Paul Murray Live | 12 September

part of two hundred million dollars. Now as you can see, the camera angles and we're seeing somebody come just back in then. But can you believe this that when man first walked on the moon, we were all huddled, well not me, but we were all huddled around TV and radio and the signal had to come via parks. And look at where we've come. When now something that isn't NASA, people who aren't astronauts, but people who are civilians who obviously training, safety, all the rest of it, are abled

to pay their way to space. And right now as we speak, you can see that the hatch is open and there are people who are looking out into the grape beyond. Now tonight we'll do all the normal stuff we're doing, but can we just soak this up for a couple of seconds because I just find this incredible. You don't know how they do it. It costs an awful lot of money, but this is the future for those that are going to be able to afford it. They're not just going to float around in the upper atmosphere.

You may well be able to get into space, open the door and go for a walk when there's another version of somebody doing it, because there are four people who will have the opportunity. We'll return to that footage, but welcome to the show this Thursday night. There is a lot to get to, including yet another attempt of this government. It's attempt number two now when it comes to trying to censor the Internet. I hate this idea and I don't think the second version is any better

than the first version. Also, it was muck Up Day today in the queens Land Parliament, the last time that idiot hopefully will be in the parliam as the Premier. And Meghan Kelly, we showed you how fired up she was yesterday. Well twenty four hours on, she is ready to rock and talk everything about that awful debate that took place and what should happen in the future. She

is awesome. But first you know that we have been following the bouncing ball from when it was a report, to a report that they hid, to a report that they put on the table, to a discussion that they started to have, to negotiations that have now gone through. Today the government says that they have a deal to find a way through the Parliament to change how much you have to pay for aged care. Now, I know that there's a lot of people who are worried about this.

What is very important is that the Liberals have been able to say in this deal that if you're currently physically in age care, there will be no changes as best as I understand or triple check that. But this is all for people who will move into age care or need at home care in the next of a while. I told you that we followed the excellent Inside Baseball reporting here with Philip Coury the whole way through, so he deserves the credit and respect for me to tell

you what his assumption is of things here. He says that of the so called richer retirees, they will instead be able to age at home, but they would be required to pay up to eighty percent of the everyday living costs such as cleaning, gardening and food and fifty percent of so called independence costs. That's things like somebody

picking you up, taking you to the doctor. The overall which essentially will require part pensioners and self funded retirees to contribute more for their care based on their assets. Now it's important too, it's not necessarily about your family home, but your family home does play a part in this. But if you've got things like superannuation shares, other forms of income, or you are going to have to pay more.

I am going to get right into the detail on this to give you a little indication of what might be happening in July next year. Again, it is weighted towards increasing home care costs. Now, remember half of all people that are in aged care are not in an age care facility. They are at home with an at home package. The biggest financial changes are for the people who are trying to stay at home for as long as you can, for as much as you would all

want to be in your home for as long as possible. Again, Philip Kurry with plenty of information and detail here where it says that under the changes which both major parties and the sector say are essential to keep the system financially sustainable. The maximum amount that you will contribute to your care at home or in an aged care system is moving from the current cap of seventy nine thousand dollars way up to one hundred and thirty thousand dollars. So that is the overall cost is going to be

a lot more. So let me walk you through this. Okay, For people who are in aged care currently they pay twenty three thousand dollars. If you're a pensioner but you don't have a house, from July one next year, it'll

be basically the same. For full pensioners, but you own a house and the values somewhere around six hundred thousand dollars twenty four thousand dollars, you will be paying another for and a bit thousand dollars every single year until you have put in one hundred and thirty thousand dollars. For part pensioners who own a home over a million dollars, you're going from the current thirty one thousand up by

about five thousand dollars to thirty six thousand dollars. Again, you keep paying the thirty six thousand dollars until you hit one hundred and thirty thousand dollars For part pensioners who own a home, say nine hundred thousand dollars, and you've got say five hundred thousand dollars super shares or something else. This is a big whack. From thirty four thousand dollars a year, it's way up forty seven thousand,

