Paul Murray Live | 26 June

of your Instagram. Now there is a chance that maybe this is just my feed and I've got a little too lost in some of this stuff, but it seems pretty dumb, like literally trying to pretend that family guy characters have an opinion on which way you should or shouldn't vote in the Tasmanian election. The absolute abuse that

was there forwards Peter Dutton in the federal election. And I got a huge number of people who sent me an email and you can always send me one Paul at skynews dot com dot au who agreed and then had their own examples of their own concerns about the type of political discussion that is being pumped out to try to in many ways, go around the media and just try to simplify things into really good guys and bad guys. But the reality is that the world is

a lot more complicated than that. For example, a Queensland budget now in it is of course a whole series of priorities and decisions and move a little money here, spend a little more there about things like hospitals and police and education, because of course state government is where so much of the rubber hits the road in actually dealing with the everyday problems. A lot of federal politics sometimes sounds like state politics because the stuff they are

responsible for ends up in the two hard basket. But an example of again what I think is the not even dumbing DWM, but just the stupid, not even dealing with the detail or the bare minimum detail of the stuff that we should demand of the people who write our laws or hold those people to account, was several Queensland Labor MPs who couldn't be by the dealing with any of the details inside the Queensland budget. Instead they wanted to complain about the color of the books of

the budget. Now, this is about as dumb as it can get when it comes to what did you think of the state budget.

didn't know where that had come from. So let me do a version on TV about a conversation we had in the offices a little bit earlier today. So what does slim Dusty have in common with its degenerational debt, climate change, the failure to get good school results, and the number of people who are being assaulted in our communities each and every day. Well, it goes back to one of his most famous songs, which was about She'll be right Now. For those who use this term have

heard it from their parents or grandparents. You know what she'll be right means. But for those who don't, and there's plenty, including many that will be watching us on the internet or YouTube's later than the live program that's going out right now, she'll be right essentially is don't worry about it. It'll all be okay one day. Eventually everything will be put right. It's not as bad as

it seems. The musical version of this is Slim Dusty singing his song about she'll be right mate, bear with me, there's a point coming still very right mate, shell, very right right. So the idea that she'll be right, it'll work out eventually is an attitude that is fundamental to many Australians, which is to not get overwhelmed by problems. But also it's if you put the work in, you put the effort in, that eventually the problems that are there now can be fixed. And certainly when it comes

to the priorities of modern governments. A perfect example where she'll be right is not the accepted way to deal with an area of public policy is the issues in and around climate change. Now, multiple governments, multiple generations now of political conversation has been in and around this issue. But the reality is that she'll be right. It'll all

work itself out. Sometimes people take to the streets or the water doing stupid things when it comes to protests, but certainly in terms of governments, they're not just sitting back and saying, sure, we're one percent of the world's problem, she'll be right. The reality is we have to do

our bit for the one percent. Now I think we do probably a little more than the one percent problem that exists considering China is the actual problem littlone, the slave labor that they use to put into the very things that we consider to be the solution to the problem that we can't just let be She'll be right. But the reality of that is power bills go through

the roof. That's just the reality is you move from the technology that has worked for decades to the one that they fingers cross hope will work to decades into the future. The reality of building that technology is hundreds of billions of dollars, nay close to a trillion dollars. So the attitude on that public policy area is she'll be right is not an okay way to deal with things.

Because despite the fact that the reality of our problem is that one hundred percent of our problem is one percent of the global problem, she'll be right is not an acceptable position to take, But funnily enough, she'll be right is something that we are too often willing to sit with when it comes to problems that are even more immediate than things like climate change. For some reason, state and federal government does take the attitude of she'll

be right, mate about things like assaults. Now, nobody says assault is okay, But think about how we are dealing with one percent of the world's climate problems versus the public debate and conversation that we have about actually bringing crime down, not by a little bit, but trying to wipe it out. Now we know that certain crimes, the public discourse and the public conversation is we must bring it down to zero cases of offense is no victims,

no people that are the perpetrators. But the reality of crime in Australia is far close, far too close to she'll be right, as opposed to let's do everything we can to change the problem. I say this because today the Australian Bureau of Statistics released some crime numbers into the financial year of twenty twenty three twenty twenty four, and this is the number of people who police accused

of committing a crime. The problem is, despite the fact that there are three hundred and forty thousand, six hundred and eighty one people in just one year in Australia who were accused by police of committing a crime, it is not vastly higher or vastly lower than it was the year before, the year before that, the year before that, the year before that, the year before that, the year

before that. Instead, it's all basically the same number. Now, certain categories and certain states can be spikes, particularly on things youth crime. But because it's in and around between three and four hundred thousand each and every year, that she'll be right of it all is fingers cross. It doesn't happen to you. As long as those numbers stay kind of where they were last year, than it's okay.

