From the Skying Center. This is Paul Murray Live. Thank you, Roxbar.
Happy Tuesday, so much, Telly. Let's make the most of the one hour that we have together. We have a country that, let's be honest, there's got some pretty average politicians in it, be it the Prime Minister or hapless ministers, or the silly teals or the green you know, there's just not that sense of jeez, we're playing with the first rung here. It feels like we're playing with the staffers of reserve grade.
So they're not really up to speed. We know that.
But there are politicians in and amongst that group who deserve to be singled out for how laser focus they are on the common values of everyday Australians. And I believe there is no bitter person in the Parliament than Senator just Into nampaging Price. She showed herself to be so fearless last year when every establishment figure, establishment media, establishment business, light society had its view about whether Australia
should or shouldn't put something into the constitution. She disagreed, and she took the opposition from being a group of people too scared to say no to a group that profoundly said no, and her leadership in particular was why in part the country was able to be convinced sixty forty no.
But that's old news.
What I love about to sin her, and I loved before she came into the Senate, when we talked to her for years before all of that, and of course she was doing her best on the Council in Alice Springs, is that she will just find a way to explain complicated things in a fashion again that share the common values of decent and suburban Australia.
She's giving blistering speeches.
She's an incredible interview every time we get the chance to have her on the telling.
But she is.
Somebody who is an absolute star of the opposition, person who I hope at some point they find a way to get her into the Lower House and she gets to go up the batting order and there is no limit to how high she could achieve. And I think Australians would support her on that journey whenever she chooses
to take it. And like many people, I keep an eye on her Facebook page and a social media and she puts out a newsletter to her supporters quite frequently, and she wrote in the past couple of days an extraordinary open letter about the way Australia is failing at the moment and the way this government in particular is failing. She didn't do an interview, she didn't do radio. So
I'm just going to read directly from this. Does this not sound like exactly what we talk about each and every night and what you feel and have felt for years. Quote the Australian people exercise their democratic rights and put Anthony of an Easy in the latch under the impression that you deliver a two hundred and seventy five reduction power bills, lower the cost of living and leave families better off. But the results are clear. None of that
has happened. Interest rates are even higher, in flotation has barely slowed, and there is no sign of that two hundred and seventy five dollar reduction under labor. The typical family with the mortgage is now thirty five.
Thousand dollars a year worse off. What an astonishing failure. She goes on.
But it gets worse because now the government is bringing in one point six seven million migrants over the next five years, right in the middle of a housing crisis.
This is nation destroying stuff.
Now, this was written up today in part by the Daily Mail, so their paragraph says that Senator Price finished the letter labeling mister Alberinezi.
A creature of politics with misplaced priorities and no accountability. A back to Senator Price quote.
Anthony Abernezi is obsessed with his legacy and his photo ops. He's a creature of politics who is already turning his focus to the election rather than focusing on the problems you're facing. That's been the pattern of the last two years. Misplaced priorities, no accountability and all politics all the time.
She is one hundred percent. She has a spectacular ability to speak like we speak and to reach out beyond the people who would normally seek out programs like this and have the conversations that you have at home each and every day. She's a real credit to herself, her family and the opposition. And again I read you this because I want you to sign up to her newsletter at her website. I want you to follow her on
social media. I want you to be right at the front lines of everything she does, every speech she makes in the Parliament, and every gesture that she makes in pursuit of a government that we know is all about lies and spin and gas lighting. She has a bright political future in front of her, and again the sky is the limit. Now, another person who I believe is a fearless politician is Holly Hughes. Holly Hughes is a person who has fought very hard to make her way
into Parliament. She was incredibly patient, incredibly loyal to her party and guess what her party turned around and did to her on the weekend bang That put her in a position that is essentially the unwinnable spot due to all of the factional garbage inside the Nusipas Liberal Party.
Now Holly is again one of those.
People who just knows how to take up the fight, just one of those people who is willing to engage with you, to fearlessly stand in the Senate and take them all on. Yet the Liberal Party and its factional rubbish means that a person you've never heard of ends up in a position of greater prominence, and a politician who barely is seen in places like this because it's all a little bit too dirty, ends up with the top spot of the Liberal Party in New South Wales.
Now you know that I am absolutely supportive of holding this government to account, and yes that.
Would mean support for Peter Dutton.
