Paul Murray Live | 25 September

that went down in the past month. Now to get such a dramatic drop dairy, No, that wouldn't be it. What about furnishings about a point, it's okay, that's not that amazing. Yeah, good feels down. Okay, that's very very volatile. But you know, a couple of months it could be way. Oh that's what happened. Now they, by the way, of all of the things that they count, are the only four things that went down in the past month. The electricity thing went down because, as you know, you're paying

for it. The government on budget night announced that there was going to be three hundred million or three hundred dollars each and every house, be it a mansion or a one bedroom unit in the bush, will come off your power bills. The reality seventy five dollars a quarter or twenty five dollars a month. Now, yes, as a big number, it's hundreds of millions of dollars. When it's

an individual circumstance like yours. It doesn't touch the sides because even though the cost of electricity is down for one month, because it is artificially being pushed down, the cost of building the preferred version of the electricity grid, it continues. In fact, there are more renewables being about now than ever before. We all know why, and we all know who pays the price. Now the CSIRO tells us it could be half a trillion dollars. The CSIRO

used to tell us it was a trillion dollars. Green energy groups tell us it's multiple trillion dollars, all of which eventually comes back to you as the person who pays the bill. So the cost of order is all continuing. You may still be much higher than you were twelve months ago, but because it's not continuously going up, they

get the result that they did today. Now it won't surprise you that I will show you the devil that is in the detail, the reality of what is actually happening in the economy, and how this was something that will not convince the Reserve Bank to cut rates because four things came down, but more than a dozen things went up. Have a look in the past month, holiday travel and accommodation up by more than the headline number. Alcohol up by more than the headline number. You know, food,

that pesky stuff still way above the headline number. When it comes to alcoholic beverages, new homes that people live in, health education, all of those cost to double the number. Then we start to get into our old mates. The insurance system rents fruit and vegetables. Now, fruit and vegetables and fuel have been incredibly volatile. Now, fuel has of course gone way up at different parts of this year. Fruit and vege has gone way down at parts this year.

Fuel is now starting to come back down. Fruit and vege is starting to raw back up. And tobacco, well, it keeps going up because of this government's position when it comes to taxation, which is why Mission accomplished is so irresponsible. It is legitimately irresponsible to say because it's not natural, in the same way that George W. Bush found a way to say mission accomplished. But the war went on for another what ten and ten years? So

will be the fight when it comes to inflation. The Reserve Bank tells us this thing doesn't actually get to where they believe it needs to be until maybe maybe the back end of not this but next year. And because all of those things keep going up while other things that they're able to either have the variability of things like fuel prices or they're able to buy their way through. When it comes to monthly electricity changes, it means there is no rate cut coming, okay, because the

reduction in inflation is not real. So what does this all mean.

two years ago. So forgive me if I am not actually celebrating and it's not mission accomplished, you know, and the show will often point out the each way elbow. In fact, I think we came up with the term. Now we know he hates it. We know that even his mates in the media turn around and say, oh, it's not catching on really really well, when you actually they said the same about airbas elbow. They didn't they Now, let's talk about the negative gearing thing. But I wanted

to do this differently than everyone else has. Now, sometimes there are nights where sort of one big story is going to get all of our different opinions on it, and just like when there's a big news story that will be at each and every hour, the same will

approach when it comes to opinion. But there's a couple of points I want to make about what I think is firstly really going on here, and secondly, why the negative gearing stuff is going to be a political problem rather than the one that the lefties think is somehow going to be a political solution to their fight with the Greens. Firstly, we know what he said about negative gearing after they lost in twenty nineteen, and he wanted

to win in twenty twenty two. Gearing now gliding without help tobisky.

We all learned today that negative gearing is apparently back on the table.

this was on today. It quoted multiple labour figures who thought this was a good idea. But then we had a scenario where the Prime Minister pretended that he had no idea what this was about. And that means one of two things. He's either lying about not knowing, or he has no idea what is going on inside his government.

Both are terrible, both should be disqualifying. But I would imagine both will magically disappear by a press gallery that largely has always loved the idea of somehow raising the twenty nineteen election as the one where your bill should win.

