From the Skyinging Center.
This is Paul Murray Live. Thank you, Steve. We've moved the man Cave to Perth tonight. We're in Western Australia for the next few days. We'll be doing ourtown here on Sunday, Port Headland tomorrow for the show is as normal tonight and tomorrow night. The chat out to everyone here in w WA. It's great to be here and we've got a big show ahead for you tonight, including they are the best in the business, the Titans when it comes to firing up for their side of politics,
Team Red and Team Blue. Brom and Bishop Stephen Conry are going to be here tonight. Yeah, I'm going to have my say about the idiocy that had a band served up today where it doesn't know the difference between profit and turnover, something that a kid in year nine economics would know, but he doesn't care about that, even though he wants the kid in year nine to be able to vote. And Meghan kelly or joined us tonight from the United States because Kamala Harris is doing an interview.
What are the questions that she would ask the empty pantsuits? But first, can you believe that we live in a country that has people in it that in the middle of the day would assault a baby and potentially scar them for life. That's exactly what took place in the middle of the day yesterday, but we learned about it today. In Brisbane. A baby was with their parents in a park. This is what happens with anyone who's ever had a kid or a grandkid, or taken care of a little baby.
At some point in time, you go to the park. It should be the safest place in the world. But I let Channel nine explain why this wasn't some bastard, and I'm sorry to use the language that hard that early, but some low life, some bastard, some piece of human garbage, decided to.
Pour a hot coffee over a baby.
A hospital bed, with his little hand wrapped around mum's fingers and a tear rolling down his cheek. This baby boy is hurting. We can't show you his face or his mum and dad under Queensland law. This little one is a victim of crime and cannot be identified, but you can see he's suffering serious burns to his face and chest, injuries inflicted by a complete stranger.
A poor little man. The parents, they spoke to Channel nine again because of the absurdity of the law because somebody, the victim is under the age of eighteen. Everyone's got a blur of faces. This is a baby. This was their parents talking about the incident tonight in Bruceban's torture.
And I'm supposed to be his protector and I couldn't protect him. Who was sitting in front of me, my friend beside me and her little baby, and some guy came up behind us and poured a coffee all over his head.
Well, don't blame yourself, darlan. What could anyone do? What could anyone do? Why would anyone think that somebody walking vaguely near them was a threat like this? Again, the parents on Channel nine tonight go.
Straight up to her apartment and to the shower. The ambulance arrives pretty quickly.
Now, you didn't hear much from a dad because very obviously in these moments you let mums speak, But you'll hear from dad now.
Just having flashbacks all the time about what happened. And I wish that he had poured the coffee over me. I don't know who would think that that is okay to harm a little innocent baby, a sick freak.
How do we live in this place? How have we got to this stage where somebody did this? And I don't care what inevitably will be the things that are said in front of it. Seriously, this is one of those real low moments. We said nothing but strength and love to that family and to that little human who deserves to have nothing but a great life in the great state of Queensland and the greatest country of them all.
I hope that because there was a nurse saw it all take place, took care of the bubbaus straight away, got it into a shower as fast as possible, that the scarring will not be forever. But think about if there wasn't that nurse there. Think if that was any of us, with any of the little kids that we love, going to a freaking park. His police were a little more information about what they're trying to look for here in the person they think is responsible.
However, the rest assure that we're doing either than we possibly can to find this person.
Now there is some footage of somebody running away from the park. I have to make it very very clear that I am not suggesting that this person is the suspect, but police want to talk to this person. If there is any information that you know about this person, about the whereabouts, about the incident, please one one hundred, triple three, triple zero is crime stoppers. This person may well be able to tell us more about a situation that none
of us, none of us can get our head around. Tonight, let's get to the normal meat and potatoes this show, which of course is politics, and the number one issue in and around the country is cost of living. Now today you will have heard the media echoing that inflation is magically getting better.
Inflation down Australia's the inflation rate is falling.
It dropped two three and a half percent, down point three percent.
The data says inflation is coming down.
What they're telling us tonight headline inflation falling to three point five percent in July. This is an encouraging result. It's a welcome result.
Energy rebates have helped push the rate of inflation lower.
The barrage of inflation faced by households is cooling off.