But I've got to say I cannot offer the same support for some of the garbage that is going on in the Senate. Some of the people that exist in the Senate in supposedly the name of the Liberal Party, the people who assume that you will just vote for them because what other options are there. Well, in twenty sixteen people saw other options in the Senate, the largest cross benches were elected as a result. In twenty nineteen, those people came back and they voted for Team Blue,
and they won. When disappointments set in, people, of course in the Upper House vote they went in lots of other places, and the preferences never came back. Now Holly has every right to pack up her bag and not say anything in publicly. But more importantly, I know she won't. I know that she'll sit back, be understandably mighty peed off at the people around her, but she would continue the fight all the way to the next election.
She's always welcome here.
There are good people in our Parliament, the people who sometimes wield the power inside the party not so.
Good now, right now.
Senate is in estimates, which means the politicians get to play prosecutor from time to time, and there are people that again are very good at and something they're pretty bad at it, but it's an opportunity to try to get some answers out of politicians who but otherwise not have to answer a question in the Parliament. Remember they really don't, and of course at a press conference where they just change the subject. So Senate estimates is that process which is taking place as we speak now. Often
the politician is sitting next to a bureaucrat. The bureaucrat is of course supposedly subservient to the minister, but the reality is that the minister in a labor government is just basically an extension of the public service. So they're all on the same team about not embarrassing anything to do with a labor government.
So you get stuff like this.
Take on notice, take it, take it you take it on notice.
You're taking it on notice.
I'll have some more questions on notice for that, and it.
Is something that all politicians at both sides have done for some period of time. But i'll take it on notice basically means I'll get back to you, and I'll get back to you in written form because I can't answer or won't answer the question in front of you right now. Well, a table document in the Senate has blown a massive hole in how this government hides accountability, how ministers and the public servants backing them up don't answer the questions. This is that document tabled in the
Senate and done so a couple of weeks ago. It is in part advice which is coming directly from the highest office in the land about how do answer or more importantly, not answer questions. In fact, suggest a draft response, suggested draft response, suggest a draft response, lots of basically the script. And when, in this case the shadow ministers or the liberal senators start answering or asking tough questions, well you just consult to the script.
And don't answer the question.
Now, interestingly, this has actually been seen by the Clerk of the Senate or the Clerk of the Senate as not the way it's supposed to work. Now, of course, there'll be no sanctions because whatever they're in charge of the rules, they'll be able to overrule whatever the opinion of the clerk seems to be. But we literally have a script that is now being sent out. Now maybe this has happened for every government, but they've all been
able to hide the script. This script is now available for all to see, and the senators, like the ones that I just showed you, are now the ones asking the questions. But because they have the script, they're able to say, is that your answer? Or are you just reading from the script? Perfect example of it was Matt Canavan asking questions today, where again big vague answers were being given because that's what the script says, rather than answer the damn question.
Answer is a direct quote from page seven seven. Yet page seven of the PMO Manual, and I'll just read it out is a little lengthy, I apologize, but it shows the complete lack of answers here.
Now again, I won't bore you with the super details of this, but it's about showing you the tactic, showing you how the sausage is made. And just like they always say, you don't want to see how the sausage is made. This is the example of the person being asked the question, who's following the script, who just repeats the script until they change the question.
I mean, minister, do you consider that an answer to that question. Well, it was definitely an answer to the question. In what way you've just provided the answer provides a description of IDCs, which was not asked for. We know what an IDC is. How is that an answer to and it's a very simple question, how many IDCs are you a member of?
Well an answer was provided, and obviously from your point of view, it's not a satisfactory as it were.
Speaking the same language here, you see the game here is not just to rob the opposition of information. It's also because it's in front of cameras, a desperate attempt to not get caught in something that might become a story by tomorrow morning or the six pm news in a couple of days time. But this is the government that was supposedly about transparency. This was the government that was always going to be accountable. This was the one
that wasn't going to play these types of games. But of course they are just like every other politician that has gone before them, interested in putting out fires or hiding fires than telling you the truth of what's going on. A perfect example of that, and let's see how this goes over the next few days.
Is there is the federal.
Budget that the media spends an awful lot of time looking at and literally gets locked behind closed doors to read. And it's about beating here a billion the air and tax cuts and you get all that, but that's not the full financial picture of how much the Australian government is spending. There are literally billions and billions and billions of dollars I would suggest hundreds of billions.
Of dollars that are off budget.
And yes every government has done it, but still this one that promised to be different is doing exactly the same thing.
You see. You know how Chris Bowen has got.
A slush fund basically sixty billion dollars of which to enter into commercial agreements that then we don't know about with people to help supercharge the building of the renewable energy network. Well, none of that is in the federal
budget that is off budget. And with Australia having a very slender at this stage surplus built exclusively off things like petrol tax, cigarette tax and alcohol tax, the reality is that once you start to actually look at the money that is off budget, it pushes us deeper into deficit, which means it's borrowed money.
