From the Sky News Center.
This is Paul Murray Live.
Well, hello and good evening. Thank you Anika James Borrow here for Paul Murray Live tonight and throughout the rest of the week. Well buckle up, kids, because we've got a big night here tonight with one of your favorites, none other than the Great Bronwyn Bishop. And we're also going to have an update very soon on the all
important Tasbanian election which is coming up this Saturday. But first, I don't know about you, but if I were the Prime Minister of Australia and someone compared me to Guff Whitlam, well, I'd say them's fighting words and ask whoever called me that if they wanted to step outside. But not our
Earthny ALBINIZI not our elbow. The Prime Minister today took in the sites in China on day four of his Great Tour, visiting the Great Wall and taking plenty of tourist snaps for back home, though I'm not sure whether or not he got the fact that this was the original. The Great Wall was the original Trumpian, big beautiful wall designed to keep invading foreigners out. That's right. They weren't all that hashtag welcome back to the Ming dynasty, which
had not yet realized how enriching diversity could be. But there was Albert Easy on the wall, proudly stating that his trip there well was in the footsteps of that great helmsman of the Labor Party, the man I mentioned a moment ago Guff Whitlam.
Here today, of course, I have the sense of history following the footsteps of the Labor Prime Minister Goff Whitlam, who was the first prime minister to visit here in nineteen seventy three, had followed the correct decision that he made as leader of the Labor Party in nineteen seventy one, and that was, of course at the time when that was a controversial decision to recognize the paper's Republic of China.
Ah.
Yes, Albo standing on the shoulders of good old Saint Guph, another prime minister who hated the US president at the time, in his case it was Richard Nixon and also trashed the Australian economy. So yeah, you know what, I'm actually starting to see the resemblance there between Albo and Guff Whitlam. And I tell you what, the Chinese Communist Party sure is laying it on thick for alban easy, but worse, he's eating it up literally.
The fact that President She didn't just have a meeting, but we had a lunch where President She as well invited Jody to attend. That lunch was a sign of respect to Australia, to our country.
They had a large Oh goody goody. I wonder if you got to show off how good he is. It's chopsticks, how but he is. He also revealed the extent that Chinese government has gone to make him and Jody feel at home.
I've got to say that the band there in the Great Hall played a different version of Paul Kelly's to her Door of mid not ELL's power and the passion of a range of songs as well that obviously took them a long period of time and those gestures matter powder Finger as well. They did the full kitten.
Cavertle powder figure. You don't see Paul Kelly got. This guy's a really cheap date, isn't he now. The Prime Minister also revealed that he'd had eight hours of beatings oh gosh, but he didn't reveal too much more about them or what came out of them. In essence, we kind of have to take him at his word at this point that what we are agreeing to and where we are disagreeing when we must, that's all going to
work out. But there are some signs, and we flagged them last night and two nights ago, that behind the scenes things might be a little less rosy because there is still that issue of the Port of Darwin and it has come up again today. You see, Wal Jijin
Ping was happy to play the smiling chieftain. He left the dirty work to his number two head kicker Lee Kang, who, in a thinly veiled swipe and Australia is now bipartisan position on the Port of Darwin, said quote, we hope that the Australian side will treat Chinese enterprises visiting Australia fairly and properly and solve the problems encountered by enterprises and market acts, investment review and other aspects. That's code for we don't want you kicking us out of Darwin. Now.
I don't know about you, but I wonder if the Prime Minister had the wit to turn this demand around and say short thing, premiere. I mean, Chinese companies already have a great deal in Australia. They can invest in agriculture, buy farmland, mining, critical industries, operate without mandatory cultural integration
and face far fewer restrictions. So how about it, China, if we turn this around and say you can keep your lease on the Port of Darwin when Australian agribusiness say, can operate farms in mainland China, or we can buy property there, or all sorts of other things that they can do here that we can't do there. But yeah, nah,
I don't see that happening. Meanwhile, though, there's been another glowing editorial in the state masthead Global Times, which gave its lead editorial the upbeat title today looking forward to seeing China Australian relations cruise steadily into the stratosphere. They wrote that, compared with the minefield status described by the Global Times editorial three years ago, Today's China Australia relationship is like a plane flying in the stratosphere after passing
through the storm zone. Well gosh, how colorful, although at what cost? Which has basically been that now Australia has to shut up about everything China does in international forums and elsewhere. It only raises protest at the absolute minimum when there's no other choice in the press. But despite what that paper claims, China does not see us as equals. Indeed,
this is a trap. It's being set for us and for Anthony Albanesi and Anthony Albanese's commitment commitments to the paper to what the paper called multilateralism means that in the long run there will actually be more global conflict, not less. And kudos to one of the journalists on the trip who picked up on this when Albanzi spoke at the Great Wall.