But just as somebody who wears high heels or platform souls that are this big back in the nineteen seventies,
they are not actually tall this is completely artificial. As you know, the federal government decided to spend a lot of money on a political slogan, not just about too little, too late tax cuts, but more importantly the three hundred dollars rebate, which works out at twenty five dollars a month, which only goes for twelve months to get them through an election, and that has artificially pulled things down not by a point, not even by half a point, but
by zero point three percent, all right, so not even half of one percent. And if you have a look here the reality of the numbers which have come out, they are not quarterly, they are monthly numbers, and they still show that there are things that are way higher than the mid threes. This won't surprise you, but things like tobacco, well it's at thirteen point nine percent compared to this time last year. In terms of the past month, it's gone up. Fruit and veg has gone wild in
the past month. Now you think about power bills where you're not going to notice, you are definitely going to notice fruit and vegetables because in the past month they've gone up by four points seven point five is well, the best part of double the inflation rate that they were patting themselves on the back floor. Again, think about the person with the highest heels possible or the highest possible boots.
This is a fake result.
Insurance yep, you can add again the ever growing costs their education, health up as well by one point. Bread and cereal because you know, why would anyone need to eat or drink? Food products generally are also up, and food and non alcoholic beverages are all up. Now, this isn't just me saying that this is not just even a sugar hit. Is the complete fraud of a result about inflation, one made to make the government's narrative true,
not the reality of what we are all facing. Again, economists and other people who know way more than I. He's from the Daily Mail today about how they again point out that this is a fake result. The numbers, yes, the numbers are real and not pretending the ABS fiddles the numbers. But this is not a natural occurrence. The government got involved, spent hundreds of millions of dollars of your money, and that is to say that they changed it for one month by zero point three of one percent.
Australia's inflation rate has fallen, but the moderation is only likely to be short lived because of it's based on taxpayer funded electricity bill reliefs. See told you that was the case, Harry Murphy, Cruz and economists with Moodys. Now remember Moodys, the ones who turn around and give credit ratings, quite often downgrading places like Victoria because of their systemic
problems inside their economy. They said that the government rebates were a major reason behind inflation drop and noting it was far from good news. Everyone pay attention. July's inflation print is full of smoke and mirrors. While that makes the headline infation figure look a whole lot better, prices
are ultimately unchanged. Governments are on the hook to pick up the tab, so we the taxpayer, pay for the politicians to be able to say that they are doing something about it, when many of the things that are the ultimate pressures upon us, like food or insurance or something to drink or somewhere to live, is all way higher than the average number and is fact even up on just last months, Which brings us to the economics
of the Greens. As you will have heard today that the Greens leader Adam band Well he played the ultimate home game National Press Club in Canberra.
A place filled with people who would love.
To see their version of running the world being the way that we run our country. As you will have heard by now, the plan is to come up with half a tee for trillion dollars in quote unquote robin Hood taxes. What does it mean. Well, they're going to go after super profits, taxes on people like major corporations. Even your local music retailer may well end up being one of these. Now I let Adam Band explain what he can about this childish idea. Enough is enough.
It's time to make the big corporations and billionaires pay their fair share of tax. This election, the Greens will propose a package of Robinhood reforms. The aim is simple, to make the big corporations and billionaires pay their fair share of tax to make life better for everyone.
Now again, am I somebody who believes that every company should pay the tax that it owes to the country. Absolutely? But do I also understand that we have a system where the government tells us we have to have superannuation taken off the top of our wage or wage plus superannuation, which is the way it works in the private sector, and much of that money gets invested in the stock market, invested in the very companies that this bloke wants to
go and hit with even harder taxes. Presumably that will affect their bottom line, meaning their share price will effectively be diminished, meaning the amount of money that you will be able to pull out either yourself managed retirement fund if you had retired, or when it's time to retire, it goes down. But of course all of this doesn't matter because they don't care about anyone over the age of forty. They think, if you're over the age of forty and you vote for them, good luck to you.
But this is all about everyone under the age of forty, and it's all about some sort of occupy Wall Street nonsense. Now again, I'm not here to defend companies. They can do that for themselves. There are plenty of companies that deserve kicks in the backside. I have no problem with that whatsoever. But part of the methodology here about what companies would have to pay these higher rates of tax. Well, it's not actually off the amount of money at the end of the year that.
They have left over that's called profit.
No, it's in turnover so literally, if you have a business that has a certain amount I think it's fifty million dollars or more in turnover, then you will be taxed as if you had fifty million dollars or more in profit. Now again, let's go back to year nine economics. I'm sure mister Collie will be very excited that I am doing this on television now, but I did remember something in between being booted out of the classroom. The
difference between turnover and profit is substantial. The amount of money that comes through the cash register does not mean that money goes automatically into anyone's pocket. Of course, anyone who's run any sort of business knows that the money that comes through the cash register ends up going back into purchasing the stock, or making the product, hiring the people to do all of those things, and what is left over after all of that, that's what profit is.