Let's find out in this Senate estimate.
So my challenge to everyone asking questions is to ask the department how much of their spending is off budget and can we please have a list of it, because why don't it be fascinating to see if the transparent government that's got a script about how you don't answer the questions. We'll also find a way to not tell you how much money they are spending off the budget that requires us to borrow from overseas, which in part is how our debt under this government gets to one
point two t for trillion dollars. And that's just for the stuff that's on budget off budget I think is going to make our toes curl anyway.
Challenge to everyone asking the questions now.
Meantime, Immigration Minister Andrew Giles, we're all on the same ticket. Goodbye, see you, ladder punt. This bloke go away useless, terrible because he does not view his portfolio as one that is about booting people out of the country. Instead, it is about well finding any excuse to possibly keep people in the country because then they'll vote for you.
I don't know.
It's real insight into morality, and the morality is all exactly the opposite of what has previously been the way this country does things. But again, just as it was after the Howard government with Rudd, where they thought, oh well, we can let the boats back in, and then eventually, after a few years and a thousand people dying, they have to recognize that their version of good is actually worse.
And this government is learning.
Day by day that there's a reason somebody who's the Immigration Minister or the Home Affairs Minister has to be a tough nut, has to be somebody willing to look even weeping people in the eye and say sorry, no, see you later. And they would have bipartisan support if they wanted to push legislation through to try and close all of the gaps, to make sure that there was absolute ministerial responsible ability, but of course they don't want that.
Instead they've tried to find lots of ways to send subtle smoke signals to the people who make the decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, or they send smoke signals to the board of people who decide whether or not the people who were let out as a result of an overreaction to the High Court, whether these people should
be wearing ankle bracelets or not. But of course, as you know by now, one in five of the people that have been brought out of detention by the High Court by this government have gone on to commit crimes, most famously pretty you have examples like the person in Western Australia is being accused by police there have been responsible for an alleged attack on a woman in the seventies.
You know that case very well well. As the cases continue to pile up, the government clearly thinks that they can just ignore the issue or pretend that it's one that only people like you and I care about because you and I are going to vote for them any way.
Just so what.
But the Opposition is doing an excellent job in question time today of lining up a series of horrific failures of this bloke where his judgment or the smoke signal that he is sent to other people involved in the system is just wrong.
Greation detainer referred to as cohc Y had his visa canceled after he was convicted of raping his fourteen year old stepdaughter whilst his wife was in hospital giving birth.
Sudan Is National Emmanuel Sarki's visa was canceled after he was convicted of serious domestic violence offenses and threats to kill with a knife. He's now been charged with the stabbing murder of twenty two year old Bosco Minorano in Brisbane.
Saki's visa was reinstated by the AAT as a direct result of the watering down of the law by the Albanezi government and the issuance of Direction ninety nine.
A Kenyan national known as xl FM had his visa canceled after he was convicted of raping the seventeen year old sister of the mother of his child and then robbing a petrol station with a meat cleaver.
The Congolese national known as HWGF had his visa canceled after being jailed for aggravated assault and repeated breaches of domestic violence orders. HWGF has been convicted of a total of twenty seven separate offenses, including multiple counts of violent assault against two former partners. They are extended families as well as police.
And Afghan national referred to as z JFQ had his visa canceled after being convicted of both raping a sixteen year old girl and intercourse with a disabled fourteen.
Year old child.
The Albanesi Labor government's watering down of the law has allowed this criminal to stay in Australia, making our country less safe. When will the Albanesi Labour government apologize for this catastrophic mistake and reverse its direction ninety nine?
It's wild right now, we can't deport people that are born here, but the people who weren't born here we have the legal right to be able to say sorry, visa canceled.
Punt goodbye. Why wouldn't any of those scenarios result in somebody going well, of course, the minister says, not his fault.
This was a visa that was canceled and remained canceled under ministerial direction ninety nine. Now it was a decision of the aat an independent tribunal to overturn to overturn the cancelation of the visa. Now, a number of cases were not raised with me by my department, and I've asked my department for an explanation why my department is now.
Looking at all these cases as a priority for pain that.
They are all under cancelation consideration.
Now again he can say I tried to do the right thing that I was overruled by somebody else. But the group who overruled are the ones who are acting in part on the advice that you've seen, which is er on the side of caution. If somebody has a connection here in Australia, they should stay in Australia. And a perfect example of that is one that Nick Kata
was talking about in the Australian newspaper today. This one is a bloke about a bloke who has a record of knife crime and car theft, serious driving offenses that could have proved fatal in twenty fourteen.