We have seen this kind of piece through trade approach, you know, between Europe and Russia, and that did not really turn up to well and the fact that it led to significant vulnerabilities and energy supplism.
Are you not concerned that this will happen.
With Yeah, well, our relationship is very different and I don't think you can translate one thing across some other part of the world of which Australia is not a participant.
So I'm not sure what the biasis of that is.
That's your the basis of that is. You know, the question there is really really straightforward. But Albaniz he was doing kind of his old play dumb and act like you don't understand really what the guy is talking about. Routine, but you know what, this is the issue here. Australia has to play a really careful game right now. You see, we've talked about this before, and we see what China
is doing. China is trying to make itself look like the reasonable actor on the world stage, the reasonable great power. And here we have to admit that Donald Trump hasn't made it easier for US and for the West, because they've now made trade an issue, a wedge issue that
China can use. But really, Albin Easy, Prime Minister, the alliance with a free democratic nation like the United States is far more important in the long run, because what's happening right now is that as the Prime Minister travels through China, he is being told exactly what he wants to hear about Australia being the good boy of the global order. It's patronizing and he's falling for it. And
now they're saying to the world. China is saying to the world, look at Australia, be like them, trade with us, break away from the US and we can all be friends and there will be what's the phrase, I'm looking for peace in our time. It's all very clever, but it's also very sinister and dangerous. You know, we know how the cuddly panda can turn fierce and at some point there will be a real conflict of visions, of values, of interests.
Here.
There is a limit to how close we can get to a close totalitarian state. Here's National's leader David britt Little Proud earlier today.
The reality is is that there are strategic threats that are arising in China is lifting their military military dominance. In fact, Penny Wong even said that last week. So the fact this just points and highlights to the inadequate situation that Anthony Albanezi hasn't seen the importance or urgency to go to Washington and meet with President Trump to shore up Orcus and the relationship that we have there.
And it's interesting to note that Petty Wong has also previously in recent months even said quite correctly that Australia needed to diversify its trading relationships so that we weren't so reliant on China. And yet now her boss, the Prime Minister, is saying no, no, no, we're all in and we're going to double down. But as to that meeting with Donald Trump that David little Proud referred to, well, you know, I think we know why that's not happening.
When Albinizi goes to ge he gets faded and toasted. But it's now looking more and more like whatever meeting does occur between Albo and Donald Trump, well that's going to be a far less pleasant interaction, which I think is really sad that it has come to it that this is the way it's going to be, because it did not have to be like this. Remember, it doesn't matter that Albanese is a labor left ee and that
Donald Trump is a right wing Magga Republican. Keir Starmer and Donald Trump, different sides of politics get along just fine, but Alberizi has chosen a different course. If Albanzy wasn't more concerned though, with domestic politics, well then maybe we'd have a better foreign policy. All right, let's move on now to some other critical matters. Now we all saw last week when Gillian Siegel headed down her report on anti Semitism. The government was quick to accept this. Now
that the election is over, gosh, what a coincidence. But not everyone in the government is happy. Ed Husick, the deposed Cabinet minister, was on Radio National this morning and he was having a chat about Jillian Siegel's report, and guess what. It turns out that ed Husick did not like what he read.
I think I'd be concerned the suggestion that young people are, as a report is suggesting, at risk of becoming fully fledged anti Semite studio missing disinformation, I think runs the risk of being a bit too sweeping.
At Husick also did it like the report singling out the ABC of all institutions for bias when covering the Israel Gaza war.
I wasn't entirely comfortable that she just singles out public public broadcasting. You know, there's a role to play across media on these issues, and I didn't necessarily think it was justified to point out the public broadcaster.
Look, I watched the ABC and listen to it, so you don't have to, and I could tell you they deserved to be called out for their bias reporting around Israel, and particularly the case that Jillian Siegel spoke about, which was that hospital that was supposedly bombed by Israel but turned out to have been hit by a shell fired by Hamas. Anyway, Cusick was also concerned about the definition of anti Semitism that the report urged Australia to adopt.