So rather than being honest and saying this will be a profits based tax where you can have conversations about billion dollar profits of things like supermarkets, instead, by going over turnover, you are taxing people for money they don't actually have, clipping the ticket for money that will will go in one door and out the other Again, Adam Band today focused the first component.
It's targeted at big corporations who are making excessive profits beyond a normal return to shareholders. It will apply to companies with an annual turnover of over one hundred million dollars, taxing the excess profits that these companies make.
My apologies, turn over one hundred million dollars. This is madness. This is madness, but it will be very popular with the whole bunch of people who say, as long as I don't have to pay, shake your local billionaire, and then eventually money will fall out to pay for this, that and the other. The reality is is that to the corporate system in Australia already pays a very significant amount of tax, either as corporate tax or payroll tax.
Let alone the stimulus that they bring to the economy by renting office space meaning people have to come in and go and they buy a coffee from downstairs. But again the Greens don't care. So as they know they will never be in government, they will not have seventy six seats in the lower House, they will not have the majority in the upper House, so they can just bank this money knowing that it's not going to actually
come to fruition. It means they're able to dawn off and say that they're able to solve the world's problems for the thirty percent of the country that are renters. So the pushback here is not just people who want to protect the corporate class. It's about people who understand that these people will not actually, after the next election, be in power, but if there is a minority government, they will be as close to power as a non governing party possibly can be, meaning that some of this
garbage may well be the price of admission. If the Abernezi government as expected as seen in the polls, requires Green support to form government after the next election. Here's some of the reaction.
Well, there's nothing about Green's economic policy which is realistic.
Their primary task is to make up number and put out press releases. We actually have to run the.
Place, and the Greens have this luxurious position of where they don't have to. They can come out with an idea, but they never have to implement it.
The Labor Party is not about doing deals with the Greens. We are focused on winning a majority at the next election in our own right.
Well, they never need to worry about how the economy performs. They can come out with these kind of thought bubbles and never be have to be accountable for it.
Australia do not want, do not need, cannot afford to have a minority government. But quite frankly, Labor haven't exactly been the exemplar of good economic management.
Now watch some of these words very carefully, because while they talk about things like majorities and we want a majority in our own right, remember the extreme majority of Labor MPs are not elected on primary but they need preferences, and those preferences come like ninety percent from the Greens. So if they're serious, they would move the Greens to the bottom of the preference list exactly where the Liberal Party should have them at the bottom of the list.
The Libs should put the Greens last, Labour should put the Teals last. Otherwise you end up with the people who are able to turn their protest party into a permanent position in Parliament, and they're able to go back to said populations and come up with wild ideas that
they will never put in place. But when a government as poor as this one, with a backbench as thin as this one, is staring right down the barrel of a minority parliament, a minority parliament where if the current poles are right, it's not going to be one or two seats, it's going to be seven or eight seats that they're going to need. So it's not just going to be Rebecca Sharky Bob Catter. It's not just going to be Andrew Wilkie. It's going to be the Greens.