seven hundred dollars. That's a big change for people who own a home that could be worth something like one point six So many of the suburban homes around Sydney would be worth that, certainly for Melbourne and Brucebane as well. Plus again you have other assets, super and the rest of it. Up to nine hundred thousand houses for a whack from forty nine thousand dollars a year. This is to be in a facility, it'll go up, so sixty two eight hundred dollars. Now, of course that is not

the total amount that you'll have to spend. There's lots of other little ways that age care companies who run these homes fine ways to get you. But the overall number that the government will help support you is changing, and it's changing in pretty big ways. Now there isn't a person watching who doesn't want to stay in the home for as long as possible. Why because you deserve

that independence. Why because you've earned that independence, because you worked hard to have the home that you live in. You love it. It's where the memories are, it's where you've spent so much time in the garden renovating the memories of the kids, and of course a place where grandkids come over. Again. Some changes here. But interestingly, the government when it's released the data today and it is

very complicated to give you exact numbers. Hopefully in the next couple of days the news organizations will give you the chance to put in all of your details and see what the changes are. So I don't have a comparison to you how much you currently pay, but this is what's going to change. Okay, So if you're a full pensioner, you're renting, you've got no other sources of income, you're going to pay two four hundred and sixty seven

dollars a year to stay at home. If you've got a part pension, you own your home, plus a little bit of super, it'll be eleven and a half thousand dollars. The same for self unded retiree. Now the Commonwealth Seniors Card comes into play here. If you've got one and two hundred thousand dollars in assets, it'll be about eleven and a half thousand dollars. And then we start to

take some big steps. A self funded retiree who does have a Commonwealth Seniors Card and as I say, about five hundred thousand dollars in assets, that's sixteen thousand and the so called rich, the self funded retiree with no Commonwealth Seniors Card five hundred thousand dollars in assets, you will be paying sixteen thousand, six hundred and fifteen dollars a year. Now, at some point we're all going to have to deal with the system, which is why I'm

giving you as much information as possible right now. Now this will save the federal budget, but of course it will cost people more. These things do not kick in until July the first of next year, so don't be worried about something happening in the next month or so. But this is something that is going to be happening.

It will pass the Parliament, which is why the Prime Minister gave it the full Prime Ministerial Courtyard treatment today like he was making history by making you pay more for age care at home or somewhere else.

get more clarity as we go through the documents. I'll do that for you when we come back and keep chatting next week. Remember being here on a Sunday night as well, because we get in before everyone else obviously, but also we'll have a bit more research on this. For his part, Peter duttn't Remember, these laws only happened because both of the major parties have agreed.

out to be stone cold truth. There was stuff that you knew at the absolute time was truth, like say the Hunter Biden laptop, but it was all declared misinformation because the government at that time wanted to hide things that left wing of politics wanted to hide. That at the last presidential election. But here in Australia again there is apparently some great need for social media companies to be punished if they host misinformation. Now they tell us

that media organizations are exempt. But my reading of it to this point is that it's about what you broadcast, not if somebody posts a link from a media organization on social media platform that, again a left wing think tank will turn around and suggest to be misinformation because it's not the government line. I've got the legislation, seventy five pages in length. I will read it in excruciating detail and get more advice. Again over the weekend. Be

here Sunday night. But let's have a look here. The Australian newspaper again previewing this today that the second take on the Misinformation Bill the censoring of the Internet. I'm not calling it the misinformation bill. It is the censoring of the Internet. This is not just going after what you post on Facebook or Twitter. But if you're somebody who likes listening to a certain podcast or a certain watch a certain YouTube video and then again you want

to share those on socials. This is what it's all about. Shutting down And as anyone remembers during the COVID times that yes, of course there's plenty of sources that just didn't tell the truth, even those that are trying to turn around and challenge the narrative. But there were plenty of people who were challenging the narrative and doing so

in those formats. So as a free speech guy, this has massive concerns for me, because remember, what is misinformation is determined by government, by the bureaucracy of government, or by the henchmen of the left wings of the parties of government. Today, Sky News, which is generally speaking, been skeptical of what's been put up here. I don't say

that as an official position. I'm just saying that of many of the articles that we've done as analysis skynews, dot com dot Au, they say that it's an attack on our freedoms. They of course is we But still the government revised Online Misinformation Bill SLAMM is having a chilling effect on free speech. Again, i'd say misinformation law, I say censoring the Internet, because Australians have a very different attitude to censoring the Internet than they do to misinformation.