I just think the issue of definition instantly brings into question whether or not people will be able to raise their concerns about the actions, for example, of what the Nyahu government is doing in Gaza and how that would be traded under a definition.
Look, I mean Ed Musick has his point of view, and of course he is one of the first two Muslim members of Parliament. But I think we have to take some issue with this because, as I said before,
the ABC has been biased demosterbly so. And while I don't think anyone can deny that young people are more at risk of falling under this way of anti propaganda from left or right, we also have to note that as far as incidents such as the recent attacks on synagogues and restaurant goers go, well, there's no way that we can talk about any of that stuff coming under the banner of legitimate criticism of Israeli policies, which is what we always hear when people worry about defining anti
Semitism in that sort of way. And as well, I'd also note that Ed Husick, who was booted from cabinet in the most recent reshuffle, is now freelancing on this issue all over the place. I'd be curious to see, of course, if he is as critical of an expected forthcoming report on Islamophobia and what sort of restrictions that
report urges on Australian society. I suspect that he won't be quite as enthusiastic because he also was talking about policing the Internet with the Australian Financial Review and he said that he had quote watched this from the perspective of Islamo phobia for years, that the platforms don't take this seriously unquote, So I think that there might be, when it comes to anheustic in these issues, a bit
of a double standard at work. But there's also another point, and I want to make this pretty clear either way, whether we're talking about anti semitism or islama phobia. And I know that there's far more anti semitism out there in terms of incidents and reported attacks and all sorts of things like that, that islama phobia and that antisemitism is a real scourge on our society that needs to be stamped out. Because in my opinion, it is a symptom of a deeper sickness in our society. The way
we combat it as a free society matters. And when we are talking about limiting free speech, I think we have to be very careful about either way calls to restrict speech that might just be offensive, because frankly, I think Australian society could do with more free speech, because the best way to fight hate and bad ideas is to expose them and fight them and argue back with the truth and good ideas. Now, finally, while we're on the subject of multiculturalism, which of course that touches, there
is an absolutely bonker's story out of the UK. You need to know about why well, because things that happened in the UK tend to wind up landing here in Australia eventually. Now look at you're screen here. This girl is Courtney, right, she's twelve. She's a British school girl and she wore this Union jack dress to her schools cultural celebration day recently. The only problem, well, the culture
she was celebrating was her own British culture. And I know, yeah, the Left says, oh well British, they don't have any culture. White people don't know culture. But there she was, and she went in the dress, and she was turned back and not allowed to participate, despite having prepared a whole little speech about British culture and fun things like drinking tea and the royal family. Here's her dad, Stewart Field, explaining precisely what happened.
What did Courtney do?
She came home a few days before with a letter saying that she was going to take part in the Cultural Diversity Day at school. She wanted to pick her own dress. Quite an independent younger went into school and I had a phone called an hour from work saying from Courtney saying that she wasn't allowed into school, that she was being isolated, and what.
Was she wearing that meant that she was not allowed into school?
He was wearing the you would say, a typical Jerry sort of stroke spos girl's union jack dress with a bolt. Yeah.
Well, the school has since apologized sort of, and even Labor Prime Minister Kiir Starbar's office has weighed in, with a spokesperson saying, I think the school has put out a statement on this, so I'm not going to comment further. But the Prime Minister has always been clear that being
British is something to be celebrated. Oh really, I think that's kind of funny because it is in Britain, a country where saying you are proud of your country or that things like say Western culture is under threat from mass migration can get you labeled a far right terrorist ideologue by the government, and where tweeting about that sort of thing can earn you a visit from the cops.
I'm not sure I'm buying Keir Starbar on this one here, but as I say, let's not get too cocky here, because in many ways Australia is going down the same path all right now as we know hot times in Tasmania where they have been in a state of political chaos since Premier Jeremy Rockliffe lost a motion of no confidence last month, which has sent voters back to the polls this Saturday in a snap election. How much fun is democracy here? Joining me now to discuss is Matthew Denham,
regional correspondent for The Australian. Matthew Denhalm. There have been talks of another hung parliament. Give us your ideas here, what is the most likely result this Saturday. What's the tip.
Well, look, it's much like it will be a hung parliament.