It's going to be the left wing Teals, which is why this election is so damn important. The consequences are absolute. The Greens have now told us the price that everyone has to pay for them to get as close as possible to power without actually being in power. Meantime, I've got a little update for you when it comes to
the aged care situation. I've got so many emails from people, and thank you for sending them to Poullotsguydews dot com dot au about agecare and about what apparently is the deal that may well have been done here between Team Blue and Team Red for how much money you are going to have to pay on top of what you currently pay for aged care. Now we understand here that the expectation is that self funded retirees are going to end up having to pay an extra forty forty thousand
dollars extra for nursing homers under user pays. Remember this government put in front of the opposition and we don't know what the deal is that the caps that exist inside an age care home, well, they wouldn't exist if you are taking care of yourself at home with a
home care package. Some self funded retirees, according to the OS, entering a nursing home after July next year will face an average of forty thousand dollars extra coming out of their own pocket if the Abanez's government plan new aged care regime adopts the recommendations of a task force for greater personal contributions, with uncertainty now cloning the future of landmark age care laws after hopes for a bipartisan deal were dashed at the eleventh hour. I think that's in
part because of what we were talking about here. If Team Red and Team Blue, we're going to get into a scenario where there'll be an even higher cap, like one hundred thousand dollars higher cap for age care facilities and no cap at home. Maybe that's why they've decided to pull out here. But get ready that to your accommodation deposit will move to forty nine bucks a day or eighteen thousand dollars a year. The additional payments would also apply to the fifty five percent of all nursing
home residents who don't receive government pensions. That's about thirty percent of the nation's approximately two hundred thousand age care residents. Stand by massive story. Good to see the reporting in The Australian today. Also keep an eye on what Philip Curley writes, tweets or speaks from the Financial Review. He's right across the negotiations. These things matter and we need to call people to account about what is the deal that is currently being done Because your parents, you, or
eventually you will be burdened with this system. Now, what about the Queensland government, as we know, desperate to try to hold onto power, They've come up with every possible way of trying to buy people's votes, and one of those is the reduction in public transport fares. The public transport system has seen an increase in the number of people that are using it because apparently will only cost
fifty cents for you to be able to ride. But guess what despite the fact that the fair is just fifty cents, the Queensland government is going to spend a lot more than fifty cents chasing down anyone who evades the fare of fifty cents. Now, this would be literally wasting money, chasing bad money. Now, okay, if they eventually chase you down and you've got to pay fifty cents back, you'll pay it back. But it costs a lot more than fifty cents for somebody to chase down the person
who owes fifty cents. And another example about the political trouble that the Queensland Labor Party is in. Yet another Labour MP is jumping ship ahead of what is expected to be a bruising Queensland election. May it be so? May it be so? Curtis Pitt, Speaker of the Parliament, he has decided he will not contest the next election. But of course it doesn't matter whether it's good news or bad news. Stephen Lyles will find a way to giggle good, bad or indifferent. Now, there is an interesting
conversation happening right now around the census. The next census is due in the next little while, and of course, as you know, the census is literally about the raw data that governments go on to make decisions about how many people live here, how many people live there, how many people with kids are here? Do we need more childcare here, more aged care there, more schools, better roads, all of that stuff right now. Whether they actually deliver on it or not, well, we can all agree that
that's probably not the case. But also one of the things that the Bureau of Statistics collects when it collects that census information is there's a whole bunch of other information that they're able to extrapolate and turn into different reports that bleed out for the next couple of years. As a show that almost nightly quotes the Australian Bureau of Statistics, I want them to have as much information as possible,
which brings us to an interesting question. Should someone be able to list their gender or their sexuality, how many options should there be? Now? The data freak in me says, we should have as much information about as many people as possible. Now. I know that there have been examples in the past when the people who chose not to identify as male or female has been a relatively low number, and inevitably, if you put in the whole Smaugus board
of options, those numbers are going to increase. But the reality here is that there's nothing to do with morality here. You're not going to disappear people of different genders or different sexualities by not counting them. So let's actually see the data. Let's actually see whether the country is spending too much time talking about these issues or whether there is a significant number of people who fit into lots of different categories. I know you may disagree, but think
about it from the data perspective. Now, I say all of this because for some reason left wing Albanese government, putting together the advice through the Bureau of Statistics, has decided that they don't want the question at the next census about gender and sexuality. Now this has really annoyed a bunch of people in the alphabet community, but more importantly, it denies us data, real data. I just want the data.
That's the point right now. Interestingly, the last thing that we want, the Deputy Prime Minister says, is the LGBT census questions to avoid division. Now again, I understand that you may not approve of either lifestyle sexualities or or the people who believe that gender is fluid. I'm not arguing that tonight, but it's not divisive to actually know who's living next door or in the.
Next street, or in the next suburb.
When it comes to race finance, how many cars you own, whether they have an Internet connection or not, And yes, that does for some come down to things like sexuality and gender. As I say, the LGBT community is very annoyed about this. I think they'll eventually end up with a win because the data is what's needed here. And I don't believe anyone is truly offended by the question appearing, do they really.
The decision goes against the evidence, and the evidence outweighs absolutely the need for the data, and that is what we're focused on. It's more than these questions that people Some people are upset around the fact of asking questions on sex, gender, variations of sex characteristics, and sexual orientation. The data that comes from that, it's a life saving data.
It is about the data.
It is not about anything else. We get as much data as possible, and we should. Can you know what you think? Always respond? Ports, Godews, dot com, dot AU a couple of massive things out of the United States. Now one thing that we absolutely know is that if there is or isn't a debate in the first couple of weeks of September, around the middle of September, is when Donald Trump is going to be sentenced. He may well be sentenced to jail, sent to jail before the election.