But the reality is that, yes, even in a country with twenty seven twenty eight million people, there's still three and a bit mcgs that you could feel with people who are accused of committing a crime each and every year. Why is that okay? Why is that number Okay, why is that number not being shoved down with the massive public resources that we would deal with things like one percent of the climate change problem? Are you with me here?

When you actually break down some of these stats, about a third of all of those crimes were people who committed acts that intended to cause injury. So that is still ten of thousands, nay, almost a little over somewhere between one hundred and one hundred and fifty thousand people who if they committed a crime, means there was at least one victim on the other side of it. Why

is that she'll be right way? Fourteen percent when it comes to a list of drug offenses, ten percent when it comes to theft, and ten percent of the three hundred and forty thousand were public order offenses. But all of that together is still not one hundred percent of

the problems about sixty one percent. But when these numbers came out today that three hundred and forty thousand people had committed a crime or six hundred well sorry, or another three hundred and forty thousand people were the victims of a crime, was that anywhere in the six PM news tonight? Was that the lead story? No? Because dare I say the attitude is she'll be right, and we won't be the same number of panel conversations on television,

let alone government money alone, laws, let alone. Public attitudes should be as aggressive about interpersonal violence as it is about intergenerational issues such as the health of the planet. And remember where one percent of the world's problem. Another example of when she'll be right made is seemingly okay. It's when politicians win elections because we the voters love the F word, and I'm not talking about the one the President used this week pre public.

Next year it'll be one point h nine trillion, Then it'll be one point one trillion a men by twenty twenty eight, twenty twenty nine, so fiscally speaking, within four years will be at one point two Tee for trillion dollars in debt, and that's just the federal government, another massive source of debt that we are handing on to

our next generation. And if again, the theory is we must go all in on dealing with climate change because what is not done now will be passed on to the future generations, why does this not apply to the amount of debt that we hand on to future generations. Because I'll give you the tip. She'll be right, mate, turns one billion into one trillion, and one trillion into two and three and four. And while I'm not suggesting

we're about to be Greece anytime soon. In Victoria, in their top five things that they spend their money on in their state budget, I think number three, bigger than some government departments, is paying off debt. So if you keep running a budget deficit, all you do is add to the previous budget deficit, which is the overall amount of debt, which of course will eventually be paid over time by future generations. So why is the logic about

climate change urgency not being applied to this again? Today reporting about state budgets and state budgets are in a world of financial pain this week we got budgets in New South Wales and in Queensland we've already got one from Victoria, and even one from the local council known as the Act. I'll have a little more to say about that, believe it or right at the moment or

two's time. But in the Financial Review today they actually divvied up the amount of money that all of the different state governments owe the rest of the world, and it is almost a trillion dollars themselves. So you've got a federal government in a trillion up to one point two trillion dollars worth of debt, and you've got state governments going from nine hundred billion on their way up towards a trillion on their own. Of course, that makes

two trillion dollars. Yet no urgency anywhere to deal with this, with the same public policy urgency as there would be something like climate change. Again, can I read from the Financial Review for you? The state government grows debt will surge past nine hundred billion by the end of the decade, more than triple the pre pandemic levels. As premier struggle to reign in burgeoning infrastructure programs and cut back on

cost of living support and public ser wages. State government debt has increased one hundred and fifty percent since twenty nineteen to six hundred and sixty one billion dollars, prompting warnings from credit ratings agencies and calls for economists for premiers to reduce their spending. If you prefer things in chart form, here's an example. You can have a look for your state. The blue is the current number, the red is where it is going to be in a

few years time. So it's about two hundred billion in Victoria, but it's going to go to more than a quarter of a billion dollars in just that one state. Quarter of attrillion. I should say the same. Of course New South Wales. You can see what's happening in Queensland and even in the Northern Territory, their debt is going to

be eighteen billion dollars. So if you turned around and you grabbed a calculator like Saul Eslake did the Independent economist, guess what you will end up finding out that the Independent economist saw les Lake said the situation in which state and federal government debts per capital stood at eighteen hundred dollars, the net debt per capita was forty five thousand,