I'm not playing by Teal and Green and Radio National Talk here. Okay, this is from our article. Like the previous draft, the new laws would empower the Australian Communications and Media Authority to impose massive fines of up to five percent of global revenue on a social media platform that fails to adequately crack down on misinformation and disinformation on their platforms. Remember, the government decided what was true

in COVID. The government will turn around and say that even when we can find data that pushes back against their narrative, that it ain't true and therefore the Minister the Communications Authority would have even greater power to shut down alternative views and by that men alternative facts, are men alternative views to whatever their view is of the day. The ACMA will be also given powers to approve enforcibility

of codes for dealing with misinformation and disinformation. And interestingly, here are we talking about codes that are exclusively for the Internet or do they extend to the areas they currently regulate television radio ACTMA doesn't have play a role in things like the Press Council, But does it extend again to the opinion piece in the newspaper that someone

objects to? Again, I think when somebody is wrong, the best way to deal with it is to argue why they are wrong, not to pretend that they are not allowed a voice. For his part, the Home Affairs Minister and a free speech advocate, James Patterson, he feels like I do. This is not what it seems.

to the paper and all in between. There's plenty of new ways to push back rather than again people who've always hated people of the right using this as a way of deliberately trying to shut down the arguments that push back against a pretty draconian system which is being proposed right now now. Also, political lies apparently are going to be captured inside the misinformation regime. Now, remember the political lie of the Labor Party of oh, they're planning

to privatize medicare. Well, they of course said that, despite the fact that it clearly was not true, despite the fact the government, the opposition of the government at the time it said no, no, no, no no. They said, oh, well,

there's this report somewhere that proves our point. Would things like medi scare be banned under this again, you'd have a scenario where one side of politics says, well, this is your plan, because we've got the piece of paper and the other side of politics that says, well, no, it's not who adjudicates this is it a bunch of again people with loyalties to the party of power at any one time. And this affects people on the left and the right because we get the governments we like

and don't like every few years. The Minister has incredible powers under this as well to be able to see something they personally don't like and to refer it to the system to be put through the ringer. This is important. Meantime, Another Liberal Party perspective on this comes from James McGrath, again belling the cat that this looks like something far more benign, but once you actually lift up the hood and have a look at censoring the internet, it's not a good idea.

about who can and can't play for obvious reasons. If you to fame someone, if you tell an obvious and provable lie, then there's consequences. If somebody simply disagrees with you or presents our whole collection of information that yes, confronts your argument, but if your argument is based in something that you can prove to be the data that you chose to form your opinion about. To me, I don't want the government involved in this whatsoever. We'll see

what happens in the next couple of days. Now, state premiers around the country well as porketting I think once said, don't get between them and a bucket of money. Well, the bucket of money that exists for the state premiers,

local government and the federal government is extraordinary. According to Bureau of Statistics, in the financial year of twenty twenty two to twenty three, the total amount of revenue that came to all three levels of government in Australia in one year was three quarters of a trillion dollars seven

hundred and fifty five point eight b four billion dollars. Yet, despite the fact that they all collected in three quarters of one t four trillion dollars in one year, state governments in particular have run things like our health system right into the ground now. They make announcements every election where they say ten percent more of this, and one thousand and more that and fifty five more this than that.

