From the Skyinging Center. This is Paul Murray Live. Thank you, Sherry, Happy Thursday. What a big and busy night I have for you this evening. Lots of debate.
Can you know you think winner and loser in the weekend is Nigel Ferras joins us a little bit later. In a second, I'll go through what Peter Dutton had to say in his Budget and apply speech. It'll be written off as political, it'll be written offers not enough detail. No, it was a statement about values, and the values landed exactly where I think the bulk of the country is. We'll get to that in a moment. But the big news that excited a lot of people today and I
won't like me too. We are going to get not one, but two debates between Donald Trump and Joe Biden.
Now, I'm also pleased to say.
That we have an exclusive for you at the start of the evening's program. In fact, we can cross live to the debate that has still been going on on the internet thanks to AI for the past four years.
This is the Internet and what it thinks the debate will look like.
Now, small folks gather around like adorable little ducklings. We just discovered their own cute little flappy wappies.
It's time to get serious, but still gig along.
We're here to discuss policies ideas for our future cutie pat twoties out there. So think about it, my fine feathered friends, while we can enjoy some hilarious escapades from animated kiddos on TV now and then.
And speaking of falling down, Biden can barely stand upright without a teleprompter.
The man needs more support than hunter. Biden, after a night out with his laptop, said, good, it's that.
I don't know how they do it some computer somewhere, but since the twenty twenty election they have just been.
Debating back and forth.
I think it's on Twitch, one of the social media platforms. No doubt the ones in real life will be even more entertaining and at times perhaps his incoherent. All right, now, as you know, Jim Chalmers delivered too little, too light, and Australians know it in his budget that he delivered. Just a couple of nights ago, we've gone through through Uphill and down Dale, all of the details from the Goldberg Walk, as if he was a boxer going in to fight a main event ah, they laid it on
so thick well. Tonight was the opportunity for the opposition to reply. Now, one of the great myths and misnomers about a budget and reply speech is that you're supposed to have all of the detail that the hundreds and hundreds of people in Treasury are put together for the government of the day, when the reality is it's the leader, the MPs and their staff who are cobbling together what
they think should be the response to the budget. But what the budget and reply speech has given every opposition leader for as long as we have all been watching this process, it gives them an opportunity to speak to the country uninterrupted for about thirty minutes. Now if they give a major speech at the National Press Club, while that's televised, it's not the same as Prime Time on
Sky News, the ABC, lots of other places. He had the opportunity to meet Australia where it is right now, because, as I've told you for how many months now, Australians believe, in fact half of Australians believe that we are headed in the wrong direction, that we are on the wrong track. Now that blue line is the wrong track, the red line is the right track. It was very early last year where the right track just pit the wrong track. But you can see where it's been for now the
best part of a year at least. And this is a poll which comes out in the turbul Times. This is the data that the Guardian publishes, and it says that fifty percent of the country believes we're headed in the wrong direction. And that's where Peter Dutton knew that is challenged. Tonight be there at an early election, or if it goes full term, he'll get another chance next year.
It's not just to present yourself as a credible prime minister, as a person who can deliver a speech, but it's also somebody who, as I say, understands where people are. And he delivered lots of hits on the existing budget, but he also had plenty of ideas about what would guide him as the Prime Minister of this country and as a person who's been sitting here every single night with you looking at how this government promised a big game and then just delivered nothing or went in the
exact opposite direction. I thought Peter Dutton's opening was bang on. Almost two years ago. Prime Minister Albanezi was elected promising a reduction of two hundred and seventy five dollars each year in your power prices, cheaper mortgages, and that you would be better off under a labor government. All of those promises have been broken. Today millions of Australians are struggling to pay their bills. Even going to the supermarket and petrol station has become stressful for so many. Now
the government will say, well, we saw all that stuff too. Yeah, but the government is in the position to do things like all of those excise taxes I've talked about, from the taxes on beer and alcohol and tobacco and petrol. That are the things the government could do today to make things better. And also Peter Dutton quite correctly points out that this government is earning more revenue, well taking
more revenue than any government in recent memory. Yet this spending has also exponentially increased, which is why if the revenue starts to dry up, we go into deficit, deep deficit. And even the Treasurer was saying that in this most recent budget. But are they going to make things worse with the decisions they have made in this budget? Understandably, Peter Dutton says yes, and who could disagree.
In my twenty two years in Parliament, I've seen good and bad budgets, but the budget handed down on Tuesday night is one of the most irresponsible I've seen. The reason interest rates have gone up twelve times is because the government can't control its spending and because of its reckless policy. In three labor budgets, the government is lifted spending by staggering three hundred and fifteen billion dollars or thirty thousand dollars per Australian household.