one hundred and eighty three dollars. So that's per every individual federal government state government debt right now, forty five grand. And as we continue to have more deficits than we will have surpluses, forty five becomes fifty, fifty five becomes sixty the frog in the pot. So could somebody please explain to me how she'll be right? Is the acceptable attitude to the debt that we rack up in a country like Australia, because it's not if she'll be right

is not an acceptable attitude on climate change? How is she'll be right an okay attitude when it comes to debt? How is it okay that in the most recent napland results just one in three students we're not meeting or should I say one in three students we're not meeting the basic literacy and numeracy expectations. As slim Dusty sang, she right, sheer, but it won't be. You can't have a generation when a third of those kids, and it's been like this for a decade, are not able to

meet the basic standards of education. That's our failure. It's also our failure that almost three million Ozzies are this close to homelessness that three point four million Australian households will have run out of food by a Thursday each and every week. She'll be right mate is not an okay thing, but for some reason it keeps being okay. It's okay on crime, it's okay on poor schools, it's okay when it comes to poverty. But if it's kind of change, it must be dealt with. It must be

dealt with absolutely urgently, all guns blazing. But the bit that people forget about She'll be right mate is that when you actually listen to the song from which many people know the term, the reality of why you can say She'll be right mate is because people with their backs to the wall in this country work their backsides off to fix the problem. Here is the longer version of the song. I don't remember.

is not the right attitude to have. Now, Yes, this week things have come to an end in terms of Israel and Iran, and that is in my view because the President drew a line and he's trying to hold everyone to the line of the ceasefire. Now again, we're on near a couple of days in and I certainly hope that we'll still be in the same place by this time next week. But it is not all over in terms of the Australians who are caught up in

this in either of those countries. In fact, according to news dot com dot Au today, evacuations are difficult, specifically from the country of Iran, and there are more than four thousand people that are registered in both Iran and Israel who would like to come home. These are not people who want to be citizens. These are not people

who want protection visas. These are citizens of this country who were in Israel or in Iran for any reason why any of us would be in any other country from a holiday to visiting their families and they have every right to come back and to come back with safety. It does seem that there are more people who are wanting to come back from Iran than come back from Israel. And according to the ABC, they profiled a series of

people about this today. Nay said that Francis is one of around three thousand Australians and their families that are registered with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for the assistants to leave almost two weeks after the Israeli bombings were falling in the capital of Tehran. So yes, I'm glad there's a cease fire. I loved that the President of the United States was throwing f bombs around

to calm things down. But if you think it's over, there are the very least four thousand Australians who would like to come home. I hope that just because this thing will slowly move its way off the front page, that the urgency of the government to get those people out does not fade now. I said over and over

again during the federal election that your preferences matter. Your preferences matter, because with a third of the country voting blue, a third of the country voting red, there was a third of the country who probably weren't going to get who they wanted, which was somebody other than red or blue.

So what you do with your number two matters. And again I want to pay tribute to the work that's been done by the Australian Financial Review who actually, along with a bunch of other academics, went through and had a look at how the different preferences broke down. Now we know the government did not have enough votes to form government on its own. It only got to where

it was going because of preferences. So again, as I said about something else this week, they may well have ninety four seats, and they may well have what looks like electoral support that's a mile wide, but the reality is it's an inch deep. This is what they had a look at where they had to look at. Say now, red votes start out as red votes and end as red votes. Blue votes start out as blue votes and end as blue votes. Green votes mostly go to the

Labor Party. Orange votes in terms of one nation, they of course go to the Liberal Party. But there were some fascinating things that they were able to work out in terms of Green's preferences. Can you believe there's almost twelve percent of people who walk into a ballot box and say I want the Greens to be the government. And if they can't be the government, I want the Libs. Eighty eight percent of their supporter base goes to Labor.

But who are these almost twelve percent of Greens. So if they can't have the Greens, if they can't have Sarah Hanson Young, they wanted Peter Dutton. In terms of the people who vote for the so called independence, sixty seven percent of their preferences went to Labor, a third went back to the Liberal or National Party. Remember I told you one of the differences between the twenty twenty two election in the twenty nineteen election was where one

nation preferences went. If they go fifty fifty, the Libs were in a world of trouble. But the Lib's vote was already down. But three quarters of people who voted one nation decided to send their preferences to the Libs. But a quarter of people who said, you know what, Pauline Hanson number one, albow number two. And in terms of the trumpet of patriot, could somebody please tell me how anyone who was voting for the Trumpian net zero is terrible that a third of those people preferenced labor.