This is what is about to happen as the judge sentencing, and we know how that judge has at every opportunity ruled against Trump, has allowed the most wild and crazy stuff into that court case, a court case that they were able to somehow get a guilty verdict despite the fact that it was all about bookkeeping, but the bookkeeper was not actually called to give evidence because the fear was that he would exonerate Donald Trump. Well, that's the
first situation. The second is a blow called Jackson Smith. Jack Smith's gone very quiet for a little while, but now he's roaring back to life. He's the special counsel, the special prosecutor who is going as hard as he possibly can against Trump on the documents that were kept at mar Lago and trying to criminalize his role in
and around what happened with January six. Now Fox News will explain that this case has had to be changed because the Supreme Court said that a president basically is immune from prosecution when they do things as the president. So the case has been restacked with a little changed here and a little change there, and Fox will explain why this election matters even more to Donald Trump because if he loses, he will have to defend this case in court.
The chargers remain the same for Trump's alleged attempts to overturn the twenty twenty election, but Special Counsel Jack Smith reframed the endement following the Supreme Court's decision to give presidents broad immunity for her official acts made an office. One section removed accused Trump of trying to use the power of the Justice Department to overturn his loss. Another change removed the names of federal officials.
Whether they did is kept the four charges, and they just took out any evidence that clearly would have contradicted the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity.
Meantime, Kamala Harris, one week after the Democratic National Convention, is going to come out of hiding. She will in the next twenty four hours sit down and tape an interview with CNN. The interview will of course be with her and her vice presidential running mate, because of course making killeses. You can't have a president without the emotional support governor. Now, we all know the questions that have to be asked. We all know that it's about multiple
parts here. Firstly, what did you know about Joe Biden? When did you start to know that he was going the other way? Second, Lea, can you please explain why you're flip flopped on this issue? This issue, this issue, this issue, and now what do you plan to do if you become president of the next four years? That should take more than an hour of television, but apparently see an m We'll just do an hour of it.
And I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of that is just walking around metaphorically holding hands rather than asking some of those questions. Well, tonight, Meghan Kelly will line up the questions that she demands are asked of this person who is cruising their way through this campaign, hiding in plain sight, pretending that she's not Joe Biden while using Biden's basement to find a way to power. He's part of Meghan. That'll turn up a bit later tonight, and what she would ask Harris.
Your campaign says you're no longer in favor of a fracking band, what specifically changed your mind?
How?
And when your campaign says you no longer favor taking away everyone's private health insurance and putting them on the government plan, the Medicare plan, what specifically changed your mind? Your campaign says that you are no longer throw open border policies and not enforcing our immigration laws. You now want to crack down on the southern brook What specifically was it?
Meghan? In a couple of seconds, but straight after this looking forward to a big fire up Stephen Connery. He's just here to help.
Bromwan Bishop, She's.
Here to tell it like it is. I can't wait. We're alive in Perth. Thanks for watching us where you are, Thank you so much for watching. I'm in Perth and joining us right now from Sydney is none other than the wonderful Bromwin Bishop carry out a CHAMPI as always on a Wednesday night in Melbourne is Stephen Connery, and he's always here to help.
What a truly national.
Show we are tonight where we're all united by what the hell did Adam Ban serve up today? Now Bromwin again. The difference between profferd and turnover and is all very serious and it's time to soak the rich. Of course, it's easy for them to come up with this source of revenue for promises that they'll never have to put in place because they won't be the opposition, they won't be the government. But but but but they may well end up being in a position to help Labor form
a minority government. And that's why we pay any attention lit alone this much attention to it. What did you think of Adam Bant's economics lesson today, Well, it's.
Certainly not a Robin Hood tax.
It's more like a King John tax, I think. But the thing that is important is this that Adam Banter has come out and said that he wishes to replace Labor as the mainstream left wing party. So he is going all out to beat Labor in enough seats that he can in fact be the dominant left wing party. In doing so, he no doubt is going to take money from the CFMU. I think they already take it
from the Electrical Trades Union. They'll take it from the MUA, and they'll take their manpower already got the CFMU coming out and saying they're going to destroy the Labor Party and they will be running hard to do exactly that.
So the so called.