Now, I was at a mate's place last week and I got the chance to have a chat to my mate's parents. Good people, loyal viewers of this program. They know who they are shout out. But they were talking that they think that the number one issue in the country is the reality that people.
Can't buy houses.
And I've been thinking about it and ruminating about it ever since we had the conversation, because we have to have an actual conversation about something like housing, and obviously a part of that process is the number of people who are being brought into the country each and every year. Put simply, if there aren't enough houses, but you keep adding more people, will then guess what. At the very bottom end of things, people end up being booted out
of their houses. And yes, I'll be talking about that in laborious detail moment or two time. But of course at the normal and the middle end too, the houses that you want to purchase your unable to do so because someone with more money, potentially coming in from overseas might be able to put up the hand and just
blow you away. So I was relieved and intrigued to see that Peter Dutton tonight talked about housing and had some clear ideas in the first couple of years of him being Prime Minister, how it would be easier, ever so slightly, but still easier for the person you have in your family who you hope will be able to buy a house, to actually have an even shot at buying one.
First, we will implement a two year ban on foreign investors and temporary residents purchasing existing homes in Australia. Secondly, we will reduce the permanent migration program by twenty five percent from one hundred and eighty five thousand to one hundred and forty thousand for the first two years in
recognition of the urgency of the crisis. Third, we will reduce successive numbers of foreign students studying at metropolitan universities to relieve stress on rental markets in our major cities.
Now again comparing contrast the people in the government who say nothing to see here, there's no problem or the only solution is that we have to take billions of dollars with the taxpayers money to go into housing. But that housing, of course is social housing. Now, I fully support huge investment in social housing because literally the old public housing, the old housing commissioners people would remember in places like New South Wales, the waiting list for it is sixty thousand people.
So we do need to build that.
But for your kids or your grandkids, how are they going to buy a home?
Now?
I've just off the top of my head talked out loud about ideas that no doubt will be screened at.
But what governments can do is.
They can firstly take the number of bidders off the table who are competing with your kids at an auction. And we certainly know that there is an awful lot of money, billions of dollars in fact, that is being bittered up by people who are either representing somebody overseas or pretending that the kid here for UNI is the one who can actually afford the unit that your kids or your grandkids should be able to have an even shot at so good, he's leveling the playing field. There
also crime. Now, there was a lot in his announcement tonight, and I think this was really interesting because he dealt with one of the great misconceptions of Peter Dutton is that Peter Dutton doesn't get the problems that women face in this country. But also on top of that he was able to and of course that's rubbish and garbage.
As he spoke about in his speech, his time both as a police officer responding to domestic violence calls, all the way through to the time that he was the Home Affairs Minister coming up with ways to crack down on kiddie porn. He's always had this as a focus. It will be one of the key focuses of what he will take to an election and should he become the prime in this state. A key value and that's why I say say about politics is about values, value
that he would bring to leadership in this country. He also had a couple of very solid, very clear ideas that will rule a line under the types of behavior that way too many people get involved with. Now, this is not a version of censoring the Internet. It's about saying that people who post videos of their crimes in order to get infamy from their crimes should not be allowed to do so.
Australians are unsettled by crime on our streets, ruptures to our social cohesion and threats to our national security. The Coalition government will provide much needed leadership in tackling knife crime.
We will work with.
States and territories to develop uniform knife laws across all jurisdictions, laws which will give police the powers to stop and search using detective ones like q Queensland's Jack's Law. Recently, Molly Tyshurst, a twenty eight year old mother from New South Wales, was murdered because her violent ex partner was on bail. Our bail laws need to be tightened in
this country. A Coalition government will make it in fence to use mobile phones and computer networks to cause an intimate partner or family member fear for their personal safety, to track them using spywear, or to engage in coercive behaviors. We will toughen the bail laws and apply to these that apply to these new Commonwealth offenses. There's been an uptick in young Australians committing crimes where they're filming and uploading their crimes to social media. A coalition government will
make it an offense to post criminal acts online. Those convicted will be banned from using digital platforms and liable for up to two years imprisonment.
That stuff is really important and that is the role that the federal government can play about the Telecommunications Act, about what you are allowed to do with devices. And at the moment there are too many people who use their devices and their electronic devices to threaten, intimidate and frankly stalk their partners. Again, who in the country would have a problem if that became law, and well, I hope the opportunity is that it's Peter Dutton and his
government that would be able to introduce that law. If the government stole the idea word for word and did it tomorrow, I would congratulate them out of nothing else. In a political career full of many highlights and many tough decisions, this would be a legitimate change for the better. As for the final pitch, the beginnings of an attempt to get the country back on the right track, because of course it's on the wrong track.