But the reality of the health system as it exists right now and certainly administered by mostly labor governments around the country, but it's liberal governments too. Hospital ramping is a disgrace. Could somebody tell me how if state federal local governments get three quarters of a tee for trillion dollars? How in almost every state hospital ramping is the worst

it's ever been, ever been. Hospital ramping, of course, is when you call Triple O, you get into the ambulance, the ambulance takes to the hospital, there's no pardon me, there's no space in the hospital, which means if you call Triple O you mightn't get an ambulance. In places like Victoria, we know that when people haven't been able to access the Triple O system, thirty three people died, but the government got re elected because they lighty about

how great the system is. You know, we've shown you how many stories about people when it comes to hospitals. That's just one example of what I think is a gaping hole between what comes in and the results that come out. But specifically, I also want to talk about hospitals here. This was a story that was on seven News a couple of days ago in Sydney. It's been reheated by the Daily Mail and it is in and

around the Bankstown Hospital. This was on one of those days when there weren't enough beds, which meant there was hospital ramping, and when people turned up at the emergency room there were so few beds that people were lying on the floor in pain. Have a look at this image and tell me are we doing something wrong? If the federal state and local governments get three quarters of a trillion dollars in one year. But this is what your fellow Australian may well be met with if they

end up turning to a hospital in pain. It's a disgrace and you should put maximum pressure on anyone currently involved in the administration of these hospital systems because they are failing. Which brings me to Queensland and yet another reason why you should flush this mob in the next few weeks. Today was the last of parliamentary sitting before the upcoming Queensland election. I hope it is the final day that we see this bloke, Stephen Miles as the

Premier in that chamber. I hope it is the last day that we see Shannon Fentaman in that chamber as the Health Minister, that a Vet Darth as the Attorney General, and a whole bunch of other people who have absolutely screwed Queensland and think that you are so stupid that you can be bought off for the whole collection of giveaways that are really about setting land mines for an

incoming LNP government. You see when they do things like artificially pushed down things like public transport fares, if they inevitably turn up, then Labor will turn around and say under the LNP public transport faares have gone up six hundred and twelve percent, see with one thousand dollars of

a credit. When it comes to your power bills, they will again turn around and say at the next election, should they be coming in from opposition, they will of course say your power bills have gone up by seven thousand percent under an LMP government. That's the game that's being played right here. But I want to show you here is the back and forth in the last question time and pick who you think should be the Premier of Queensland. I think it's David Crucifooley and Daylight.

Taxpayer thundered, of course, have look at the type of garbage that is being shoved down the throats of certain people. If your feed happens to accidentally have this bloke turning up in it, again, this is what this bloke does with his time as the Premiere of Queensland, his ministers

the same, please please. News out of Sydney today is that the electorate of North Sydney, the former seat of course of Joe Hockey before that Ted Mack gone, the seat will be has been jettisoned, which does mean one for you a teal in the Parliament, but the actual

person may well end up running. Kayla Tink is the current MP and today she is saying she is not going to run against any of the existing Teals, certainly not going up in some I don't know Teal fight where Zalie Steger would most likely win and probably hold on to the seat of Warringer. I think that's hers to lose whenever she chooses at some point in time. Alas that Northern Beaches well wow, okay, but she's going to run somewhere else. My prediction she'll run in a

seat called Bradfield. Bradfield is in the north shore of Sydney. It's a place that voted yes despite the fact that it has a liberal MP. It voted yes at the last at the referendum. So watch this place, watch this space. Whether the Teal effect means she gets elected or not, we'll all find out together. But I think that's where

she will end up popping up. But you'll have a fight with a kind of Teal who lost at the last election, but then was so passionate that she actually set up like a fake electorate office, like she was pretending to be the MP. So bring on the Teal on Teal fight. That may well happen there something different before we get into American politics and the conversation tonight, No Sooksno lefties, I should tell you this Thursday night, the beautiful Megan Meghan McCain, Meghan Kelly, which was a

little bit later. So I love this in the Channel nine papers today, which was that they have got their hands on some photos which had been taken by a collection of tradees who were making their way in and a rand Antarctica. Now I'm sure they were doing great work, but in between their great work, they took some amazing

photos like have a look at these. Now. I have no plans on going anytime soon, but the idea that you can see the Aurora estrallis the Southern lights as they call them, the snow that's falling down this wonderful frozen soap bubble I think it is. And then anyone who's ever been in the snow loves to take this photo where you take the boiling water and flip it up and it looks like an explosion like that. I think that's very cool, very cute. I'll tell you exactly