Policy of how they'll run the economy is window dressing around what is a thrust and for absolute power. So when they say they're going to slug the rich, it just becomes a mantra. It honestly sounds like Stalin's five year plan. It'll do nothing for the people of Australia, nothing to enable people to live decent lives. They are the would be autocratic rulers and they have to be called out for being a socialist, dreadful party.
Yeah, so Stephen, let's look under the hood here right again, there is a difference between profit and turnover. Did I get that right? Firstly yes or no? But then secondly, let's get to that about what they're going to try to do here, about what they're trying to do with you. You got half a trillion dollars worth of money that
you seek to either reallocate or have fake promises. How worried are you that the Labor Party suffers when they've got half a trillion dollars worth of promises that they can just piddle up against the wall.
Well, look, I think you mentioned your year nine was it economics class graduation A plus for Paul Murray on first year economics because clearly Adam budd has failed that one. But look, in terms of the promises they're going to make, they've been somewhere realistic. They're moving so further left they're
tearing themselves apart. Here in Victoria, the different factions of the Greens Party are spelling over the lunatic performance by the Housing spokesperson supporting an organization which has been found to be riddled with criminal elements. I mean, that's who the Greens are hooking up with nowadays. To Bromwick's point, I'd be surprised if the administrator is going to be start doling out donations for anyone in the next election.
The whole Union is now in in administration, I think, other than maybe the.
West coast where Paul is.
But apart from apart from that, you know, this is a package that he may, in his fantasies, think is his negotiating point. But I don't even need to say out loud that Labor will not do it, will not agree to it, and it would be political suicide for labor to give them one percent of this insanity.
On the flight on the way over, I was sitting next to a wonderful bloke called Brian. He was very you know, very giving them a space that then sort of wanted to have a chat and I'm like, mate, let's go, let's have a chat. And he was very kind and he waited. But we took a long time on the flight talking because he works in the gold mine, so right, he has since then, and he talked about
this situation of the tailings dam and why the decision. Well, you can't just move certain parts of that without serious financial or engineering consequences. Now we talk about all of this because of course there's this new South Wales gold mine. The locals wanted, the state government wants it, the Prime Minister apparently wants it, but his Environment minister says no. The company says, well sorry unless the tailings dam is there.
And anyone who's ever watched you know Ossie gold Hunters, you know up the road in Calgooley where it's filmed, you know the importance of water to the process. Right, But we again see the News of Whales premiere doubling down. He again is pretty obvious he's pushing for this thing. Here's what he had to say.
I'm disappointed by the decision from the Commonwealth Government.
You disagree with the reversion. Liver said that many times, and.
So in your view, ten, you're Clevasick using that power.
Was she was in error? Yes, So Brian made an awful lot of sense, which means Bromin goes first. Now, Bromwan, how does this work? Everyone agrees except the government that is regulating against it, but the boss of that government disagrees with the decision. You can't just move the tailings.
Paul, there is a way out of this situation. Albanez he said he wants them a mine. Minsa said he wants the mine.
Well.
The declaration that is made by Tanya plippershek is a disallowable instrument. And on the twentieth of August, Senator Derniam moved a disallowance motion which is now before the Senate. It's on the notice paper I think for the ninth of September. And if it remains on the notice paper for fifteen sitting days and the Government doesn't call it on and defeat that disallowance motion, then the declaration made by Tania Plibisk will be disallowed and the mind you saved,
and she cannot remake that declaration for six months. So there is a very simple way mister Minn should ring mister Alberanizi and mister Albersi should tell his senators that they should not call on the motion and they should not defeat call it on for a vote and they should not defeat it. They should simply leave it there and let it become disallowed. Then the mind can continue.
So Stephen, you know the machinations of the Senate, you know the machinations of what Robins just said. Is that going to be how the Labour Party saves itself from itself?
Well, look, there's a few extra complications. I mean, what Bromins described, I think reasonably accurately is the parliamentary process. But there are still these things called laws and judges and courts and idea that the minister can just courts judges. So Tanya plebisc is guided by actual existing law she has to follow. So there's been these arguments if he could just be quiet for just two minutes from I'll help you. So it is for you, I know, But
the laws that Tanya has to follow. Tanya has approved minds she perhaps at a personal level, doesn't want to She's disapproved projects that she perhaps wanted to approve. But the minister doesn't get their own personal view on these things. The minister is bound by law and must follow the law. They must follow proper process and they must follow the trail that leads. Because Scott Morrison proved to us, why if you just intervene, decide to knock off a proposal,
it can be challenged in court. He did it, I think it's an offshore wind farm and got rolled in court for not following proper process.