This was his closing statement.
Are you better off today than you were two years ago? Do you feel safer or more secure than you did two years ago?
When governments change, the country change.
Australians can't afford another three years of the Alban easy labor government.
Couldn't agree more.
And let's be honest, even some of the most ardent supporters of left wing politics would have to agree. We've had twelve infrastraight rises since this bloke became the Prime minister. We have seen how many things go exponentially through the roof.
Despite the fact that their promise was that they were going to do something about cost of living, we saw this week that their response to cost of living was to spend billions of dollars in taxpayers money to not actually improve anyone's life, but to buy them a slogan at an election. If this is a legitimate fight on values,
it's going to be a close one. But I certainly believe that the Australian population, while it may change its views from time to time on social issues or the importance of environmental issues, where Peter Dutton was tonight is where Australians have always been, regardless of whether they have been here for many generations or they have just turned up last week. He didn't get into the concept of the fair go, but he did get into the idea about a fair Australia.
I think this was a good speech. It was a speech about values. No doubt.
The bubble within the bubble within the bubble will have its issues, but who cares. They're the gatekeepers of a political generation a long time ago. For anyone else who actually saw the speech tonight, they would see a bloke who is more in sync with them than the roosters, who are all just about their own power and their own mates in the current government. Meantime, the media, of course, was obsessed with the major announcement from the federal budget.
Every household, regardless of income, will receive three hundred dollars off their energy bills.
Three hundred dollar energy rebates to everyone.
Every Australian household will save hundreds of dollars on their power bills.
Yay.
It's nineteen hundred dollars a yearnus yay. And of course the reality here is that it's not three hundred dollars they're sending you as a check that you'll be able to go and spend on something you really need to spend it on, as Andrew Clenell explains, and I'm showing this every night because I want everyone to understand.
It's not three hundred dollars that you get in your hand. It's not cash.
It is seventy five dollars every three months that the taxpayer is going to pay to power companies to drop your bill. Now, it'll be interesting to know whether a sideline of that is that they're going to put on everyone's power bill. Thanks to the Albaniz the government, this bill is seventy five dollars less than it should have been, to which most people will go, U huh, And you get seventy five a quarter all of us, you know, gena Ryan Hart gets.
It, Twiggy Forest gets it, we all get it. Everyone watching gets it. And I think it just rolls pretty much straight onto your bill. Yes it does.
And I'll get to the millionaire and billionaire side of this in a moment or two time. But what is fascinating is some of the spin that the government tried to put on all of this, that all of this was really about helping people when it came to the cost living, and Jim Chalmers was there on the ABC telling everyone and all the different post budgeting, Oh, this is the great idea. It's going to change people's lives.
Are no.
And guess who actually ended up telling the truth, the secret that the billions of dollars in taxpayers money that will not change anyone's life, will not change anyone's life. Well, Chris Bowen is the one who's actually turned around and said what the real deal is in all of this, because you know he's a genius playing three dimensional chess. Okay, he actually turned around and admitted that the reason why this is happening is because they're going to use taxpayers
money to try to reduce inflation. Best case scenario, it'll be by half of one percent, but with inflation still well higher than half of one percent when it comes to the target range, it won't actually change the Reserve Bank's opinion about interest rates. So we're spending billions of dollars for this reason.
You do that by spreading it across as many bills as you can, and you do that effectively by spreading it to every indigity bill in the country. You maximize the impact on inflation which will help the Reserve Bank in their job. And we sign this very carefully as to how it will maximize assistance to the Reserve Bank to ensure that they can do their job.
Best case scenario, this much help. But then of course this isn't for all time, which means presumably when it runs out in twelve months time, this much goes back on top of whatever inflation apparently has slightly fallen back as a result of the policy.
Again it's beatings of dollars.
So they have a slogan to go to an election with now, people who are low information voters, well, they may will end up fall for it because you know, Labour's got slick ads and clever things, and you know a good or good music about any decision that is anything other than the government is magnificent. But the reality is that I think people's lived experience is going to be You can tell me logan as many times as you want. My interest rates have gone up twelve times
since this bloke became Prime minister. Thirteen times. There was one just before the last election. People are having to find anywhere between fifteen and thirty even more one thousand dollars a year.
To pay off their homes.