It's very hard to see either major party Labor or Liberal getting the required eighteen seats for a majority. So really at the moment, the Liberals are on fourteen seats, Labors on ten. The polls are suggesting that the lib are kind of holding their ground and Labors kind of going nowhere. So it looks like a pretty similar result to the one that basically resulted in a situation where the parliament and the Premier couldn't get on. So it's a pretty interesting time down here.
Well, so if it's another hung parliament, what happens? How does the state run itself?
Well, hopefully we won't have another election that would be three within sixteen months, which would just be ridiculous.
Two is bad enough. Look, hopefully there's number of scenarios.
Really, I mean, you could have a very minority Labor government supported by the Greens. Today the Sky News Debate leaders debate, Dean went to the Labor leader under questioning eventually kind of agreed that he would potentially govern with Green support kind of passive support if you like, not not a formal coalition. So that's a possibility with a
few independents thrown in. Or we could get the Liberal Party trying to smooth things over with some independence and and you know, win enough over to continue in minority with independent support.
Well let's have a little look at that debate. Here's a bit of what the candidates had said.
We just heard the premiere says extolling the virtues of public ownership. Last month he wanted to sell a Royal networks and past to get rid of it, extolling the virtue I want to sell them. This is that you believe school Guard debate, then.
This is serious stuff.
This is for the Premier of Tasmania.
You cannot make things up.
I'm sorry.
The person at this debate that has suggested we sell energy assets is mister Winter.
Go back to your tweets if you like, a few years.
Ago and now you say you never wanted to sell energy energy outsets.
You cannot make things up.
I'm making this o Matthew. That looks pretty fiery here. But one of the things I've been fascinated by, and I think a lot of people of the mainland are watching, is the question about Tazzi's AFL team, which now hangs in the ballots ahead of the election. Now the Greens and Cross batches apparently they're against this whole deal for the AFL to come to Tasmania. Can you explain to our viewers who might not be across all this, what these possible outcomes could mean for this stadium in Hobart.
Yeah. Look, the stadium is a major issue.
It's really divided opinion and there are people who post for it for a very different reasons. Some people are worried about the cost of it. It's about a billion dollars, probably more because these things usually blow out even more than they already have at a time in the States, heading toward a record debt more than a doubling of debt under this government.
Across the Ford Inestamates, so.
Antasi has a debt bomb and they're worried that really this is just extending that. And other people are concerned who live in the northwest or the north of the state. They want the stadium to be at your park in a lot of system which is more convenient for them. So look there there's this overall, there's quite a bit of opposition to the stadium, to the team.
Everyone wants the team, but.
The IFL has made it clear that the two go hand in hand and they want they want a stadium at that side in McCrory point that you're looking at. And if they don't get it, then Tessy doesn't get the team. So really, the Greens and some of the cross benches and independents are arguing that, well, you know, maybe we could renegotiate the deal with the IFL. Look that's possible, but so far the AFL has shown no appetite for that whatsoever.
So the states are pretty.
High and it will be fascinating to see how far either Labor or the liberals. Liberals will go in terms of budging on that position in support for the stadium. If there is a home Parliament and they need people support, they're saying they're not budging on it. We'll just have to wait and see.
Sport, money and politics makes for a fascinating contest. We'll all be watching on Saturday. And good luck down there, and how about one of my favorite cities. Thank you so much, Matthew Dennel. Now stick around because after the break we're gonna be joined by your favorite Bronwyn bishop and a new face on Paul Murray Live. Ed Cavanaugh, fascinating fella with a lot to say, So stick around, don't go anywhere, We're gonna have some fun. Welcome back
to the program, Paul Murray Live. Here, James Morrow sitting in for the Great Man throughout the week, and we are on Wednesdays, so we're almost through it all. But we got a great, great panel here tonight on my right here the fantastic Bronwin Bishop. You know her very very well and she's got a lot to say tonight as well as a new face here on Paul Murray Live. Welcome Ed Cavanaugh from the McKell Institute in Adelaide. Ed, thanks so much for coming on the program. A warm
Paul Murray Live. Welcome to you both of you. Though, I want to start talking about because this is really the only game in town right now. News wise. It is this big Albanezi trip to China six days, no
other countries, no allies on this trip here. But this issue of the port of Darwin keeps coming up, and we all recall Anthony Albanezi at the very tail end of the election there jumping onto the radio in Darwin and saying, hey, we're going to take that back to try and gazump Peter Duttwell, he's made a rod for his own back. The Chinese is saying we'll have none of that. Here's Anthony Albanez earlier today.