Everything the problem that had.
De session.
Because I just tried to explain to you, because you then will be taking to court and be challenged on the basis of the administrative processes. Yes, Brown, Scott Morrison actually had it happened to him recently, my minister, when he appointed himself one of all of those you know, seventy four ministries he appointed himself, he knocked over something
got taken the course by the unsuccessful bidder. Now in this case it would be not the mind people who would take them in court, and with the opponents of the mind that would take them to court. So you can't just as Environment Minister decide I like this one, I don't like this one.
You've actually got to follow the law. Yes, and the law says.
Mate, I love it. All right. Now, let's talk about the all guns blazing on Peter Dutton stuff. This is designed to distract from all of the problems the government has, all right now, Again, I stand by the analogy of the high heels or the platform shoes about sort of the result that we got today when it came to inflation.
Jim Chalmers, of course loved the idea that after delivering the bomb, he follows up on the bomb after everyone reacts to the bomb, and unsurprisingly he stands by the bomb that he threw Peter Dutton's way.
I'm very happy to come to that specific question, but before I do, I want to say something about the speech that.
I gave on Monday night.
Ninety percent of it was about paying tribute to the memory of John Curtin and talking overwhelmingly about cost of living and the future of our economy. But I don't resolve one bit from the remarks that I made about Peter Dutton.
On Monday night.
Dutton is a divisive figure, and I believe he is too divisive to be the prime minister of a great country like ours.
Bro.
When this pissed off, it must mean that Dutton is right over the target.
You know, you know, when the government's in trouble and there's this awful whiff of fear, you can smell it. And that speech that mister Chalmers made trying to call mister Dutton di visive when he knows damn well that it was mister ALBERNIZI, who is the most divisive character we've seen with the voice, had that whiff of fear about it, and that was reinforced when he made that peculiar statement today when he said, look, twenty two pages was my speech and I only just spoke about mister
Dutton with a very small part of it. I was really talking about something else and left out, of course the word dangerous. Is feeling the pressure very much. He knows they're in deep trouble. He knows that they've failed on every issue that they have tried to bring forward. And when the figures didn't come out today on inflation the way he wanted it, well, he felt the pressure again and he's going to go on feeling it because this is going to be a election and people think much closer.
I think so too. We've got literally less than a minute here, Stephens. So again, look, it's a shark. No one can add glass jaws, and it's got to have sharp elbows. And you're allowed to say whatever you want about your opponent, But doesn't it tell you a little something about how nervous they are because supposedly they're guaranteed the next election, aren't they.
Every government draws a picture of the leader of the opposition. Every government, whether it's John Howard trying to draw a picture of Kevin Rudd, whether it was Kevin Rudd trying to draw a picture about Tony Abbott, Every government, every opposition get into the same arguments. This is absolutely normal politics. And what Jim did was simply exposed that Peter Dutton is continuing to find his own distractions and just needs to actually put some policy on the table. It's not policy debates.
Oh dear, all right, thank you. I'm not far to that between now and the election. I got to go, sorry, Bromin, because we've got the wonderful Megan Kelly standing by and we've got a little satellite de lay between here and there. So my apologies, Thank you guys. Talk to you all next week. Meghan Kelly, the hard questions for the empty pants suit, that is Kamala. Harris next not talking to Megan Kelly, but I'm really fired up and borderline pissed off tonight, and I know her shows are pretty much
the same because we've got to talk about Kamala. Kamala not even hiding in plain sight, just outright hiding. The Great Lady joins us now from the US Meghan, five days since the empty pants suit, rather than Obama in a pantsuit was out telling us not very much and hope and joy and all that crap. Get no way to be saying nothing. And as you reported yesterday, as NBC has been backing in today, if she does an interview, she'll do it with her governor. If the debate happens,
she'll do it with notes. Now, this is not the behavior of a person who is leading. This is the stuff of somebody who is scared.
Nor is it the behavior of anyone with any intellectual depth.
That's the truth. That's really what's an issue here.
She is not a very smart person. She can say enough to get through a short exchange or memorize note cards for a debate, but she does not have any intellectual depth. And that I think is what we've been perceiving for the last four years. When she tries to offer her brand of profundity, where none of us feel moved at all. We're actually scratching our heads asking ourselves, what did she just say? Why would she say that, and why would she think that that would resonate with
any of us? So she understands she needs a crutch, whether it's going to be her emotional support governor in an interview or her note cards in a debate. She can't perform alone, and she has enough history behind her to know that.