Fascinating to see, isn't it about exactly where the preferences ended up going. Now again, it's not challenging the result. It's not pretending something is weird here. It's just could somebody please explain to me? And if you are one of these people, can you send me an email? Are you somebody who voted number one for the Greens, but then when you know, what, if I can't have the Greens, I want the lips. Are you somebody who voted for the trumpets, the Palmer people who wanted Albow, I don't

get it. I'd love to know if you're one of them. Though. It also gives us a real indication as we start to read the polls about how those will be weighted over the next three years. Send men Ema paults Gunews dot com dot au. Another thing worth mentioning after that federal election was, of course the over and over and you know you saw that how many times and you heard this how many times.

fifty dollars to be able to access a hospital. The tax slug included a new annual two hundred and fifty dollars health levy which we added to rates bills paid by residential, commercial and rural property owners. It will raise two hundred and five million dollars over the next four years.

Quick out of the gauge is the Shadow Health Minister and Rushton, who said, among other things that the Act is two hundred and fifty dollars tacks essentially is a co payment for the use of the city's two public hospitals. It was outrageous because of so much lecturing from Labor during the campaign that you only need your Medicare card. It makes a mockery of Anthony Aberinesi's claims that all

you need to access healthcare is a Medicare card. When confronted about this little asterisk that essentially the policy of the federal government was being undermined by the Act government, Mark Butler said at the end of the day that government is accountable to the good Burghers of the Act for the decisions that they take in their budget. Or she'll be right. A couple of other quick things to mention. Do you want to all feel old together? Let's hold hands.

Fifteen years this week since Julia Gillard became Australia's first female Prime minister. Can you believe that in twenty ten those dramatic days I remember sitting as being part of the live coverage was also bizarre. But literally this weekend, sorry, this week just passed fifteen years since Julia Gillard was sworn in as Prime minister. Now, for those who, of course don't really care about their history, this will be

particularly offensive for those of you who do. Never forget that if her finest moment was the misogyny speech, Remember it was in defense of Peter Slipper, who had said

the most grotesque things about the female form. And that for all of the carrying on about how evil Tony Abbott was for denying us the first female prime minister, the one who actually undermined her, the one who actually stabbed her in the back, is the bloke they put back in the job, whose deputy Prime Minister is Anthony Albernezi. And finally Bret Sutton. Remember Bret Sutton, the former Chief

Health Officer of Victoria. Somebody who who was there all the way through, just nodding and agreeing with every stupid decision that Daniel Andrews had made, all the way through those COVID briefings, was more than happy for Victoria to be the most lockdown location in the country, for Melbourne

to be the most lockdown city in the world. The bloke who told us that we had to deny people being able to go outside, especially into things like playgrounds, and we had to have curfews because people were selfish for going outside. This was the bloke who gave a scientific tick to stupidity like.

out as bs of the time. Well, he has a new cause that he is involved with, and we turn to the Age to read about this. For years, Brett Sutton lived on the front lines, Victoria's former chief health officer, has scars and death threats to prove it. And now he's trying to do something about it by attempting to launch what he hopes will be a big new player in Australia's science sector, a Coalition for Trust in Science. Quote.

People want to know what is real and what is not real, says Sutton, who was now director of the csio's Health and Biosecurity Research Unit. I think we're all stronger by working together. Well, Brett, well, I agree with you that we must follow the science. You stood there and clapped on decisions that had nothing to do with science and everything to do with control, and everything to

do with keeping people locked in their houses. In the case of the poorest of the kids, they were locked in with their abuses, they didn't go to school, and even five years later, some of those people have never been back to school. So yes, would I like to see a coalition for trust in science? Sure? Do I think that the bloke who stood next to the north faced jacket man and agreed with every decision he made publicly should be the front person of that No? Can

you know what you think? You can always send me an email, Paul. It's gonews dot com dot au quick break back with more who's the winner and loser of the week? You can jump ont of the socials and tell us, Or maybe you're just seeing She'll be right for the rest of the night. I know it's in

my head. Thank you so much for watching. I'm so pleased we got too great mates to wrap up our week here before the late debate in about half an hour's time, none other than the wonderful Joe Hildebrand here in the man caversh Bless you.

these stories is a council worker. The council worker in Victoria, a street sweeper I'm not a massive fan of the welcome and acknowledgment to country, was apparently booted because of the failure to sufficiently kiss the ring. I guess what gets his job back. And then, of course there was the person who was hired strangely by the ABC, strangely in the lead up to Christmas, strangely, and they decided, despite the fact she was only there for a week, that it all must end. And then, of course we

all know the saga that goes on. But essentially, as Chris Merritt wrote in The Australian Today, it may well set up the political president here or the legal president, which means your political views are not going to be grounds for someone to lose their job. So, Joe, this is very interesting because people in private sectors who may well find little lines in their contracts that say, you know, you know, Joe, do not bring the company into distribute

with your social media behavior. Well, guess what if it's about your political opinions, you might.