I'm reading directly here from what nickroa, which is he.
Caused an accident that resulted in the victim having life threatening injuries.
However, under the.
Direction ninety nine, that's the smoke signal advice being sent from the Minister to the people. At the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, this bloke convinced the tribunal that his ten year relationship with the same partner and three children that he has fathered in this country is the grounds on which he can stay.
So because his kids are here, he gets to stay.
But what about this he self identifies as an Aboriginal person and consider Australia to be my country. So what he wrote in a submission to the tribunal, I have been accepted by the indigenous people of this country through its customs and in a traditional smoking ceremony.
Again who cares.
I also learned a lot about Aboriginal culture, was taught how to paint Aboriginal art, and have also played the digiido in the past. Again who cares? How is this bloke able to stay in the country. Not because he ended up forming a partnership and having kids and because those kids should have a father.
Then therefore, yes, you can stay.
But what about the knife crime, the car theft, the driving that could have killed people. It's up to the minister to write the rules, the Parliament to pass those rules. Yes, the courts too have checks and balances, and that's exactly what we saw the High Court saying that indefinite attention isn't legal and therefore those people came out. But the capacity to say that when the minister says on these grounds goodbye.
You should have.
The highest possible standard is not the lowest ones as to whether that person stays in the country or is able to appeal. Now, of course, We live in a country where eventually you can appeal all the way to the High Court, but at some point in time there is a final say. And generally speaking, when you appeal, you don't appeal on the right and wrong. You appeal on the errors of law, the errors of the decision that was made. And in this case, the minister's word
should be final. The minister should have every opportunity to say sorry, power out you go. If you want to go and apply for a visa on the other side of the world, good luck to you.
I play the ditchery, dude, please.
Now, it is very rare in the news that you see like a slow train coming to towards you, a massive world event. Now normally with things like a terrorist attack or a natural disaster, it starts as breaking news, one line, something you've never heard of, something you didn't think of, it just happened, and then of course our news becomes dominated by it for weeks and times. History is written by those events. But there are sometimes events that you do see coming and you know are going
to be calamitous. You know we're going to be impactful rather than calamitus, I should say, like the death of Queen Elizabeth.
We all knew it was coming.
Everyone had a level of planning in and around how that news event would work. And we are now coming to that moment when the trial of Donald Trump this week is going to move to the jury phase, where it doesn't matter anymore about the mugshots, It doesn't matter anymore about the what's said inside the court. It doesn't matter what the porn star says, it doesn't matter what the form a lawyer who admitted.
To stealing from Trump says.
It comes down to twelve people who will decide whether a president of the United States, a former president of the United States, is going to be found guilty of a crime, and a crime that could result in.
Being sent to jail.
Now again, I have spent many sleepless nights and I will again tonight watching every little incremental moment.
Of this trial.
And yes, of course, as somebody who would much prefer Donald Trump to be the next president than Joe Biden, you can say, well, of course, you're just cherry picking the information.
No, I think if you actually look at this thing, that there's.
A lot of noise and a lot of smoke, and some dots that are really close together. But I don't believe that they have been pushed together or they have been joined. They have not proven that Donald Trump knowingly knew how the Trump organization was going to write down the payments to Stormy Daniels instead. All of the coverage is about, well, clearly the money was for storming, That's not the point. It's about how it was written down
in the accounting ledgers of the Trump organization. And there is one person who could have come forward and said Trump told me write it down as a legal expense, and he knew it was an illegal expense, by the name of Alan Weiselberg. Alan Weiselberg was the financial boss of the Trump organization, and he was not called to testify. Let me read from the New York Times, believe it
or not about why. In closing arguments on Tuesday, mister Trump's lawyers are expected to cast mister Weiselberg as the prosecution's missing peace, an elusive central.
Player in the case. They will likely try to argue to the jury that the case.