So I've had the same position as when I was the Shadow Infrastructure Minister when the decision was made to provide a federal incentive by the Liberal Party to flog off the Port of Darwin.
Well, Bronwin Bishop me thinks he's rewriting history just a little bit here. But the thing that I'm fascinated about here is China saying that we are not welcome to take back the lease of the Port of Darwin, but we couldn't, you know, have a lease over any major commercial port, any port at all in mainland China.
I thought to our editorial was spot on. The fact of the matter is that before he went into any meeting in China he said, oh, well, I won't raise the Port of Darwin with Presidency, but if Presidency raises it, I'll tell him we want to take it back. Then he comes out and says, oh no, that was never raised. But of course Premier Lee is the one who's doing
the dirty work. Yes, and he's the one who says you take it back and we won't buy your iron, or this is the country that put twenty billion dollars of tariffs on our products because we asked a legitimate question about COVID and if our rat once, I'll rat twice. Isn't that the socialist dictum? Absolutely it is, and that means immediately there's a thought that we will do something that they don't want their way, coercion coming our way.
Now.
I just find that on this entire trip at the Prime Minister has become the ventriloicus dummy for President Z. He is actually putting out arguments that are legitimizing actions that China has taken against us, whether it's attacking our divers naval divers, or whether it's pilots in surveillance ACRA or a warship with live far going around our coastline. Oh,
they did not do anything that we are doing. I mean it was pathetic, it was embarrassing, and honestly and truly, we cannot have a prime minister who won't stand up for his own country.
Well, I think exactly said you framed the problem very well, ed Kavanaugh let's bring you in on this here from the perspective where you're sitting. Has Albanezy gone too far?
Has the Prime Minister gone too far in trying to stabilize the relationship to the point now where we can't speak up against things that the Chinese Communist Party regime does, whether it's you know, all of the things that Broad and Bishop just mentioned, or other sorts of human rights abuses around the globe around China, or their actions in
the Philippines and in the South China Sea. Have we lost our voice in the process of trying to create a better and as the Prime Minister says, more stable and orderly relationship with China, which to me seems like code for going along with what China wants.
Yeah, I think that's a pretty entrepreneurial reading of the situation here. You know, you mentioned where I'm sitting tonight, and where I'm sitting is in Adelaide, and if you went, you know, to a three hundred klometers to the north, there's still hundreds of jobs that have been lost because of you know, the wine trade backlash that we had under the former government, the deterioration of the relationship between
Australia and China. Basically under Scott Morrison, that was not serving anyone well, that was not serving Australia well, it was not serving Australian workers well in jobs that are trade exposed to China. I completely agree that we need to have a broader trade relationship than just with China, but we are just in denial if we're not going to admit that the relationship that we have with China is critical to well Australia's economy. I think it's yeah, go ahead, go ahead.
But I'm just curious because you know, you mentioned the loss of the trade. But I'm curious because you know, Scott Morrison asked a very legitimate question, where did COVID come from? And can you open the books? And they said, well, we don't like that question, so we're going to try and break your wine industry.
And then put out forty I think that's very I think that's incredibly poor behavior. Australia didn't acquiesce to those fourteen points. I think that was, you know, belligerents from Beijing's part, but it was also reflective of a deterioration under the former government of that relationship. I think you know, it's very sensible the line that the Albanese government has with its relationship China. I think that's the stuff of a mature government and I think frankly, most people in
Australia want to see stability in this relationship. Most people in the southeast of South Australia, my home state, who lost their jobs in the lobster industry, would be championing just this normal, steady issue goes approach to one of our most critical relationships.
Brunwin, do you want to respond to that?
Yes, very nice to meet you tonight, but let me say you are so wrong. The bottom line is that we don't want to tie ourselves in trade more to China. We want to diversify more so we're less dependent on China, because China has already shown by its behavior with its first twenty million dollars worth of tariffs. And then there's coercion again. If you dare take back your own port, we will stop buying your iron ore, which is our
major export. We know that they are not relations with I'm saying that we've got to diversify our feed That's what I'm saying, and we have got to have a prime minister that stands up for us and is not a toady. We have got to have somebody who is prepared to say when when the Prime Minister used the words respectful, he means obsequious and I'm sorry that is not acceptable to the Australian spirit. We have got to make our way in the world.
