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