And look, whether this all works or not, who knows. I don't have a time machine. We'll all find out first week in November. But just instinctively, I think people buy the millions don't buy it anymore. They don't buy the spin, and they see what's happening in real time. They see that this person who is being presented in one fashion is really another. But on your show yesterday, I loved when you had the examples of the questions any and every person who gets the opportunity to ask
her should ask. They should be basic contrast questions. You believe this, now, you believe that? Why over and over and over again. If she can make it through that, then fine, but we both know she can't.
It's very simple. And the point I was trying to make on my show was not only should it be your campaign issued a statement saying that you no longer support a ban on fracking?
Is that true?
It should be what made you change your mind? Exactly specifically, And I was saying, just like they do to Republicans who go from being pro choice to pro life, because it's still a Republican party in which you can't be elected or nominated unless you say your pro life. And a lot of journalists who especially those who are you know, looking to cause damage to you a Republican or who are themselves Republicans, those you know two or three percent of reporters who are might ask a question of such
a man as follows. Used to be per choice, now your pro life. What caused the change? What was it that flipped that core belief? And typically it'll be well, I saw, you know, a fetal heartbeat monitor on my wife or on myself when I got pregnant, and that can make some sense, those questions should be put to her. Your campaign says you're no longer in favor of a fracking ban. What specifically changed your mind?
How?
And when your campaign says you no longer favor take away everyone's private health insurance and putting them on the government plan, the Medicare plan. What specifically changed your mind? Your campaign says that you are no longer throw open border policies and not enforcing our immigration laws. You now want to crack down on the southern border. What specifically was it? And then the follow up comes, was it
so okay? You saw what happened with the illegal immigrants coming into the country in record droves, when over the last four years, because under President Trump we had one third, one tenth in some years of what we're seeing under your administration, you say now that you weren't the borders are, that you were somebody who was just responsible for addressing root causes of migration. Why did you fail because we're seeing record numbers of illegal immigrants flooding across the southern border.
Do you admit you failed at that job? Because you have not abated the desire of these unlawful migrants to cross into our country unlawfully.
It's not that hard.
And see if she's got any ability to go even too deep.
Never mind ten one. I know that we've just seen your half of the interview. I would love to see the other half. Fingers crossed, say what happens now? I don't know whether I've got sort of the rose colored blonde is on, but it feels like Trump is playing a better game than he was the last time we talked. You know, his advisor saying Trump on steroids multiple events a day. Is this the future of the next couple of weeks of the Trump campaign?
Yeah, I think he's getting much more discipline and much more endpoint strike targeted. You know, his media strategy lately has been to go on these alternative media platforms like this interviewer, THEO Vaughn, who's got a very popular podcast, and then this week Sean Ryan, former navycal very popular podcast, and who listens to Theo? And who listens to Sean? Large numbers, in particular of young men, large numbers. Trump would love to go on Joe Rogan, but Joe Rogan
doesn't like Trump. And has said he won't do anything to support him. But that's very smart because this election really is turning into weirdly and sadly male versus female. And I mean, I could make the case all day long to my fellow women about why they absolutely should not support Kamala Harris. She's not for women. She is not for women. But okay, put that to the side.
He's trying to go to the base he already has generally inclined to him and to stimulate their interest and their excitement and their determination to get out and vote in November. That's very smart, you know. It's similar to what we talked about before, where his campaign figured out where all of his merch was selling best, and he went and doubled down in those areas and tried to stimulate turnout in those areas from people who were already
kind of thinking geek. Trump's interesting. He's on the same general plan. He's not really doing what the mainstream media wants him to do, which is reach out to those middle independents who are you know, Nikki Haley voters who may or may not like No, he right now go into the core pockets of support and saying get out.
Don't let them stop you.
We need you. It's fine if it's male versus female, but I need every last male I can find. I actually believe his comments about Kamala Harris. Harris's race at the NABJ event was a similar reach out to some in the black community who've had this kind of feeling about her unbeknownst to some of us. And you've heard that reflected in many interviews with black voters, especially young men who are more Trump and clined black men who were like, yeah, you know what, she never did play
up the black bit. She was always Indian on these other you know, whatever they're feeling is so. Trump is smart in the way he's targeting different groups, and I think that's how you win elections.
Megan, love to see you. Good to see you.
Ball