And let's just pretend he did win, and the policies that we know have been rejected will just repackage like they did around two hundred and seventy five dollars when it comes to power cuts to achieve basically the same result, a shortened when it comes to emissions, when it comes

down to negative gearing. We're going to pretend that a never so slight change is apparently vastly different than what was rejected a couple of years is a go again Prime Minister interview this afternoon, and I'll tell you a little thing about how these interviews come about because I used to do radio in the afternoon. I've seen those reports. And what we do is we.

but two radio interviews in Sydney this afternoon. Now, I remember what it was like to do drivetime talkback radio in Sydney, and I know that the Prime Minister is not normally somebody who is booked in advance. Instead, generally speaking, the Prime Minister's office will reach out to said radio host just a couple of hours before due to interview because they want to get a message out because they

expect good news has happened earlier in the day. Now, if both of those shows want to tell me differently, my guess is the Prime Minister was offered to about the ABC and t GB very late in the day to day. Why would they do that if they were trying to hide the story. Instead, they're trying to buy into the story. Instead, they're trying to spin the story, which is why again Jim Charmers answered the question like this.

we can probably push through here. And as you saw when it came to those tax cuts, despite the fact that we were right and it was too little, it was too late, it did not change things when it came to cost of living. All of those media organizations who liked the policy were the ones who told you not what would happen per week or by fortnite, and said they gave you the one big number, that was the annual number as they were doing the bidding of

the government. They will now proceed to do the bidding of the government when it comes to negative gearing. That's point number two now to number three, the four D chess of the Prime minister. Even fiddling with this issue,

well it boggles my mind. You see, he may think that there is absolutely no scenario under which he will not be the prime minister after the next election, even if he has to go into a minority government with less than seventy seats, because it's basically a left wing cross bench, they'll all back him in and there's no way he won't be the greatest prime minister of all time for as long as possible, bek as nobody will

ever elect the Libs in his mind. But I want to show you just how bad this could be for the government if they keep the negative gearing question hanging and they let the opposition define what some of these changes may be. Have a look again the reporting of the second shooter drop at the Channel on newspapers today was they actually listed the number of seats that are the top seats in the country in terms of the percentage of taxpayers in that electorate have a negatively geared property.

As you can see one, two, three, four, five, six are labor seats. Of those, a significant number are marginal seats or could become marginal if ten percent start to think that something is about to happen with their major financial investment. So I'll give you a tip about what

I think is going to happen here. I think that they've put the balloon up and I think that they want to say that they're going to do something in and around negative gearing, because particularly with younger voters and people that are more Greens favored, this is one of sort of the big Uga boogers of the Australian property system. If they do anything, I don't think it'll be for

anyone currently involved. They'll try to grandfather things and say everyone in the current agreements nothing will change, but that's what Shortened tried in twenty nineteen. They will also turn around and say it only applies to new people who have got three or more places. Well, I'll show you the numbers in a second about how little that will actually change. The picture. But above all the reason this is particularly stupid, no matter how many clever people say

this is the smart thing to do. About one point two million people in Australia have a property that they have negatively geared. That means there's one point two million families in Australia where somebody is expecting as part of the inheritance that they will hand on to their child or their child to be able to hand onto their grandchild is the investment property that they currently own. If the system is grandfathered, the tax will only apply to you.

Your kid or grandkid will not be able to inherit that system, which means one point two million property owners becomes two point four million kids. Potentially it becomes six eight minion grandkids. But this is genius politics, right because the ACT people love it, because the ABC people love it, because the Radio National crowd love it. Well. The suburbs in the multiple labor seats that would move as a result of this policy, as they did in nineteen well,

I think it's going to happen. Fourth point, on this particular issue, the people who say get rid of negative gearing say it because it costs the federal budget something like twenty two billion dollars a year in the overall tax concessions when it comes to houses. But in and around that number is the number that negative gearing, meaning

tax that is returned to the property investor. Again, it's about twenty two billion dollars, or that's the expectation of where it will be in a couple of years time. So hey, get rid of negative gearing because won't that mean there'll be more homes to buy? Or well, no, and let this opinion person in the Telegraph explain why.

As much as we love to hammer landlords for being greedy and hiking rents and making families live in substandard properties because they have no other choice, the fact is that those landlords are the only ones who can deliver more supply. Make no mistake, messing with negative gearing rules, whether capping the number of properties per eligible person or taking away the tax benefit altogether, will deter landlords from entering the market, meaning there will be fewer properties that

people will buy, not to live in but to rent out. Well, then again people say, no, no, you've got to get rid of negative of gearing because if there were no investors, then all of the homes that they currently invest in would suddenly become available for me and my mates to be able to bid for. Well, not necessarily, because you see, we have a little problem in Australia, which is, let's imagine there there's ten people that are going to be bidding for a house. Let's imagine two of those people

are property investors. So okay, there's now just eight people that are bidding for the house. Great, I've got a better chance of winning. The only problem is during the auction, two new people are going to turn up, so the same number of people will still be bidding against you. Because there's this thing called immigration. You see, one point two million people who currently own a negatively geared investment property would be replaced within four years under the current