I think there's there's a lot of there's a Brunno, there's a.
Lot of sport in this, there's a lot of theater. There's a lot of fun sort.
Of No, there's no fun at all program this. But in fact, in fact, when I watched when I watched.
Him of that type of approach, when I watched him on.
The Great Wall of China today, I looked at it and it's been there a hell of a long time and it hasn't changed any since I was there in nineteen seventy five, and it's still the same stuff that s trotted out. Mao was alive then, and z is perpetuating the sort of China that Mao had. We had a change in direction that the worst for Seed under Ping, and I had indeed did meet Domsaping when he was standing in for Cho and Lie when China LII was dying.
That was a different path they were taking. But under this president, President z when he says he wants to have war and he's preparing for war, you've got to take him at his word. He means it. And I think we are seen as the vassal state they want. You've got bloggers in China who are saying Australia's the next Taiwan, and why bother with Taiwan. Take Australia its defenses and it's much richer, and it's got the food
and the minerals we want. Now, if we have a prime minister who speaks more like the governor of a vassal state instead of the prime minister of a sovereign nation, we are in trouble.
And do you want to respond to that?
Yeah, look, I just think you know Bronwin mentioned her lengthy engagement with China, I too you. I've been on the ground in China. I've been through his Injiung. I remember crossing the border from Mongol enters in Jihan getting apprehended at the border. I'm not endorser of the Jijinping model of governance in China. I'm just a pragmatic viewer of this, this relationship we have over decades built.
Up and economic dependence of some form with Beijing.
I completely support diversifying that relationship, but it is just not in the interests of everyday people in Australia to be just beating the chess for its own sake and then sacrificing jobs in states like mine. I just don't support that. Well, I don't know that people do in Australia arether No.
Look, I think I think.
That is worth more than I loves.
I think I think I think go up to make that the last word on that here, because there's so much more to talk about here. One thing here now it's not sexy, but it is important. Tax reform. The Commonwealth Bank Australia has urged Chim Chalmers to consider major tax reform to revive productivity. That includes slashing income taxes, changing the GST, capping superannuation concessions, and even introducing wealth taxes.
There's a lot, probably I think, for both sides of politics on this, but one thing that I find really vexing is the way income tax keeps getting turned up every year through bracket creep and the lack of indexation. This was brought up very briefly during the campaign, but
I did some mass on this. If the top tax rate of one hundred ninety thousand dollars a year had been indexed from the time of two thousand and seven when it was just one eighty, but it only just a little bit, there'd be like two hundred and ninety thousand dollars a year. And so we see how the government keeps taking more and more money, and it's the pay as you go taxpayer who keeps copying it every year. Broadway, Bishop, is tax reform dead in this country?
Well, under this government, tax reform is a euphemism, and it's a euphemism for it's how do we increase the tax take. That's what they want because they are a spend and tax organization. Not tax and spend, but spend and tax. Now, before the election, the snake charmers I call the treasurer said the budget's in great shape. Immediately after the election, it's unsustainable and we're going to have a round table and guess what I'm going to put up taxes? That is what he has got in mind.
And when you start to read all that stuff, history will tell you that We did in fact have indexation of Marshall tax rates under Malcolm Fraser, and it was not a success because people didn't appreciate it, and the tax tape went down and he had to find other ways to look at tax tax to be raised, and so they reversed it. And the other reason that the
difficulty will come about the GST. And I was at the forefront end fighting for the a GST to come in, but it was to replace the wholesale sales tax, which had taxes of thirty percent on and that was the real trade off that allowed that tax to get up when John Hart took it to the election in ninety eight. But if you do the calculation, you will still find that you will raise more money through bracket creep than you will by raising the gs.
Absolutely well, I'll sort of add on this. Your thing takes an awful lot of work I think around tax and tax reform. One of the things I'm concerned about though, and I want your thoughts on this, is while the tax take goes up, so to do the number of jobs created by government. So four and five jobs recently have been created in the public not the private sector. It's crowding out the private private enterprise. This isn't sustainable.
What does what do you and your institute make of this current situation where the Treasury says, well, we're going to have to both raise taxes and cut spending.