where you can find that. A little bit later now lefties think that they have killed off finally the dragon that is Donald Trump. Of course that's rubbish. We all know the debate that took place yesterday. Well, hard to tell anyone if you're scoring these things. Of course, Harris ended up winning the debate, quote unquote, but we all know that it was a very slanted room, that there's a whole bunch of people who thought, hey, she was

too passive aggressive. I think African American men are going to be fascinating to watch where they go in the next little while, and obviously as soon as Donald Trump's getting into dogs and cats and all the rest of it. And please don't see me in the videos. I've seen them. I've read it all. But you get the point, right, He doesn't need to win you over. It doesn't need to win me over. He needs to win independence over,

and he needs to win suburban and women over all. Right, currently his lead with men is greater than she is with females. But we'll get to the magic factor that's going to change all of that in a moment or two's time. But again, I said, lefties thought that she was playing some sort of four D chest doing this guy in when of course all she was doing was being passive aggressive. She poked the bear and the bear swiped back, but he was the analysis of the view.

the Taylor Swift endorsement. Now again this global marketing genius, who is a global marketing genius who my daughters love, and again worthy person time Person of the Year. But she's always kind of been on the left of recent cycles. She's never been pro Trump.

She was down, she's up, but she's not way up. Okay, Now again, you'd prefer to be fifty to forty nine, but under this model, still people believe that Trump would win in Pennsylvania, but the margin is much shorter right now and Nevada. If he does both of those, of course he's the president. The prediction models, yes, they changed as well. However, Trump remains until the debate bump polling comes in sixty one percent chance of winning the presidency.

But as you can see, we really are only talking here about a changeover. Just before the start of the month. Kennedy dropping out, that's when things started to break away and now start to come back together. Nate Silver, who puts all of this together, on his podcast today and he explained that his expectations are that most likely she

ends up with a two point bounce. Now that's nationally really kind of irrelevant, because it still would mean that Donald Trump would most likely win the states that he needs to win. But if there's a two point change in those states, then obviously she would end up as the person to beat. But it's only still not even halfway through September. We're going to get all the way to the end of September, then all the way through October.

I can't wait to be in the United States for that election and to carry you through with all the data between now and then and to talk to my wonderful friend Meghan.

you name it right, She's been polite. She never corrected me, so I'm correcting myself the Mensies Research Center. Good on your rockstar, And of course from a Doni Media, our dear friend legend of Mount Cooper News Times had so much more around Brisbane, the wonderful Lisa got Lisa. Awesome to see you, so prayer. I'll start with you here. Censoring the Internet. I think that's what it is. It's not a misinformation bill. It is the censoring of the

Internet the legislation itself. That's my trick to go and read it up Hill down Dale. I want to know what the definition of misinformation is. I want to know who is going to be policing that, how it works, how the complaint system works, What say you about what they're planning to do? What have you read?

which is, how on earth do you define misinformation? Who is going to be the arbored of what is true and false? They have no answer. They're trying to shift it from Akma and to the social media companies. The social media companies don't want to be the ones deciding that. On Matter's website, they say, we as a private company, do not want to decide what is and isn't true.

That's why they have independent third party fact checkers like the r MIT fact Lab that hasn't published a single thing since Sky News exposed that it was biased against The Voice in August of last year. So this is just absolutely riddled with issues. But the fundamental problem that no legislation will ever be able to overcome is who decides what is the truth?

it's about censoring the Internet. Don't fall in for their terminology. Lisa, are we over the top here or do you think something is really going on here?

They don't really understand what that is. And as Frey I said, there is no real definition as to what it will be like. We already have deformation in this country. You go to court to prove truth. Truth is how you stand up against defamation. I don't think we can

rely on the social media companies to policit themselves. And it's terrifying to think that, particularly going into an election, you can have some bureaucrat somewhere deciding what should be on the Internet or what shouldn't because think about how many people now rely on those news feeds on their social media to actually understand what is happening in the world. They're england enough as it is most of the time.