immigration system, as we've shown. Now take out the COVID anomalies of twenty twenty twenty twenty one. Essentially over four years, you'd get to one point three million people who come

into the country. Now, yes, some are old, some are kids, but you get the point I'm making here, which is, if you've got every property investor to not be able to continue to invest in the properties in which they invest and then negatively gear it would be completely wiped out within four years by all of the people that are coming into the country. Oh what you see. That's the problem with the policy is that it sounds like

it is the absolute solution. But if you've got as many people coming through one door as you're trying to push out another door, it doesn't actually change the number of people who are trying to buy the same number of houses. And if all of those people are just trying to buy houses for them to be able to live in, what happens to the thirty percent of people in this country who are trying to rent a property.

You see, they don't have enough money for a deposit, and if somebody doesn't own the property and then rent it out and yes, potentially use negative gearing to help keep that going so that one day they play financial coplunk. In twenty years, all of that manner gets put together and then upon their death it gets handed over as an inheritance. You get my point. That's why the politics of negative gearing is as dangerous as it is now.

You'll get many pointy headed people, most of the media, most of the social influences saying this is absolutely the way to go. If only there was a recent referendum where exactly the same thing happened, but sixty percent of the country voted no. Also worth nothing here tonight, and there's plenty of information. Again, I could go through all of this stuff right about how many and how much, and I'll get to that a little bit later. Now,

Tanny plibisic. We know that she's making some weird decisions when it comes to resources projects. At the moment. We know the gold mine that she's holding up in and around Bathost. We know the gas spasin in the Beeloop that is currently also about to be held up. But a decision which has happened in the past couple of days is not one, but three coal mines have been extended. Environmental groups are losing their brain. But I wanted to talk about it Andrew Forrest for a second.

you know where I draw the line. I really draw the line is when a bloke who is a billionaire because of mining that continues to pollute because of mining, is given an interview on a television show this morning to oppose an extension of somebody else's mind, not his, but somebody else's mine. That's what happened on the Today Show. I think.

at times to the Chinese government. Remember when he brought along the Chinese ambassador to a COVID thing at the height of the pandemic, when you know China was the source of the pandemic. That certainly they canceled their domestic flights, but they kept the international ones going and that's fine. He can be a close business associated who understands the relationship on the trade level between China and Australia, But does he deliver the same message actually, can we plan

that for a third time? Does he say this in the meetings with anyone that he talks to from China as a billionaire who is a billionaire because of mining.

coal mines that haven't even opened yet. And those of you that are eagle eye, not once, not twice, but three times way may well have noticed that there was a bloody big truck behind Andrew Forrest as he was telling us, if you love your kids, no more coal mines when he was on the Today Show today And here I am in Las Vegas, and how great is Las Vegas? Guess where he actually is? At a mining exhibition from the National Mining Association in the United States.

The speakers at this convention, well, okay, they've got to be a bunch of left wingers, right, who are really there to talk about sustainable green energy. No, the guy from Dirty Jobs is going to be there, Darnaka Patrick, who was of course a race car driver and recently came out as be pro Trump, is there. Oh, mister wonderful from Shark Tank is going to be there. He's got a very anti Trump, pro environmental message that no

doubt he will be delivering on stage two. Among others, billionaires who are billionaires because of mining, who were invited by Australian television shows to do a live cross to have a go at other people's minds whilst standing in front of mining trucks. I don't get it. I don't know what secret source, but he has a secret source that for some reason means even when all of this is pointed out, I'll be the one they'll have a

go out in the next week or so. Now. Doctor Nick Coatesworth, of course, was the Deputy Chief Medical Officer during the height of the COVID issues. Now he works over at channeline and mentioning him a lot tonight, Jeez, I expect Okay, I'm here. Don't worry. I'm here for life, here for life. Now we've got doctor Nick Coatesworth who works over at Channel nine now, which means he popped up on channel and radio today where he was talking about the misinformation laws. He believes that this is the

wrong thing, the censoring of the Internet. And this is what he said on to GB today.

its key supporters. Now, this is institutional corruption. This is the stuff I've talked about a lot. It's about one of the many reasons why the queens At government has to go. Any government that's been around for too long has got too many people with too many tentacles in lots of different places. That's why you need the pipes to be flushed out every now and then. Well, the pipes in Victoria are clocked because a story that involves the fire chief of Victoria and the fire Union in

Victoria was the focus of a report from the Corruption Commission. Today, it has concluded that allegedly Victorian public servants found that they hacked the fire chief's emails to help the union boss. Corruption watchdog has found the emails of Victoria's fire chiefs were hacked not once, not twice, but five times and the hackers were public servants who were motivated to misuse the information to further the interests of the firefighters union

and its state secretary. Anyone lost their job as a result of this. I'll have to get back to you. And it's raining on the rock, that beautiful and wonderful song that John Williamson and many others have sung over the years, while it is doing so right now. In fact, some record rain has been falling in and around the Northern Territory, particularly the Red Center. The footage is beautiful and here's some of it that was I think up on the ABC's Facebook page in the past couple of days.