The idea that magically everything's okay because there might be one changing interest rates. Well, really, that's like, as I've said before, the python is currently squeezing you, and you are the same color as rabina, like dark purple. Oh, but you're now mauve. You're still under the pump. And that's how people will view this budget. And also another bit of spin that has not even lasted the week since the budget, which is why does everyone have to
get this? Why are all the people who could clearly afford their power bills? These are the people who demand we should spend a trillion dollars or more on a transition to green energy because they don't notice the cost of transition that comes via their bills. We're talking about and at times not so famous. Now, every time I say this, I have friends who saying, I'm stop bashing.
Up the rich.
Okay, certain rich people, certain rich people, but everyone in the country ends up getting the seventy five dollars. But of course, for obvious reasons, people who are well wouldn't even have seventy five dollars down the back of the couch.
I'm sure they've got more than one hundred bucks back there. Well.
Apparently the reason why they needed it, despite the fact they've got swimm pools and tennis courts, the reason they need the same supplement as somebody living in a wide bedroom unit in the western suburbs of insert capital city was because of this.
First of all, I think these costs of living pressures go up and down the income scale. Yes, they fall disproportionately on the people on the lowest incomes and fixed incomes, and they are obviously our priority. But I think people are under the pump right around Australia.
So everyone needs it because everyone's under the pump, including the people who clearly, let's be honest, seventy five dollars every three months they're done. They're not going to notice it. They don't even notice when the bill goes up by a thousand dollars.
Yet they all get it.
People like Dick Smith have turned around and said, no, this place, we're going to donate all of this. Plenty of other significant Australians have also come out and said no, I don't need this. Please, if you're going to do it for anyone, focusing on the people who.
Actually need it.
But guess what the reason everyone got it was because everyone's feeling the pain was the spin. Well two days later we learn that the reason everyone is going to get this apart from the fact that where they're spending billions of dollars so they can create a slogan that every household gets the help. By their own admission, it's too costly to means tested. What does that even mean.
The idea that it is cheaper to send a credit to the power company for every single house in the country is cheaper than working out if the house needs it or not. And even the ones who need it, it's so small you don't notice.
And by the way, energy.
Bills are about to go up again just two weeks ago. This was the announcement from the energy regulator. So even the seventy five dollars that's posted to help you every three months is going to be eaten up by.
What's about to go up in the next little while.
Today news from the economy was more people are unemployed and here unemployment is hotter bit of.
A surprise jump in unemployment.
It rose to four point one percent last month, up from a revised three point nine percent in March.
Just two days after the federal budget warned unemployment would rise.
It has now. Apparently this is good for the economy because there's.
A chance that if there was going to be an increase in the interest rates because of the inflationary spending of the federal budget, there is a chance that now won't happen, you know, one hand, the other all the rest of it. In fact, somebody is smarter than we could explain it.
Australia's unemployment rates has jumped higher than expected in April, which could be good news for interest rates.
Yes, but that good news for interest rates, it comes at a cost, Like everything, does you know, a little here, a little there. If we get where the budget is predicting us to get to, which is say four and a half percent unemployment rate, that means between now and next budget, one hundred and three thousand and six hundred people have to lose their jobs for the government to be able to say, oh, isn't it amazing we kept unemployment where we promised it. Okay, good footy stadium of people.
More than that's the MCG Seriously, all.
Right, I hope you're comfortable, because I've got a bit on this now.
Last night, while we're around the air, I saw that the story which made it to the front page of the Daily Telegraph today had dropped.
I heard it in the late debate and I have been waiting to talk about this all day, all.
Day because, as you know, Anthony Abnezi is apparently getting ready to sell a house in the in a west of Sydney and a bloke has been living in it for some period of time. He says that this is the reason he was given.
We're so disruptive when you get in viction notice. I know all landowners are entitled to do that, it just reaks absolute havoc. At the moment, you know, we're dealing with cost of living crisis, probably the worst rental crisis certainly, and I can remember in Sydney we've got a massive shortage of properties and options are pretty limited.
And that's true.
But the reason I decided to talk about this in some detail tonight, it's because it is the perfect microcosm of what a lot of people face when it comes to the problems of the rental market. That if you're in a rental property, you're just holding on. If the owner decides to sell, which of course they're completely allowed to do, there's nowhere nearby to go and get another
rental place. Why because you're competing with all of those extra people that, in this case, your landlord has brought into the country over the past couple of years.
But I really want.
To talk about what I think is one of those moments where people who listened to FM radio and love watching shows like Tipping Point Good Luck to You, there are sometimes political stories.
That really puncture and they get at and they go, hang on, what.
The leader who's telling me they're so amazing and helping with everything is actually somebody who doesn't care about me, and in fact he's doing something pretty nasty. On Radio National this morning, the Prime Minister was playing a home game and right at the end Auntie p K decided to ask the Prime Minister about why he is doing this, and this was his reason.