Depends on mister Cohen, whose testimony provided the only evidence that mister Trump had direct knowledge of the plot to disguise the hush money reimbursement as legal fees. I'll jump out of the Times for a second him, and obviously, if you're paying attention to what was being said, he admitted that he's lied in every other place. But please believe me now, he admitted to stealing money from the
very payments because he wanted a bonus. Yet he was still ultra loyal and carrying out the evil work of Donald Trump. All Right, the closest the prosecution can get is Cohen. No one, even a Trump hater, could believe what Cohen was saying. You can't be lying nine times out of ten, but that one time he's absolutely telling the truth, when, by the way, he's admitted to lying previously in legal proceedings. Okay, so this bloke, Alan Weisselberg
is the only guy. If the prosecution could flip him, if they could prove Trump knew what was going on, then banged case over guilty, guilty, guilty, We continue. A New York Times examination, based on court records and interviews with a dozen people close to the case, explains that mister Weisselberg's absence and reveals a portrait of him as a company man who had a hand in some of
mister Trump's shadiest dealings. Okay, still doesn't prove anything. He could have traded his knowledge for freedom because he's currently in jail, by the way, but he's decided to keep his mouth shut. Instead, he signed a multi million dollar severance deal which basically said I'll never say anything bad about Trump. He signed that, now, of course, he would have been able to the prosecution, would have said, dont worry
about all. That will give you the protection. You can come and say whatever you want, sing like a bird. But he's not doing it now he's in jail. He could get out of jail early, but he won't do it. He's the only one who can actually prove the case. The rest of it is all lots of noise and pushing dots as close together. But anyone who knows how these things works knows you can't push the dots together
unless they're actually connected last one. For years, the Manhattan District Attorney's office had sought to turn mister Weselberg against his boss. When he refused, prosecutors indicted him, so they sent him to jar because he wouldn't turn on them, And he still won't turn on him even though he's in jail. So ultimately decision was made by the prosecution. No, they will not bring him to the stand now the defense did neither. But this is going to be the
central focus of closing arguments. And tonight at about eleven thirty Eastern time is when they start to make their way into the court. The defense will give its closing arguments, then the prosecution will give its closing arguments. That's the way that it works for all state based trials in New York. Nothing different about it, I think, specific when it comes to Trump. And then perhaps as early as tonight, while you are sleeping, the jury will start its deliberations.
Could be slammed unk guilty, could be fifty to fifty, could be one person who says are not really And that process drags on for a while, and if it continues to drag on, there would ultimately be a mistrial, and that's not innocent. It would just mean we go around again. But of course that won't happen before November. And but if he is found guilty, perhaps as soon as a quick deliberation tonight or by this time in a couple of days time, think of that as a
news story, that train coming towards you. Of something that people will learn about in generations to come. So make sure that you are front and center tomorrow morning, first edition here on Sky News, and Pete Stefanovic and Ales Nielson and everyone else is across everything we're doing in America, will bring you the very latest information. But literally there is a chance quick summation from the defense, quick summation
from prosecution, quick decision from a jury. He could be found guilty by the time we wake up tomorrow, and this judge who hates him could decide to sentence him in a couple of weeks. But until he gets sentenced off to jail, that's how much could happen tonight or tomorrow or the day after. But it's definitely happening this week.
Meghan Kelly will join us tomorrow night to discuss all of that, and it's going to be huge, all right, quick break back with more, plenty of debate, plenty to discuss, plenty to fire up about in a moment of two's time here on Paul Murray Live. It is a strange feeling, isn't it when as opposed to big news.
Jeez, did you hear? You can see it coming?
It's why I wanted to explain it to you, and why the one bloke who could prove or disprove the case, for some reason is not giving evidence at all.
It's going to be an amazing time.
The start a debate about a lot of other stuff in a moment of two's time here and a reminder, Josh Fridenberg's going to be on the late debate tonight.
After that exceptional bit of Telly a bit earlier this sevening, thank you so much.
The host of the US Report Outsiders and now different from the Daily Telegraph, none another than my fellow cigar accidental user.
None of that in the wonderful changemorrow. I'm just terrible. Don't do it. It's evil, It's awful. I slipped and fell out a roboosto.
I can't Oh sorry, boss, all right Lydia Scott, who was of course representing a local government at national Cabinet. She's a counselor on the City of Sydney Council. Oh we'll get to clover more in a moment or two times. But she's in Melbourne right now because you know, she just wanted to feel the lefty love and I understand. So let's talk about a couple of things here. I think that the conversation in and around hate laws, which supposedly are about trying to go after forms of antisemitism,
all the rest of it. But when you actually look at who's been negotiating some of this stuff, it seems like it's going to be used as a trojan horse for vilification laws that have existed in Victoria for a couple of years, very lefty, very punitive. But also there's the religious discrimination stuff where today they were negotiating, but basically Michauliacash just went up and out and walked out of the negotiations.
What have you heard more about this job?
