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