I have, I think, been a good owner of the property. He's paid around about half what the market rental is. I kept that situation there post COVID when the rent were substantially reduced. I've had changes in my life.
I've had changes in my life now, without getting too personal, if we're talking here about a scenario where the Prime Minister who got divorced a couple of years ago, that's the reason he's got to sell, well, that would have happened back then, right, Instead, his life circumstances have changed. What life circumstances have changed for the Prime minister that he needs to sell this house right now? He's hardly
on the bones of his backside. We know he's got other investment properties, and we all know that he's earning a pretty penny.
But continue, I wish him well, but I am allowed to make changes which are a direct result of the changes that have happened in my life from where I was ten years ago with my formal life and family.
Yes, but as anyone who is aware of how divorce works, you sell the house while you're getting divorced, and that again didn't happen just last week. But again I don't know that personal situation. I don't know who's on the bill. But the Prime Minster talks again about his circumstances have changed. Now, I understand why investment property owners sometimes have to get rid of the property because either the interest rates too high.
Wouldn't that be hilarious if it's the reason. But of course, for this Prime minister, he's earning half a million bucks. He's living in not one but two houses that we pay for. He's living in the Lodge, a mansion in Canberra and a mansion that he has to his availability in Sydney. So exactly what is the changing circumstance that means he has to boot the bloke out of the house, well, other than he wants to sell the house because he wants to do something with the money, which again is
his right. But still, of all of the people who make the choice to sell their investment property, the guy who's living in two taxpayer funded mansions earning half a million dollars with a private plane that your nickname after your dog is not exactly the bloke who urgently needs to flush people into a rental market that in the Inner West of Sydney is even worse than the country average, and even worse than the Sydney average, which in terms
of housing availability is about one point seven percent of all of the housing stock in all of Sydney that is actually available for rent. It is even worse. I think it's about one two to one point one in this particular area, so he knows what he's doing, he just doesn't care. And I think that's what starts to connect with people that a bloke who doesn't need to sell this house instead is just choosing to sell this house.
And pushes this blokeout.
But again, is the guy who's trying to pretend that he really cares about people like this guy if they were renting a house from anyone else, It doesn't quite match up.
This is where the green's coming.
I've seen some people say, well, this isn't a story. The reason this is a story is because this is a demonstration of who runs this country. We have got millions of renters right now being smashed by a rental crisis, and he have a property investor prime minister leading a party where seventy five percent of labor members are property investors and sixty five percent of Coalition members are property investors, and they're calling the shots.
There's another aspect of all of this that gives us a little bit of an insight into the true personality of the Prime minister, the bloke who supposedly was more compassionate because of his background.
But you can see a pretty nasty streak.
Because all of this has been made public, we know the Prime Minister can blow up like the best of them. And now the bloke that's in his sites because he's gone public is the guy that's going to get booted out.
Now.
He of course, like a good little left he said, I've supported the Prime Minister, I voted for the Prime minister. But still it's not going to matter, right, He's now embarrassed the Prime Minister, which means going to cop it.
So there was one.
Thing in the Prime Minister's statement about this bloke that I noticed because it was familiar. It's a very passive, aggressive thing where if you were reading a transcript back to a court, you look compassionate, but it's not.
I wish him well, you see.
It's just a way of saying, see you later. Where have I heard this before?
Oh?
That's right.
Remember when the Prime Minister made the organizer of a domestics violence rally cry her friends all around her. What exactly did he say about her after she had embarrassed him by calling him a liar.
I with regard to Sarah, I wish her well.
I wish shrewell.
Ah, he wishes you well. That's very important, isn't it.
No, it's basically you screwed me over by embarrassing me. So I wish you well, but I don't wish you well. Get away from me and get ready for a pack to start hunting you. And you see, just like when it came to the woman at that domestic violence rally, the Prime Minister's mates in the media, well, they come
out in spades to defend the Prime minister. Remember, despite the fact that you could see the lady crying at the rally, they were out and about telling us, well, if you actually look at the tape, the prime Minister's actually off the hook. No, the lady's still crying. Remember, even the Prime Minister saying, look at the tape. Look at the tape. It exonerates me. Yeah, we have seen the tape of the woman crying.
Yet he says, you can look at it. You work at sky Evan can look at it. Yeah, we can look at the tape.
Here it is again.
You see again, this is what this bloke thinks. This is what this guy thinks. I can just pretend you didn't see it. I wish you well. My life circumstances have changed, so I've got to sell the one point nine million dollar joint, however much it's worth, because i.
Just want the money. He's in two taxpayer funded houses that he assumes he'll be living in for the next ten.