In fact, about thirty four millimeters has landed in that part of Australia, which is a record when it comes to September. So the rain bomb is on its way east now finally before we get into our discussion tonight, and it's going to be a great one of course, Stephen Conry carry ot cha bromibition we all know. Be it a family barbecue, a dinner party. If you're the type of person who ends up going to those, maybe just mates at the pub or certainly kind of an

informal ish thing at work. Most of us pull our punches when it comes to our opinions because we know if you're going to say the wrong thing, then you're out the door and formal warnings and all the rest of it. And you didn't mean to be offensive. You say something that, again is just today considered the hanging offense that two weeks ago was what people said to each other. Again, I'm not talking about harassment stuff, you talking about opinions, right. Well, there's a new survey which

has come out from the United States. It's not a survey, actually, it's a serious academic work which actually shows us the difference between what people say in public versus what they actually believe in private. Now, I won't bore you with how they did this, but it's really really interesting because a majority of Americans fifty eight percent believe that most people cannot share their honest opinions about sensitive topics in

society today. Not only but sixty one percent of Americans admit to self silencing private opinion and that's really fascinating to see. Okay, so I want to show you how this works. What you're going to see is you're going to see an issue and then you're going to see two dots. That one that's got to star in it is the private opinion, So publicly what the best part of twenty two percent of people say I trust the government?

Really four percent? And this, by the way, isn't just a whole bunch of maga people, because once you have a look here, every one of these questions is Democrats, Republicans, independence, It's broken down by race, it's broken down by finances, and literally thirty grand, sixty grand, one hundred grand, one hundred and fifty grand all of them are four percent or less when it comes to trusting the government. Is society better off when individuals will experts are the ones

that are making the decisions for everyone? Sixty seven percent of people say, oh no, probably, you know, maybe experts are In reality, seventy five percent of people say, let me do me, and thank you for the advice, but let me do me. And this isn't just a right wing thing, because you know how lefties are like a revolution, man, we're going to change the system man. Well, twenty percent of people publicly say that it's okay to resort to violence in order to save the country, when actual opinion

is just four percent of people believe it. The government should restrict to the expression of views deemed discriminatory offensive at a dinner party, like a quarter of people and say, yes, we should shut it down, censor it, clothes that get rid of that post reality, five percent of people actually

think that's what we should do. All of this is important because it's it's it's again a little reminder about the great difference between the opinion columns in The Guardian, the polite chat are on Q and A, and the reality of where people are left, right, center, rich, poor and all in between. Now, obviously you can't do a survey on each and every issue, which is why you shouldn't just let the loud lefty voices be the only ones that can be heard. It's why you should be

here each and every night. It's why you should share the content of this and all the other shows. It's skynews dot com dot au. Go to the YouTube page, find it and share it as far and wide as you can, because that's the stuff they want to shut down when it comes to the misinformation or censoring of the internet. Laws on censorship, by the way, the government should restrict the expression of views that are deemed to be discriminatory or offensive. Again, I just showed you that

number is down at five percent. My apologies. Should you be able to use your religion as an excuse to disobey the law? So I don't want to serve those two people there, you two blokes getting married? Well that again thirteen percent say that's the case, but it's actually two percent. A couple of dollars before we're done, Is American society fair? Thirty seven percent? And publicly would say yes,

seven percent is the reality. Forty three percent of people say that other people can be trusted, but the actual opinion is less. And finally, the media, This is a huge worry for America, America's democracy, presidential campaigns, all the rest of it. Twenty four percent of people say they trust the media left right, center, rich, poor, white, black, Hispanic.

