand
Speaker 4: or more an extra five dollars, et cetera, exactly what
Speaker 4: we've just said. Now Treasury spokesman Angus Taylor is calling
Speaker 4: this an election bribe.
Speaker 5: I would argue that that's.
Speaker 4: Any election promise, but okay, it's certainly an election budget.
Speaker 5: They're all bribes, baby, They.
Speaker 6: Want one thing, and it's your vote.
Speaker 4: But the Coalition has said that they will not be
Speaker 4: matching these tax cuts. So at least that's one one
Speaker 4: point of difference that we know that we'll see.
Speaker 2: If that's a bribe, that is the worst bribe ever.
Speaker 3: Not enough. Maybe a child could be bribed with five dollars.
Speaker 3: But give given given that the coalition has tonight so
Speaker 3: thoroughly attacked this tax cut, and it deserves to be
Speaker 3: a tax because it's not really a tax cut at all.
Speaker 3: It comes in next year, at which point this government
Speaker 3: may not even be in power anyway. It delivers no
Speaker 3: immediate relief to any five dollars a week. Please. But
Speaker 3: having done this, surely Dutton has to come out on
Speaker 3: Thursday night with a much better tax cut. I mean,
Speaker 3: he can't stand up and come on, how could he not?
Speaker 5: They won't be matching it.
Speaker 3: Look, they don't have to match it. They can best
Speaker 3: at one hundred percent. But how can they not come
Speaker 3: out with a genuine tax cut? But how can you
Speaker 3: not come out with a genuine tax cut? So you've
Speaker 3: got the government saying we'll give you all, be it
Speaker 3: a tiny tax cut, a tax cut nevertheless, and then
Speaker 3: the opposition is going to try and stand up and
Speaker 3: say we'll give you nothing.
Speaker 2: Five dollars is nothing, so I would say they're really not.
Speaker 3: Five dollars Yeah, but it's still five dollars less a week.
Speaker 3: If that's what the coalition does, it's still five dollars less.
Speaker 3: I don't see how they could possibly offer no tax
Speaker 3: cuts whatsoever.
Speaker 4: I just think that Ossie's are smart enough to know
Speaker 4: that that is nothing.
Speaker 5: That is not enough for anyone to be like.
Speaker 4: Okay, yeah, you've got my vote five bucks off.
Speaker 3: Yeah yeah, but someone has to offer something real. I mean,
Speaker 3: we deserve a serious tax cut. The numbers that were
Speaker 3: on the front of the Daily Philography yesterday about bracket
Speaker 3: group come from Coalition numbers, so clearly, in some way
Speaker 3: tax is factoring into their thinking here. They have to
Speaker 3: come out with.
Speaker 4: It all, Well, what you're talking about, because all these
Speaker 4: tax cuts are only ever a temporary sugar hit. Then
Speaker 4: they're gobbled up immediately by inflation, the cost of living pressures,
Speaker 4: et cetera, and so on. No one's going to feel
Speaker 4: that five bucks and they know it. So I don't
Speaker 4: think you're shifting any votes. And we were saying just
Speaker 4: last night, how we'd give out two front teeth to
Speaker 4: actually have a leader who stands up and says, you
Speaker 4: know what, We're going to be fiscally responsible, of course,
Speaker 4: and we all need to tighten our belts kids, We
Speaker 4: need to pull our socks up. Things might be a
Speaker 4: little rough for a little while, but hey, at least
Speaker 4: this way, your children's children aren't going to be paying
Speaker 4: off a trillion plus dollars of debt. I think responsible
Speaker 4: Ozsies would be like, actually, I like the sound of
Speaker 4: this guy, because we all know someone's got to rein
Speaker 4: it in.
Speaker 2: So we'll learn a lot about Peter Dutton on Thursday night,
Speaker 2: won't we Because we'll learn whether he is looking at
Speaker 2: just a very short term five weeks so that to
Speaker 2: get to the finished line of the election, or whether
Speaker 2: he proposes something serious, as you said, and he actually
Speaker 2: trusts the electric The other part of this budget, Calub
Speaker 2: is that there's a billion dollars that's been tucked away
Speaker 2: by the government for a war chest over the next
Speaker 2: five weeks, and there's already been billions spent in the
Speaker 2: last couple of months in preparation.