Look, I welcome this debate that has been put on the table. I think you know, Ron is right. We haven't really seen substantial tax form in this country for a quarter of a century. Been a pretty long time coming. There's a couple of things going on here. I think you're right in calling out the fact that we have way too much tax coming from just regular working people. It's just that is unsustainable in the long term. It's
disincentivizing work, it has all these sort of problems. I generally am supportive of the fact that we need to shift away the tax burden from working people towards other forms of revenue. The question then becomes, what is that revenue?
What does that actually look like? And I really welcome what the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, you know, hardly a socialist den sort of came out with this week, and that is, you know, looking at creative ways of taxing effectively wealth better in this country while also incentivizing investment and that type of Well, at some point there will have to be certain taxes that increase in to compensate from.
No, there's another way.
There's another way about tax reform.
There's another way.
I know what you're going to say.
There are three big expenditure items in the budget, Defense anddis and the entire renewable energy program, particularly rewiring the nation. That rewiring the nation, you free up a huge number of tradespeople who are able then to go into the market, and we won't have a shortage of skills exactly. We will be able to afford both defense increases and the ndii IS.
And bron will want to leave it there because we're going to go to a break here. But I'm glad you mentioned rewiring the nation because when we come back, a lot of controversy around offshore wind farms and whose fault could it be? Is name Donald Trump? Well we'll find out after the break. Stick around. Welcome back to the program. James Morrow filling in for Paul Murray live tonight and throughout the week. We're having a lot of fun here. We've got Bronwin Bishop here in the man Cave.
It's an open all genders band cave tonight here and joining us from adelaide Ed Kavanov from the McKell Institute, a newcomer here to the panel. We spoke a moment ago about rewiring the nation and green energy in the transition. Here, Bronwin. There was a story here on the ABC website that caught my eye and it said offshore wind companies cool
Australian interest as public investment is considered. And then it went through a whole bunch of sort of different reasons why offshore wind farms aren't actually taking off and why they're being canceled. But what this article said was that the real problem was when Donald Trump intervened to stop construction on a multi billion dollar wind from off the coast of New York. The decision reverberated around the world.
Robert bench If, I did a little research on this, and I'm not sure which one they're talking about, but I know that wind farm has been being canceled at least since twenty twenty three, when Joe Biden was office, off the coast of Sweden, off the coast of New Jersey and elsewhere. Can we stop blaming Donald Trump for everything? Oh?
Well, I don't think they will because he is all powerful, and he is making a huge number of decisions that are right for the world, like canceling wing farms, which we do not need here, and we don't need net zero by twenty fifty commitments either, and we don't need a cop conference here either. So I think we're seeing the rest of the world seeing that the world cannot get by without fossil fuels and all nuclear impossible. There is a place for renewables, but we cannot have renewals
only it does not work. The rest of the world has woken up to it, and we, as usual, are a couple of years at least slow behind.
What's funny because we have been you know, adopters have many things in the past, but now we see to be lagging ad around the world, governments are saying we're going to walk back our net zero commitments here, our power bills are going up and up and up, and we're never going to get that two hundred and sew and five dollars back. Is it time? I mean, if we're really honest about it and take the politics out of it, to wind back this headlong rush for net zero.
I think, frankly, it's incredibly sad that perspective. I think that the perspective where you have, you know, basically there's been people in power for the last like thirty years in Australia that have led us into this general situation we're in around you know, the issues we're having with climate and just saying, oh, don't worry about it, it's not an issue. Let's us not do anything about it.
That's just a fatalist approach. It's just not constructive. It doesn't help people in my generation, the people coming up at all. One of the bizarre things about that argument too, is just how fundamentally opposed it is to the opportunities in the economy that are driven by net zero. You know, Australian jobs in renewal energy construction, Australian jobs that are
enabled by the improved investment environment from net zero. So I just think, you know, that is a frankly, a really sad approach, just saying, look.
We should just not pursue this at all.
We have the most unique capacity in the world to take advantage of net zero.
We should be seizing that opportunity. We shouldn't be scared.
Of it, right not.
That argument just makes my blood boil. We are blessed with an energy source in this country. We've got uranium, we've got oil, we've got coal, we've got the abs of gas. We have got everything here, and yet we export it to every aspect of the world and we don't use it here. Now, I am shamedly voted for that. I voted for the legislation that said that nuclear power was to be banned. And I apologized profusely for ever
having voted for it, because it was wrong. But the fact of the matter is that other parts of the world are waking up to the fact that you cannot do without fossil fuel. You just cannot do it.