Years because he's a somewhat popular as he thinks prime minister.
And I've got to say, how did the Prime.
Minister come up with the I wish him well line? And my life circumstances have changed. You think one of the eleven people who work as the personal media people of the Prime minister would have given him better advice, like I'm not going to talk about this publicly. I'm going to ring the bloke cock call him later today, see you later.
Not interested, I don't know.
Instead, because he crossed him, he now wishes him well.
Well, thankfully.
Rather than people being able to see into the real life actions of a prime minister who is not sintillary as compassion as he pretends to be, the Left had something else to explode about the former prime minister met with the former president in New York and.
Then heads flewed. That is the real outrage. That is the real outrage.
OSSI stunned by Scomo's Trump post SMH God help us. Morrison cozying up to Trump is weird, but it could soon get even weirder. And okay, lefties, if that Pharto sent you crazy one more time, this will send you a loopie. I told the team just find people running out of the theater. I thought it was gonna be like one second. I love how long that win because that's the explosions. And now because I've course pointed out the media team around the Prime Minister, the narratives, the
people that are covering up. We all know what's going to happen. Now they turn around and come for us. Well, it's not like we're not expecting it. Quick breakback with more. We're going to find ou who's a winner and loser of the week, will debate some of the other issues around our panels, thoughts when it comes to what's happening with Peter Dutton' speech, and a whole lot more. Nigel Farage as well, just getting started. Thanks for watching Fort Murray Live.
On on Thursday.
Nigel Faraj in a couple of seconds, but right now a chat with two big brain ladies about the issues that are around right now. Emily Die of course works for the Center of Independent Studies, so always good to have her in the man cave, as is our dear friend Linda Scott excited budget week, we'll all solved all the problems and of course Peter Dutton in reply, a sign of a horrible Trumpist government to come. What did you think of the response?
I mean, look, if only there was as much vision as Donald Trump has. It's just sort of nothing. Wasn't there No new ideas, just repeating the whole sort of law and order themes that he's been talking about as a Queensland cop since he's been in Parliament for a very long time. Really nothing new.
Didn't get you there, Emily, what about you?
I thought it was so cautious. I was really disappointed that the Coalition has taken such a soft response to the changes to Stage three tax cuts and those broken promises. I think that they should have come out much stronger and said, hey, actually the wealthier people are being underrepresented, they are being undercompensated for bracket creep. We're not compensating for the bracket creep that's occurred over the time period. And so they're like, yeah, yeah, the changes are fine.
The cutting, the gutting, it is fine, if you have a certain wealth group, you'll never get a tax that you never get to be compensated for bracket creep and that's okay.
Yeah, but you'll get, you know, seventy five dollars every three months on a.
Power bill if you're sitting and rolling around you mentioned now.
Today there's on multiple fronts a conversation of labor MP's and senators that have come forward and said pretty direct stuff that is either in support of the protests that have taken place or outright attacks on Israel for its response to what has happened in October the seventh. In the New South Wales example, again without boring you here, all of the extra jobs apart from being the back bench have been taken away from the one in New
South Wales. The senator from Westerland, Australia well, albows, wave the finger, but she's very junior in the first term, so there's nothing to take.
Off from her. So emily free speech or crossing the line? Do you think of these?
I mean, I've already outed myself as being very pro speech. I think that we should be having debate. I think that they haven't crossed the line. This is actually shameless pluged this cis that we had an event last night that it was using all of the words that are the offensive words. It was John Meesheimer. He said the Jena slide word, he said the Apartheyd word, he said ethnic cleansing. And this is a debate series we're doing. We'll have the other side coming up next month so
that both sides can speak. But I think it's really important to let people voice their ideas, especially our parliamentarians, especially people in government. They should be allowed to be vocal, they should be allowed to be bored, and we should combat them on their arguments.
But also, I mean, Linda, there's a responsibility here, right, And the responsibility I think is that your ultimate expertise is in the constituency you represent.
Ie.
I know, as a counselor, I'm an expert in having an opinion about the area that I represent.
Do you have opinions about other things? Sure, because you're a human being.
But it seems to me that where these people are going to get themselves in trouble apart from where they land on.
The issue, is in my view, kind of way out of their lane.
Trying to fix intractable problems on the other side of the world, and the response is going to be from their leaders, get back in your lane.