Speaker 3: Promised sixty billion dollars worth of.
Speaker 2: Correct and the spending is going to continue over the
Speaker 2: next few weeks.
Speaker 1: They've made sure they've got enough money to keep doing that.
Speaker 3: And they tell us that they've been restrained in their spending.
Speaker 4: I mean, if that's their restraint, thank god they exercised it,
Speaker 4: because imagine if they hadn't even exercised that much restrained.
Speaker 4: To the second splash on the front of the OS,
Speaker 4: tactical budget for a poll Fails the Nation by Paul Kelly,
Speaker 4: he writes, this budget fails Australia's needs in terms of
Speaker 4: fiscal accountability, structural policy, productivity enhancement and strategic imperatives. It
Speaker 4: puts immediate election tactics before the pressing challenges facing the country.
Speaker 5: Great article. Read it if you can.
Speaker 6: But I think that sums up the entire thing.
Speaker 4: Everyone's looking for a vision, something serious given the times
Speaker 4: that we're currently living in. That is what the nation needs,
Speaker 4: and yet we just seemed hopefully it don't improves us
Speaker 4: wrong later this week, but we seem to be a
Speaker 4: ship without a capable captain.
Speaker 3: I think this quote from Paul Kelly sums it up
Speaker 3: pretty much entirely. The sad truth is Labor doesn't trust
Speaker 3: itself all the public to redirect our national priorities from
Speaker 3: cost of living handouts and mini tax cuts to the
Speaker 3: mounting challenges that will cost Australia the longer they are
Speaker 3: denied and deferred. And that is exactly the problem. And
Speaker 3: it's so hard to get out of that rut because
Speaker 3: once you start saying you can have this, and you
Speaker 3: can have this, and you can have this, it's so
Speaker 3: hard to take it back. If a government promises something,
Speaker 3: it takes a lot of gumption for someone else to
Speaker 3: say they're going to take it away from you. And
Speaker 3: that's the problem we find ourselves in now. I mean,
Speaker 3: almost everything that the government has promised thus far has
Speaker 3: been matched by the oppositions. There's no great differences in
Speaker 3: terms of spending so far. This is where we find
Speaker 3: ourselves no long term vision.
Speaker 2: I've got to point out too, is that Paul Kelly
Speaker 2: referred to the tax cut as cute.
Speaker 6: Was a coffee a week starting mid next year. That
Speaker 6: is quite cute.
Speaker 1: Read Alert record cash crash.
Speaker 4: The third article on the OZ reads Jim Chalmers has
Speaker 4: presided over the biggest deterioration in the country's underlying cash
Speaker 4: balance outside COVID and the global find out antial crisis
Speaker 4: with a forty three billion dollar plunge into the red
Speaker 4: from a surplus last year. The country's gross debt level
Speaker 4: will also hit nine hundred and forty billion this year
Speaker 4: and more than one one trillion next year, with the
Speaker 4: interest expense also hitting a record twenty four point four
Speaker 4: billion this year, rising to twenty seven billion next year.
Speaker 4: That's something a lot of people don't factor in. The
Speaker 4: debt isn't just the debt. The interest is eye watering.
Speaker 4: It's like paying off your mortgage and you're just paying
Speaker 4: off that.
Speaker 5: You're not touching the principle, you're just keeping your head
Speaker 5: above water.
Speaker 4: That is what the government is trying to do and
Speaker 4: failing dismally.
Speaker 3: And he will try to claim, and has tried to claim,
Speaker 3: Jim Chalmers, that this is due to the great work
Speaker 3: of the federal government, nothing of course, to do with
Speaker 3: commodity prices and all the extra income tax that they've
Speaker 3: taken from us. So that just meant that it's it's
Speaker 3: slightly better than it otherwise might have been, but it's
Speaker 3: still bad. I mean, we're in deficit for the next
Speaker 3: decade and that will be the legacy of this government.
Speaker 1: Really quick before we go to a break. You've got
Speaker 1: the Cans post great story on the front.
Speaker 3: People, well great, well, well it's a good story because
Speaker 3: it's a good front page. But it's not a good
Speaker 3: story for the people of Cans Knives Edge. It's there's
Speaker 3: one in four Cans residents are arming themselves with weapons,
Speaker 3: including Machett's guns at baseball bats to fend off youth criminals.