Yeah, look, I mean this is all very dramatic, but apparently things got so heated with Mark Dreyfus, the Attorney General, and Dreyfus was apparently, from the reports, you know, was not exactly you know, chivalrous and polite show I say in this meeting, and I think we would all say that Mark Crafis has been a form on this on this sort of issue, and michelay Cash quite credit to you know, I'm not going to take the same I'm
not going to copy it and left now. I mean these religious rule laws are really disturbing because you know, when you twin them with what you're talking about. Where I think you're going with the speech and the vilification thing is is that both of them seem like efforts
to limit people's freedom of speech and association. And while we absolutely want to crack down on anti Semitism, and John Fried an excellent job tonight with that, an amazing, amazing job on that tonight, but let's just be really really clear here that you have to be very careful about making any law to restrict something a that could be used and turned around to do something be that you might not be so happy about.
Well, also, don't forget you know, Dreyfus himself. And remember the way this government does its negotiating is basically our way or the highway. We won't show you the documents. If we do show you the documents, you're not allowed to tell anyone about the documents, and then the legislation just turns up in the Parliament. Again, no one likes seeing how the sausage is made, and this particular sausage
not great. Linda, Again, this is always a really difficult conversation to have because the easiest thing to turn around and say, here is Paul Murray, how can you dare fight for greater opportunities for people to be hateful? I don't, but we've got a whole bunch of legislation that exists about discrimination in the country, about defamation in the country.
There's all of that absolutely clear, right.
But what's your sense when government starts to get into this new area where okay, they might be being pushed by one group, but then it ends up affecting a lot more groups and it ends up in the general public in a very different place than they thought this conversation was.
Going to go.
I think, Paul, that we can be very conspiratorial about these stories about what's happening in Parliament. But what's important when we're thinking about hate speech is to bring it back to what it looks.
Like in people's lives.
And that's what, of course we have to do in local government in the city of Sydney right now, sadly, on a regular basis, I'm getting reports of graffiti that is so hateful, it is so awful. Of course I'm not going to repeat it on television, but it is the kind of thing that whomever you show it to agrees. We don't want that up on a public wall under any circumstances.
This is not what Sydney or Australia is about.
And I think we can all agree that that is the kind of hate speech when it's in the public domain or when it's said.
Can cause harm to people.
It can cause hurt and damage, and that is the kind of thing that should be allowed. Now we are at a particular historical moment globally where there is a lot of division, a lot of unrest, and we're seeing that, unfortunately also play out in hate towards particular groups in Australia.
That's awful, that's wrong.
We should come together as Australians and condemn that, and we should try to find a set of laws that ensure that Australia can continue to be the rich, wonderful, multicultural place that it is. So I don't think there's disagreement about what hate speech is that it should.
Not be allowed.
But what we do need is the opposition to come together with the government and find a bill that people can agree on and to stop arguing, to stop debating. I've obviously put forward this proposition in the City of Sydney to try and have.
Hate speech graffiti removed within an hour.
The Lord Mayor voted that proposition down, but they're doing it with Nicholas Reese and Sally cap in the city of Melbour.
It's a great idea.
These are the things that local governments can unite, so too should our parliamentarians.
And I'm cool with all of that.
The pin I want to put in the chat, the little sort of underline in the conversation about just the asterisk about what we're getting ourselves in for here is that James, a lot of people have seen things like silence is violence, or criticism or observation is vilification, and that's hate speech. And that's what I'm talking about here, which is again I want to create None of us. Do there anyone who's about to run off to the umpire right. None of us are trying to find ways
for hate to still live. But when the modern interpretation can be some of the nuttiest definitions from the worst of the activists, I'm concerned if they're the ones that get to write the rules.
Well, the thing that concerns me is, you know, obviously, you know, people grafiting horrible things on the walls. Absolutely, that should be taken down in twenty seconds flat. There's just there's no question about that. You don't have that society. But we're not talking about anonymous criminal vandals, hatefully tagging a wall. We're talking about you know, individuals discussing sometimes
and talking about things. And there has to be a clear, I think distinction here, Linda, between the question of what is hate speech you know, that might make somebody feel uncomfortable, and what might be inciting. And I think the real issue here is about incitement. Is it going to incite hate? Is it going to incite people to go and do
something bad. It's what we talk about in America in our tradition where I come from, you know, shouting fire in a crowded theater, you know, this is the This is I think we need to be really careful because, as Paul I think correctly said, here, you get these situations where activists will weaponize, you know, hurt feelings, and then suddenly the way you have conversations in this country becomes very limited, and it will become more limited because
of course, so much of this eighty seventis we're talking about comes from some communities and if we can't talk about that, then we're nowhere.
Well also, also we're in this scenario nowhere where we're discussing this on multiple fronts.
Right, misinformation.
Right, You've seen how that term has become this cudgel for the left to be able to go after and eventually I want to censor the Internet from it.
Right.