And in this country, Sydney, and you live in South Australia on an extension cord from Victoria because you blew up, you're only got out.
The extension. And if the extension cord is cut, you have no power. You're gone. And in New South Wales.
We're taking it from extraordinary to listen.
Okay, let's give let's give it a chance.
Literally the truth. I'm sorry, that's right. I will first point, you made my point for me.
You were in Parliament voted against nuclear energy twenty five years ago. Now you're you know, on TV saying we've got to adopt it now.
But you were, but you were.
The idea that we're not using coal and oil is just bizarre. We have you know, Victoria has seventy percent of its entire energy is based on coal an entire state. Fifty of the Australian energy mix is still coal. The idea that South Australia is reliant on East Coast and is just in an inverse of the truth pretty much every single summer day in Australia in South Australia. South Australia exports energy to the rest of the country because
of it's zero policies. So you have a beautiful and colorful story about the issue here, it just literally does not bear any reality with what's happening on the ground here in this state and frankly in the energy mix across the entire country.
And the one question though about all of this, I think people want to hear about this is why their power bills are so high. And I'm going off of memory here, but I think South Australia has some of the highest power bills in the country.
The power bill was a lower in summer when we're not actually dependent on coal on coal imports.
This is the reality of situation.
Just go ahead, go ahead, go ahead.
Please look.
The one point I'd make is the energy mix that Bronwin is calling for, an entire dependency infinitum in Australia on coal and on oil, is basically exposing the entire Australian economy the oscillations of a global energy market. It is completely crazy. Basically, no one should be doing that, No one should be advocating for that. We have incredible sovereign capacity to generate energy here in Australia.
Why would we not seize that?
Well, all right, let's let's let's uh, let's call that one a drawer there for now, because we got a couple of seconds left here. I wanted to ask about this one final topic because it does have to do. It's tied to China. Labor has refused to reveal whether TikTok lobbyists pushed for YouTube to be included in the
ban on under sixteen's accessing the Internet. Broadwin, having been in government, do you understand why the Communications Minister's office is being so cagy about this introductory meeting that they had with the Chinese own TikTok, Yes, I do, because.
The Albanize is in China and was this part of the deal? Is what pant went on closed doors when the media were removed from the meeting to our meeting between presidency and alban What has he gone into? They want to broaden the so called broaden the free trade agreement and increde AI Chinese AI coming into Australia. I mean, seriously, we said Huawei couldn't come. How are we going to look after our own integrity as a nation? And TikTok of course belongs to the Chinese, and YouTube of course
belongs to Americans. So is it part of this again? This trade off that's going It's.
A great question. Ed got fifteen seconds here? Can you give you a quick take? How concerned should we be about tech talk and all of this?
We look conspiracy is always fun to play around with. I think the reality in this is you have a lot of politicians who are a little bit older, who don't know really how young people actually interact with a lot of social media platforms, including YouTube. I don't support the ban on YouTube, and I think that's necessarily a good idea I think it's a useful tool for a lot of younger people.
I agree with it. We will agree on that.
Unity, team less and more ignorance.
All right, hey, listen, let's all end on that agreement that we all like the kids on the YouTube great stuff for the math homework and a lot of other things. Yeah, exactly right. And Kavanaugh, thank you so much for the Kell Institute for joining us here on Paul Murray Live. Braden Bitcham has always now stick around because we've got some fun with AOC after the break. Welcome back to
the program. James Morrow here for Paul Murray Live. Well, Donald Trump has been out there again having a chat about none other than Alexandria Okazia Cortes, who is a potential candidate for the twenty twenty eight presidential election, although she's only pollie at six percent, and he says that in a contest of IQs against AOC, he'd win. Have a look at what he had to say earlier today, you know, HEOC.
Look, I think she's very nice, but she's very low IQ and we really don't need low IQ. Between her and Pocket. We're gonna give them both an IQ test to see who comes out past.
Now.
I took my test. I took a real test. I'd walt to Reed Medical Center and I haste it. I got every one of all those questions. Right now, it's time for them to take a test. Anyway, have a good time.
You gotta love it. AOC dumb what me worry? Well, this is the woman who, of course was claimed that unemployment was only low in the US because everyone had two jobs, and once got in trouble for tweeting that she thought oil was going up was a good thing because of green policies. Well, there you go. That's all the time I've got tonight. But stick around here because coming up right now, it's the Late Debate