So if they're getting you know, if the algorithm itself isn't limiting what you're getting, then you're going to have these decisions made about what you are allowed to read.

and repost right. And also for what I don't like is that one of the examples of while we absolutely need this is because what people may or may not have been tweeting in and around the Bondo stabbings now again in real time, government can't get involved in that even a couple of days or a week later, they

can't get involved in in that. And I think that that is you know, I'm not going to fall for this garbage where they're going to pretend that the reason for it is this vague example, rather than turning around and saying, okay, last year there were this many parts that were misinformation. Here's examples, here's examples, here's examples. They

didn't do it. I think just what they want to do is exactly what happened during the Voice, which is anything against the narrative or the sales pitch is defined as misinformation because if it was deformation, it'd be off to a court. If it was a lie, again, we have systems to be able to deal with that. If it was discriminatory, we'd be able to go and deal with that. It's about giving when all of that fails

one little thing. It's a little bit like you know when cops want to crack down on certain communities, they go, look, we can't get you for this, but we'll get you for that. Al Capine, we can't get you for this, but we'll get you for taxes.

that's misinformation. That shows you exactly what is behind this bill. This is an attempt by Labor to silence dissenting opinions. They did it in the Voice and now they're rolling out the legislation to allow them to legally silence you as well.

Let's all be honest. No one has any idea who therese people are, all right, literally, like, if you're lucky enough to see a poster somewhere, okay, name, I don't know who that is, all right? Most people, you know, in the olden days, you used to go and double check the local paper and you read this sort of

twenty five word blurb. Nowhere is anyone really going to sit around and literally google each and every one of the candidates, which means that we have this level of government that has strayed from its purpose, where people are being elected because people go bang bang bang, sayer, what do you think? Yeah, what do you think of that?

But I can tell you what, and I know you'll talk about it later, but the behavior at some of those polling booths was just embarrassing and outrageous.

that have no interest in those basic functions. And again, no disrespect, I don't mind a bit of youth on there. But you know, one of the papers was out there today saying, look at all these nineteen year olds that are running great, but they don't know what it's like to drop a kid off at school. They don't know what it's like to all the planning decisions that come from a life after you're over the age of nineteen.

But frey again the pettiness of this, the stuff people are doing to other people's posters, like smearing the worst possible stuff on it. Ideally I'd say that it's voluntary voting rather than compulsory for something like this, But how does anyone arm themselves with the information to know who the hell these people are.

her from the United States. Megan, congrats on the way you handled it. We played it all on the show last night. Your immediate reaction, and you could see your rage because you're not like me, like someone who's just watching. You've done this, You've hosted these things before, and you could see that you were seething with rage because these people weren't just not playing fair. They were deliberately trying to kill off one of those two candidates.

got a pass. They never never once did that to her. Every time he said something they didn't think was true, they fact checked him nine times out of ten.

sides live about Charlotteesville, the bloodbath lie. There were so many that you, as a moderator, if you wanted to get into the fact checking business, you absolutely could have called her out on that. In my view, would have been inappropriate at presidential debate. But if you're going to do it to him, you have an obligation to do it to her. And as I mentioned, those fact checks themselves erroneous, opinion layden and totally out of place. And

when it's on one side, now it's election interference. Now you actually do look like a partisan act. The only silver lining to any of this is that I have to leave that the viewers at home watching this understood, if not explicitly, then on a gut level, this is unfair. I can sense when I'm watching an unfair fight. When I watch a prize fight between two boxers and the ref keeps stepping in when the one starts pummeling the other, but not when it goes the other way, I know something.

I know one person is in an inferior position when it comes to a fair contest, and I naturally start to feel some empathy for that person and actually at the same time disdain for the two pummelers or in this case, the three of them. And so ultimately today I feel like they could have gone so far that the backlash will be against them and Kamala Harris as opposed to against Donald Trump, who took the beating.

versus the Team Red World. I think there was a little bit of an idea where like, maybe just as a bloke, but I was watching and watching the whole passive, aggressive facial nonsense from her, which was all, Oh, he's so crazy, he's so unbelievable. Oh really all of that. It was like, Man, this is not divorce court, Okay, I get it you don't like him, but the idea that he's.