I just think that all of these things are all going to point in one direction and everyone's going to wake up and be all annoyed about it.
It's being debated. Now, let me just be a very quick point on that.
You know, the other week we had this whole thing in Western Sydney where a library band a book about same sex parents, right, And what was really interesting to me was that was I don't think they should have either. But what was really interesting is the band was arguing against not on the base of free speech, but because it might hurt some people's feelings. And the key is, I think you need to in these things, have the first principles be about the free speech, not about the hurt feeling.
No agree, all right, So, extending on from what I said at the start of the show about those moments when history is coming towards you, and it's been moving slowly and then it's very quick.
And that's where we are right now with the Donald Trump trial.
Linda, obviously you know fan of the president, but let's just acknowledge this moment, right whether it is the fitted up trial or somebody being held to account. Closing arguments, they'll take a couple of hours and then we're off to a jury room. If they're going to make a
decision quickly one way or the other. By the time we wake up tomorrow a president of the United States, well, adjudication will have been made potentially in a court if not a day later, if not a day later, But we are there right now, no more debating, no more. Did you see the mugshot guilty, not guilty, hung jury this week? How do you feel about this moment in time?
Look, there's no doubt it is historically significant to see an American president and potentially a future American president on trial, and so just being hours away from a possible deliberation is of course a.
Very significant moment.
I think also, I know you've discussed this at length, Paul, is just the possibility of a hung trial. What that means, you know, there really are so many outcomes that we could see where there's any.
Division, it's a hung trial.
You know, that delay over the next few months, and what that means, for example, in the outcome of this year's presidential election in the United States. You know, this is just absolutely an incredibly historic event. I also think, and I will continue to call it this out that former President Trump's behavior during the trial has been really remarkable.
You know, his.
Ability to continue to have commentary about the trial, continue to be admonished by the judge about this, you know, just some absolutely remarkable behavior from Donald Trump as the defendant in the face of the criminal justice system. It's so fascinating to me to see how American electors will judge his behavior with respect to the prospect of him potentially running again for the US presidency.
That's true, but James, and again, we could spend the rest of the show on this, the behavior of the judge where literally the jury was never sequested, which means they can sit there and watch things in the court and then watch MSNBC at night to be told why the prosecution has made its case. The delay in closing closing arguments was pushed off for a few more days meaning again they marinate in in amongst a pretty anti
Trump populace. I understand that after closing arguments, they are off, they locked in the hotel and they make their decisions from there. But just again, as a bloke who would like to see Trump as the next president, no doubt, I mean, this is no more maybes.
This week we find out, well this week we find out.
But I mean, you know what we've seen here over and over again is that these attempts to play Garcha with Trump. You know, and I'm sorry, Lindina, Oh, he was badly behaved. He tweeted about the case.
Who cares?
Nobody cares because the fact is, this whole trial is a stitchump. It's been coordinating the timing of it with these other trials which have been falling apart through the White House. I'm sorry it has happened that way. And you know, the idea that people are going to hold it against him for you know, signing a non disclosure
agreement and oh the bookkeeping wasn't done right. Hillary Clinton paid a fine for you know, paying for the steel doarsier which actually accused Trump of being a Russian agent. That's a lot more serious. He destroyed evidence well with a cloth, with a cloth Pollion know, and so this thing is a nonsense.
It's ridiculous.
It's not I ever had.
Honestly, Donald Trump has been accused of so many crimes.
A trial that we're talking about right now.
He's legitimately being trialed in the United States in front of a legitimate case that has been found by a court to be able to be perceived. I don't think, sorry, this constice system into question here.
This case has no one has ever been charged with this book keeping offense. Nobody has ever know this is a misdemeanor that they spun together with a bunch of others and then use that to con cact this idea that it was a felony.
To enforce federal law, which he's already been exonerated.
In exactly right. So I mean this is legally everybody is seeing. This is legally novel.
But my point, lind at which I will probably end up agreeing with you here on which is I think all of us have seen plenty of major failures of the American legal system in many states, many years, many races.
Many cases.
So again, when everyone just sort of leans in one direction to get somebody into the dock, and then they present the case in a certain fashion.
It leads to a certain result.
We've seen that in lots of other things, and I think that's what's happening here. But we will discuss more as it all comes through again, details through the night, and then again Petter Stephan, I think in the morning, quick break back here on Paul Murray Live. Let's keep the debate going plenty more before Josh Bridenberg joins the Lake Debate in fourteen minutes from now.
Now.