It's actually seven percent. In fact, as you can see, thirteen percent of young people, four percent of millennials, seven percent of genics, five percent of boomers, and just four percent of people older than that, there is a gulf between what we say publicly and what we feel privately. So every now and then let you in a opinionated self fly because otherwise the only voices that get heard are the loonies all day, every day. But that's why

we push back here each and every night. And I'm so glad that the watching sec here on Paul Murray live into the debate standing by Bromen, Bishop Stephen Conroy, thank you so much for watching. The man who's always here to help Stephen Conroy, and of course the lady who's more than happy to let him do what he wants. He's none of them to carry over trem problem and Bishop, so I'm going to start for let me first start with you, Stephen, about negative gearing. So you saw what

happened to Bill Short in twenty nineteen. You also saw what I just had to say, particularly about the number of labor seats that sit in the top ten of negative gearing. You also know that the people that are rah rah for this don't quite understand that the people who currently have it in part have it so they can have an inheritance for their kids. Right. So let's not get too into the weeds about the ideas in

and around negative gearing. Let's talk about whether this is the idea that say, Leeves Labor or kinda is going to hurt them until they come up with the position which Shortened actually had, which was everyone who's currently in the system, nothing's going to change. But by the time people actually heard that, they had already completely rejected any idea of the changes. Well, look a little bit of history.

when the election. He certainly was a contributor. Then in nineteen we piled and doubled down and tripled down with a few other changes as well, and so we left ourselves open and vulnerable to a much broader attack, and the words franking credits became part of the political discussion, and almost nobody'd ever heard of a frankin credits until almost near the election. Man Labor decided to move down

that path. So I don't think capital gains tax changes are as electorally damaging as was proven in twenty sixteen versus twenty nineteen. Sure the opposition will try and cover it. Yeah, sorry, So negative dearing wasn't as damaging in sixteen, but a pile on a whole ranging issue is left in vulnerable and night.

in charge. I'm not really, I'm not I'm not applying for this information anywhere, which either means he's lying or is incompetent earth because you think by three o'clock you've wrung the treasurer. Oh no, he's on a plane to China. Sorry, I'm pretty sure they've got WiFi. Look the bottom larties.

But this again is desperation politics on behalf of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer first of all as a minister, and Steven will remember this I used to have a rule that nobody starts in a new work in the department unless I personally know about it and you get a port lightly report about it, so you don't get any nasty surprises. So nobody can suddenly come out and say, oh, we're going to have negative geary without you.

your house, which is a ridiculous policy. The thing that the Greens are saying we will only agree to that if you get rid of negative queering and you get rid of the deduction with regard to capital gains tax. So this is part of that debate as well. Now you've heard me say before it's going to be an early election. They're doing all things that governments do. They're cleaning up the number of bills they've got before the hearts,

they're cleaning off the barnacles. They're trying to get to a position where they've got some open aired go with whatever the thrust is going to be. So this policy, and I agree with you, they've just run it up, runned up the pole and let it fly for a bit and let's see what the reaction is. And I think some of the old ads that we use by Morrison would be very effective again. And I think that the same arguments that we used. And let me explain

this bit. There are people who are waging towery illness. They don't get any opportunity to have tax reductions, they don't have any opportunities to try.

You would think the Prime Minister, who is literally in this system, who is from where he was, would at an absolute fundamental level understandard. Instead, where I think they're going to land is multiple properties. But I've done the numbers and all of that. That's fewer than like one hundred and twenty thousand people that are currently in the system.

So it doesn't actually solve all of the other problems because the migration question that I showed before means that all this greater at a dinner party, But the dinner party has already contradicted itself. Yeah.

racist Biden. I want to see. Yes, just as you expect from Bishop and I. We solved the world's problems during the breaks as well. Stephen Conroy is always welcome in the man Cave, but we know it's Grand Final week and he loves a public holiday on a Friday.

but more likely to be any type of electric car. Well, the Biden administration is getting a little trumpy here, Broman, because they're saying that the remote control factors that do exist in some of the technology some of the time is a national security risk because guess what, China ain't their friend.

on all the time. And I'm getting conspiratorial about it, but that's a reality of everything that is listening to us while we are doing nothing or right, Former Communications Minister, are we off with the pixies here or is there an actual issue here that when you end up with your market being overly penetrated by a product that you kind of don't really have a full chain of custody idea about that. That's where you draw the line.

on banning Ghiwei first. But when I banned them in a twenty eleven twelve from being part of the National Broadband Network, it was based on security intelligence, the blow information and when you understand, particularly where you have software upgrades that get pumped through the system, it is very very hard to keep track of what is being put into your vehicle or into any of the other things

our infrastructure. It's why you can't let the Chinese own a whole range of important infrastructure now in this country, because you just can't guarantee its security. At least make them work harder and try and hack our infrastructure where we don't try and defend they's just hand it over to them. So I think this is one that we should take genuine advice on. Look at what's happening around the world, look at what the Chinese have the capacity

to do so. I think it's absolutely something that needs to be put on the table a serious discussion. It's not a part of an issue anymore. It's become core value issue, protecting integrity a whole range of structures.