Well, look, I think, as I said to Michael Krager last night last week, sorry, what Australians want to see is their leaders trying to promote and support harmony, bringing communities together, showing leadership to stop the division. And so I do think these two comments by two Labor members in the New Southwalest Parliament and in the Federal Parliament were unhelpful. When you've got everyone in leadership positions in labor governments across the country trying to promote harmony and
peace and bringing people together. It's not to say there's not global significant tensions. It's not to say that people don't have opinions that they can't voice. But what people want right now, in particular, is the promotion of leadership and harmony. I do want to call out, though, Paul, because I think it is correct to say that there is a difference. I do want to call out that.
In the New South Wales example, Anthony Diadam as a Parliamentary secretary, is part of a leadership group of the government. He's a man who stood up in the New South Wales Parliament and attacked a female public servant. I think I do think that is especially disappointing and it's not reflective of the kinds of values that I would want to see in a labor government.
Well again, what we would hope is that that the minister's parliamentary secret is all of that. Well, of course they're chosen by the leader to be the people who represent their vision for the state or the country. Of course, in the Labor Party they're given the list of people and then you have to find jobs for them. So
there's sort of factional things on it. But it is interesting that, you know, Labor never breaks ranks, but if you're going to break ranks like this, and particularly in this fashion, we'll all see what happens.
I'm liking this speed round. By the way.
One of the suggestions being discussed in Victoria at the moment is that maybe they have to get rid of the number of golf courses in Victoria and replace them with houses.
What do you reckon?
I mean, you're never going to catch me saying no to more housing supply, that's it. I don't think that that's necessarily the best option. I think we need to reform our zoning more brightly, and it needs to be our single family zoning. It needs to be upscaled to mid size. We need to have more townhouses, more mid density apartments. The mid density should be upscaled to high density.
I think putting golf courses at the center, making this a big fight in these green spaces maybe counterproductive to the people that are wanting to see change. That said, like, I'm not totally sympathetic to the idea of this reserved golf course green space for only people that are able to be members of the club and are of a certain wealthy elite, and that's stopping people from being able to have home.
Yeah, that's true.
In terms of private I mean the public golf courses, which is in part what the City of Sydney is discussing about whether it's eighteen or it's nine. You know again, I get the golfers, and I know the people are going to be angry at the mere suggestion of this stuff, But I'm intrigued about where the line is between you know what, every other sport has a space. Funnily enough, golf needs quite a lot of space for its sport.
And yes, there's public private clubs, but there has to be public access otherwise it is just you know, sort of polo in the city and I don't think any of us want that for our countries.
But what do you reckon?
Look, there's nothing that gets people more hot under the collar than a debate about a golf course. And I should know this as a counselor. But yeah, of course, in the city of Sydney, we've worked with the New South Wales state government basically to have some catch up on green space. So the more part golf course will
be half from eighteen to nine holes. That's a state government lease decision, and that will open up more open green space for the surrounding suburbs in places like Green Square, which are the densest part of Australia, and not just by a little bit. We're doing, you know, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of new apartments, sixty thousand residents, really
dense and we do need some green space catchup. That said, just next door in the Inner West, we've had a labor mayor, Darcy Byrne, starkly oppose the shutting down of a golf course. I mean, look, you'd expect me to say this poor Murray. But it's why local.
That's only when I'm in trouble. That's why local government decision maker, just.
Because it's important that local factors come into play here. And I don't think there's sort of one international answer about shutting down the golf courses to solve housing affordability. Different things apply in different.
All winners and losers. Let's go bumper stickers. Who's you winner loser this week?
Winner's probably actually Gina Ryan Hurrit. She's done very well in this budget. The mate in Australia, I think is a really terrible idea that is is isolationist. It is encouraging more more mining. We're not having the best people doing the best things. And so we're talking about all of the screen stuff we're talking about.
Andrew Forest is more excited about.
Forest is also very happy about all of the energy proposals. I think those are our two big winners. The loser is going to be Jim Thomas. I think this is a budget that is not good for young people. Ultimately, it's going to increase the data sit in the long run, and that's going to hurt young people with the high dat good stuff, lovely.
Chat look when it is Jim Channer's I think he obviously delivered a brilliant budget but loses and we are a bit disappointed about this. Are local governments. We were looking for more funding in the federal budget and we were disappointed to see the government not deliver on their promise of fair increases for local government.
Good stuff. Thank you guys, do appreciate haveing a wonderful weekend. Quick break. Nigel Ferras Nigel Farrage.
Is next a We're going to talk about Trump and Biden debates.
Monessy.
The next top on our Ourtown journey is going to be at the end of this month in Parks. If you would like to join us, please send me an email tonight to Ourtown at skynews dot com dot au. Big stuff around the world to talk about with Niger Ferras, who joins us now from London. Great man, love you to see you.
Thank you.