Speaker 3: A chilling survey has revealed data collected church most people
Speaker 3: have improved their home security and some I reliant on
Speaker 3: weapons following recent crime events in the community. I mean,
Speaker 3: it's extraordinary to think there are that many people, of
Speaker 3: course feel unsafe in their homes, that they're arming themselves
Speaker 3: against what might happen. I know a lot of people
Speaker 3: have done it for a long time, but to think
Speaker 3: that one in four people are sleeping with the baseball
Speaker 3: bat ready to go, it tells you where they're adding CANSA.
Speaker 2: It's a while since I lived in North Queensland, but
Speaker 2: ten years ago people were doing the same thing because
Speaker 2: of break in, So not that surprising but pretty shocking. Nonetheless,
Speaker 2: we're to go to a break when we come back.
Speaker 2: The man in South Australia charged with the crime of sacrilege.
Speaker 2: Will tell you what he's alleged to have done after
Speaker 2: the break Well, South Australian man has been charged with
Speaker 2: the crime of sacrilege. Yes, it's a crime and it
Speaker 2: carries a potential life sentence.
Speaker 1: The police were called to a church at.
Speaker 2: Murray Bridge, about an hour out of Adelaide, at three
Speaker 2: am this morning, where a man had allegedly broken into
Speaker 2: a church to steal some scripture books talk about wanting
Speaker 2: the word of God. He was charged and refused bail.
Speaker 2: And this is not the first time someone's been charged
Speaker 2: with sacrilege in recent days. Back in twenty twenty, a
Speaker 2: man was charged with breaking into a church and stealing guitars.
Speaker 2: Sacrilege is part of the Criminal Code dating back to
Speaker 2: nineteen thirty five and it's defined as breaking into a
Speaker 2: place of divine worship and committing a crime. The rationalist
Speaker 2: society tried to get rid of this crime, but apparently
Speaker 2: it's to distinguish the fact that when you steal from
Speaker 2: a church, that's altogether different from stealing from somewhere else.
Speaker 2: So of course the man will face court.
Speaker 1: But there you go.
Speaker 2: In South Australia, if you steal something from a place
Speaker 2: of worship. That's a whole other crime.
Speaker 8: Live.
Speaker 5: He was even refused bail.
Speaker 4: Do you want to get a few of those magistates
Speaker 4: over to Victoria or maybe Queensland where kids can literally
Speaker 4: break into cars and homes and.
Speaker 5: Just get bail.
Speaker 4: This guy was refused bail.
Speaker 3: That's how serious I want to know. You know that
Speaker 3: the alleged crime he has committed is that he went
Speaker 3: all the way from Mount Gambia down at the very
Speaker 3: bottom of South Australia on the Victorian border, all the
Speaker 3: way up to murray Bridge, which is about five hours,
Speaker 3: to allegedly steal some scripture book.
Speaker 1: Do you have just waited till Sunday?
Speaker 4: He really really needed them now life imprisonment. But before
Speaker 4: we leave you tonight, check out this painting of Donald J. Trump,
Speaker 4: which he has taken to truth social to say, take
Speaker 4: this painting down of me in the Colorado State Capital building.
Speaker 4: He writes, nobody likes a bad picturel painting of themselves.
Speaker 4: But the in Colorado in the state Capitol, put up
Speaker 4: by the governor along with all the other presidents, was
Speaker 4: purposely distorted to a level that even I perhaps had
Speaker 4: never seen before. The artist also did President Obama and
Speaker 4: he looks wonderful, but the one on.
Speaker 1: Me is truly the worst.
Speaker 4: She must have lost her talent as she got older,
Speaker 4: he said, referring to British artist Sarah Boardman. What remains
Speaker 4: to be seen is why this got his attention now,
Speaker 4: because it was unveiled six years ago in twenty nineteen.
Speaker 5: So here he is. He's president again, and he's like, actually,
Speaker 5: there was that painting.
Speaker 4: That I hated, and now they're health Democrats have declared
Speaker 4: that it will be taken down and replaced with one
Speaker 4: that quote depicts his contemporary likeness.
Speaker 3: Wait till he sees the Campra Times tomorrow.
Speaker 2: That's all from us sticking around, coming up his Newsnight
Speaker 2: with Christy Lloyd.
Speaker 1: Good Night