I've been mentioning all light because I want you to stick around. I want you to watch it. Josh Fridenberg on the Late Debate a couple of minutes after his spectacular documentary. Congratulations everyone involved in putting it together. It's an amazing piece of television which you can see right
now at sky news dot com. That you sign up for the sky News app, which just five bucks a month, is how you can do that, and it's a great way of being able to carry sky News in your pocket, spread it around to your friends, all the rest of it right follow that QR code because also extended interviews with a lot of people, including a pretty surprising Julia Gillard.
I won't lie her.
Position about anti Semitism. It is a very moving bit of television. Please download the app. You do that by pausing the telly right now, take a photo of that QR code. Well remember QR codes, and it'll take you where you need to go. And then josh up in a few minutes time. In the meantime, here with the James Morrow, who loves QR codes.
I mean you've got so familiar with it.
Yeah, oh yeah.
And Linda Scott no, I did.
And Linda Scott who went putting around the city of Sydney for a while. And I'll get to make clover more in a moment. But ed Husy the industry minister. He says the company tax is potentially something that could change under this government as a way of firing up investment.
Now, great, hallelujah.
I would think that company tax should be a little closer to Singapore than it is currently to Canada. But James again, interesting that the industry ministers openly talking about it, which means tomorrow the Treasurer gets asked a question and the Treasurer will either swack the idea out of the way or they will show a little bit of ankle and maybe company tax gets cut.
No, they just swack that one out of all. There's no way they go to cut cut COVID tax. They should cut coveany tax. They should cut income tax. They should change the level of which income taxcott. Sydney pay insane rates of tax and it drives investment away. But also it also drives productive people out of the country.
So my suggestion is I'm one of these loans who thinks massive drop in income tax, increase in the GST and some of the compensation for people in and around it, that's the way for government. But of course the reason federal governments won't do it is because all the GST money goes to states. So that's why they keep putting up taxes like petrol and booze and cigarettes and you know,
all that really durable stuff. Now let's talk Linda about a political opponent, but Clover Moore, she's been the Lord Mayor of Sydney for twenty years. She would like another four years in the job for very obvious reasons. I would love to see you in that job because I think you've got way more common sense than she does, and I particularly think that your advocacy for all parts of a pretty diverse city, I think would be amazing to see you get business and you get the lefties in new Town.
But give me an idea.
You see her up close, all right, she says, she's invigorated all the rest of it.
Twenty years at the top.
Is she really the top of a game after twenty years running a city?
Well, look, here's the choice that Sydney Siders are faced in this September's local government elections in the City of Sydney. The Lord Mayor Clovermore has been in office for forty four years twenty as City of Sydney Lord Mayor. And let's look at what Sydney looks like now. It is, of course the best city in the world.
But what do we have.
We have parks closed off for months with deadly contaminated asbestos, literally parks boarded up.
So you can't get in.
We've got Oxford Street, our glittering global diamond that should be showcased to the world, with city owned properties that have been boarded up for years, with construction delays, not open to the public, and other private businesses around their shut Marti Gras concerned about how best to proceed to be financially.
Viable as street smells again.
For years of places like Oxford Street. You know, is this the kind of future that Sydney siders want? Well, A slow and steady decline. Further, is what Sydney siders will get if they support Clovermore for another term this September.
That's their choice.
But I think it is very difficult for her at this time to ask, after forty four years in office, twenty as Sydney's Lord Mayor, to ask the people, on the basis of her record to support her again. And let's just be clear about the city's financial position.
We've got a really tough.
Set of cost of living pressures in Sydney, of course, right across the world right.
Now, but particularly in Sydney.
We've got affordable housing almost invisible in Sydney, such a challenge. And yet the City of Sydney has three quarters of a billion dollars in cash in the bank and a budget coming back to council next week next month, sorry, with almost.
No cost of living relief. You know, these are the.
Kinds of perverse economic settings that she has governed now.
For twenty years. In the city of Sydney.
It's just quite wrongheaded and riders are calling out for change.
Okay, now we've got the campaign here, right, you've heard a maga. Right, what about Misska So make Sydney great again? You don't go for the red hat, rainbow hats, rainbow hats? MSG eight, What do you reckon?
Are you going to do it?
I reckon, Linda, here's your winning campaign slogan, rip up the bike leads, all the bike leads in Sydney.
You want to know why.
Shot on the border name because nobody can drive.
To the border lane.
I love you both, Thank you, We're done. That's our show for tonight. Thank you very much for watching. Josh Brodenberg standing by for.
The late debate Megan Kelly tomorrow night.
And could we be talking about a jury making its decision on Donald Trump closing.
Arguments That takes a couple of hours and then what are they going to do?
We'll all find out together tomorrow