So Trump versus Biden not one but two debates. Trump is saying there should be a third involving Fox News.
Now.
I think there's a lot a lot of reasons why both of them need to be there. But what do you think about the prospect of the clash.
Well, last time round, we had the first debate much later on, within two days, Trump was diagnosed with COVID.
He wasn't on his game.
But the time of the second debate, and this is crucial, but the time of the second debate when Trump trouts Biden and everyone agreed on that, by then one hundred million Americans had already voted. So the value of the big head to head debate, this centerpiece of American elections. Ever since Nixon debated Kennedy over sixty years ago, the effect was diminished. So the timetable June September is perfect.
It gives, well, it actually gives both candidate. It's a chance to get their message out before these ridiculous tens of millions of mail out ballots still happen. The terms are very much on Biden's terms. I mean, it's going to be cn in vigilating. Trump's microphone will be turned off when Biden's talking. And the worst part of it, of course, is no live audience. And that's a shame because I think, you know, good programmers can get a neutral audience in a studio and how they react and
respond is rather important. So it's it's kind of a watered down debate, but it is happening at the right time. I do think a third one later on would be a good idea. But look, from my friend Donald's perspective, this is better than nothing.
Yeah, I mean, obviously, the reason Biden is going anywhere near this or trying to create what he has been able to create about the context of the debate, he's losing, Like currently on the poles, he is losing, and he is losing in enough of the significant areas, and the story of him losing is rolling and gathering more and
more momentum. So I think it's legitimately an attempt to change the sub and also to create a whole bunch of sort of get out of jail moments where we're not gonna have a conversation about replacing the candidate because there's a debate coming up and then there's another one coming up and then it'll.
Be too.
Yeah.
And also, don't forget this week, you know, major speech from Biden about unfair trade from China or should I say China, and you know he's.
Going to put tariffs on etc.
Very much, you know, straight out of the Trump playbook. So I think what we're seeing here is a very worried, very.
Frightened Joe Biden.
I think you'll write about maintaining his position after the convention, which will take place in August, worried that somebody might, you know, somebody at the party might try and get him replaced at that event. He's in trouble. But I've got a good tip. Excuse me, sorry, no, no, I've got a very good tip. Got a very good tip for your viewers.
All right.
Now, Look, I know we're not supposed to encourage gambling, and you can't do it, but yes, yesterday I chat with the book makers and Trump was Evan's. And if you don't bat, fine, if you do, Matt, I'll tell you what, boys and girls, it's a great price.
I'm on. I love it, fantastic. All right.
Also, let's talk about the other thing, which of course is the courtroom.
Now.
One of the reasons why I think it's also advantageous for Trump to say yes, I'm in, is because should we get to the result he doesn't want and a judge's got to work out sentencing. A little difficult to slot somebody when you know they've got a presidential debate coming up. Rather than just the presidential election in November. But still Michael Cohen, the lawyer who has told many lies to many organizations, who even Maggie Hayman in the New York Times says, has not proven the case that
Trump directed or knew how the bookkeeping was working. He's under cross examination again. It happens in a couple of hours.
Yeah, I mean, you know, as you say, it's not Michael Cohen, lawyer, Michael Covin liar. And everyone knows that. Everyone knows the guy's a liar. He's got a very bad reputation. He's not helping himself. And you know the idea that Donald Trump did the books and looked at the menu, shi, I mean, it's for the birds. Trump's a big picture guy. And as you say, the case hasn't been proven. There is just about zero chance whatever the jury find, just about zero chance of a custodial sentence.
It's not registering in Middle America in any way at all.
You know, is.
Trump flawed on a personal level, Well, everyone knows he is, but they don't care. What they're looking for is strong leadership. That's why he's doing as well in the polls as he is that's why he is going to win on November the fifth, whatever.
Happens, said, they have only got a minute to talk about the big news surrounding yourself and the Reform Party. But you may well end up just wiping out the Conservatives.
The Conservatives. Oh I remember, that's right, we used to have. Yeah, I'm sorry you completely nonplus me there. You mean do you mean the high tax, big regulation, massive immigration people that masquerade in number ten at the moment as conservatives.
That's obviously what.
You're referring to. No, no, no, no, no, no no. They don't need my help to wipe themselves out, the absolute contempt which a huge number of the British public now view them. After all the promises they've made in twenty nineteen on the back of a big Brexit vote that they have actively portrayed. With or without my help, they are doomed.
Good stuff, Thank you, mate, I do appreciated the great Nagel Faraja of course joining us each and every week. That's our show for the week. We look forward to seeing you again next week. We'll be here on Sunday night. Have a great weekend and go Yankees.
Goo tiny