But the problem is not that people say these things. The problem is that they think these things. The reason why people are all up in arms about what Antoninette did or didn't post or whatever, or that she carries on about Palestine, it's because they disagree with her. Right now, I'm obviously a boring, pragmatic kind of moderate who thinks we need.

they do. The thing is that the ABC is run by people like Antoinette for people like Antoinettes, and so hiring someone like that and saying, oh, but don't tell anyone you're a socialist, or don't tell anyone you're pro Palestine, or don't tell anyone you agreeen is bollocks. That's exactly the wrong thing. What they should be doing is looking for,

you know, boring pragmatic mainstream moderates like Mijoe Hildebrand. Yeah, I say whatever because you know, yeah, you know it's going to be reasonable or balanced or in line with mainstream Australia. That is what they cannot get right, and that's how they managed to stuff up what should have been an unstuff uppable event.

a beard, you know, or all of that garbage. So what have you thought about these things in this week where the council worker and not just the ABC of it all, but your rights to be political while employed somewhere?

welcomed a country. So I think there's probably I think two thirds of people who responded to that news dot com survey about Welcomed a Country all said we've had enough. I think there are a lot of Australians quietly applauding this tonight. And as an employer, you know you have to be careful about what you allow in and out of your workplace.

as their number two. I want to meet you. I want to know how you get there, because I'm fascinated

about how that works. But the Prime Minister has made a decision which is to remove the standard amount of staffing that would be there for a federal opposition, and has removed a significant number of staff from the cross bench in the Senate we're talking about, as James Ashby when he was sitting in that seat was saying Joe that despite the fact that one Nation has doubled the number of senators from two to four, under these changes they will have exactly the same amount of staff as

when they had just two. Now, obviously, part of the reasons why the fluffing was there when it came to staff as in the last parliament, was because oh well, if we go an already government, we're going to need those people. Let's not offend anyone. Now, we're ninety four seats that will rule forever, so push them all out of the way. Great, But I hate this because I

want sitting down everyone. I want the Teals, the Greens, One Nation, the Liberal Party and the Parmy United Party senator to have the maximum number of people that they're allowed to come up with alternitive ideas to be able

to challenge your government. Otherwise we're going to end up where Victoria's been for a long time Queensline has been for a long time, which is, once you've got access to the full machine, it is just about robbing any political opponent of the ability to be able to oppose you.

parliamentary business. And there's enough flexibility to wiggle those around. For example, Monique Ryan had Sally Rugg. Let's just never ever forget that.

as close to a level playing field as possible. Obviously, the people with the more seats a canna have more stuff, no question right. But the idea that the opposition, depending on the size of the opposition, will be robbed of the smart people to come up with the alternative ideas is bad for a democracy or am I just being asook?

But thinking on fifteen years later, what is the legacy apart from the ndis of the first female prime minister or more importantly Julia Gillard as a prime minister?

way she came to power. And this is why I had PTSD caused by the Labor Party as of twenty ten, when almost exactly this time fifteen years ago, Julie Guard Knife an elected first term prime minister with a mandate, who was ahead in the pole and was lured into doing this by supporters, and it robbed her of legitimacy. And that's a great shame for history.

more than a second. The wonderful Lisa god normally in Queensland with thed only media, but her skills and talents take her to Canberra at the moment.

the way that he was able to win. And by the way, there's like what eight million people who live in and around the island. About less than a million voted at all in this primary. But still, these were some of the promises that he has been making. And of course it all has to be paid for by someone, but you know, someone somewhere else sees some of his stuff.

pay for your groceries. So it is just this frightening political campaign that the average person over there just is tapping into and saying, yeah, look, oh not a long and I'll agree to this because it's going to make my life better. But they're just not thinking long term. And my question is he's come out and support of a run, he's come out and support of Pakistan.