From the sky New Center. This is Paul Murray Live. Thank you Shari, and welcome aboard for your Thursday night. We're easing into the weekend.
He to night.
Pay labond in Paul Murray, So charge your glass and settle in. Christy McSweeney and Garth Hamilton will be with me later. The cost of servicing an EV and you believe it is about to go up. We'll talk about that then. Lisa Goddard and Joe Hildebrand will keep the fun going. And we have the new enemy ham sandwiches in school canteens. Seriously or on that in a moment. But let's start with some good news tonight. One nation
has won an extra Senate seat today. Of course, there was talk that Paulin Hansen's daughter Lee could win down in Tasmania, but as we know, Jackie Lamby managed to fend her off, but she's managed to get a candidate over the line. In Western Australia. Tarron Witten was declared the winner of the final Senate spot today and he seems like exactly the kind of bloke we should have more of in Parliament to help start a successful construction company.
So he has an understanding of the real world. He has some runs on the board, he has some success, and he's not a serial candidate who's been trying to get into politics forever because well he's got nothing better to do. And hopefully he'll be a voice for all the things that we talk about here every night, sensible migration, sensible energy policy, the sort of stuff that One Nation has been pushing. And look, there's no getting away from the fact that it was a landslide election for Labor.
We all know that the Coalition absolutely bugged it up. But this is a great effort by One Nation. It's the first time we should note that they've had a senator elected outside of Queensland without it being a double dissolution election. Now, of course it's a double dissolution. The whole of the Senate has to go up for elections, so the quota you need to get elected is halved. That's why a bunch of One Nation senators were elected
in twenty sixteen. But this is the first time it's been done at a step and an election with double the quota you had in twenty sixteen, and that is no mean feat. So I know a lot of people are licking their wounds and down and out about the election result. But let this be an example of the fact that things may not be as bad as you think they are. I mean, conservatism hasn't just died overnight
in Australia. And it's probably a good moment to consider as well that if all of these small right of center parties, and there's plenty of them and their preferences of course, got this Feller in, but if they knocked their heads together and formed a united front like Reform in the UK, they'd probably be a lot more powerful than many people realize. So good luck to him, and I'm sure we'll see him here on our screens very soon.
Speaking of conservative politics. Of course, the coalition back together now, so they'll have to work out whether or not they support zero by twenty fifty. Now you probably know my view. I think they need to get rid of it, and I'll talk a bit more about that in a moment, but let's go through how all of it plays out today. First. Now, obviously, yesterday Opposition leader Susan Lee said that she wouldn't just
be backingit zero at any cost. Essentially, if we're going to back ned zero, it has to be because we think it's the best deal for the Australian people. We can't just blindly follow down the road of net zero. Well, this was Leon Skar this morning.
Their agreement with the Nationals was that we would as a first step, announce as one of the policies we have jointly as a coalition to remove the moratorium. There's plenty of work to be done in terms of nuclear energy policy more broadly after that. That's a good starting point, but we'll take the time to get this right.
We'll work through the issues now. Look, it's pretty noncommittal, but then she has said that everything is on the table and they'll have to discuss all this stuff. So she's not really in a position to make any commitments yet, but she is opening the door to getting rid of net zero and that is welcome and certainly from within the Nationals. There were a few people stoking the fire
this morning. Barnaby Joyce has spoken against nick zero plenty of times before, but this is what he said this morning.
I'm going to focus very much on getting rid of net zero.
Can see the silhoue out of those hills.
We don't want them covered it in swindle factories wind towers, solar panels. We've got to make sure that we keep the power price right for pensioners. They're moorried about the power price than they are about a Paris agreement. So I look after the pensions before I look after Paris.
And he was even more animated about it with Andrew Bolton, and good on him. I mean, he doesn't have to worry about cabinet anymore. It's on the back bench. He can say exactly what he wants, which will be good because we know Barnaby will speak his mind and often speak common sense. And another former Deputy Prime Minister who's been dumped from the Shadow ministry is Michael McCormack. He's also questioning the value of nit zero.
I think we need to have a very serious discussion about that. When I go to places such as crookle vinyl On Gunning where they've got a huge wind towers bounding as another place huge wind towers, they've done their heavy lift as far as making sure that they put these massive turbines up the solar factories that are bobbing up all over taking up valuable arable country farmland. You know, I think regional Australia has done its fair share, and I think we need to revisit that given the fact
of the world. Indeed, America and other countries and other political parties in other nations have really revisited this net zero I think the Nationals will do the same.
Meanwhile, just to sort of lighten the mood a bit, Matt Canavan's got into the AI who posted this on X this morningness. I think they need to get Matt to do the music video to that one anyway. But of course there are people in the Liberal Party, the wets in the Liberal Party who want to keep going with net zero. Zoey McKenzie was on SCAR this afternoon.
I am personally optimistic that we will continue to observe the net zero goal. It is important for an electorate like mine, where environment is very highly valued. But more importantly, it's very important in the minds of the people in
Australia's metropolitan seats. There are eighty eight of them, and my side of politics only now holds eight, and so we must be very focused on the aspirations and perspectives of metropolitan Australia in rebuilding our policy platform towards twenty twenty eight.
So net zero didn't work for you this time, So what makes you think it's going to work for you next time? You know, I get the point she's making about wealthier seats, and she represents one of them on the Mornington Peninsula in Victoria. And we know about all the Teal seats, but the majority of the country doesn't live in wealthy seats. They can't afford to have a social conscience and vote for the environment. They have to vote for their hip pockets. They have to be able
to put food on the table. They want to be able to turn the lights on for a reasonable price. And if you look at the seats that the Liberals lost at this election just gone, they weren't inner city seats. I mean, they already went to the Teals three years ago, and of course they won one of those back with Tim Wilson. But it's the outer suburbs where the Libs went wrong this time. Hues in Southern Sydney, more in perths Out and North Dixon, Ford Banks. You know, they're
not in teal or green sort of territory. And you can't tell me that these people are voting on the basis of net zero, that the people who are struggling to pay their power bills, and they are the people you need to get back if the coalition wants to win another election. I mean, the Libs can try to claw back those Teal seats by veering to the left all they want, but that will not secure any kind of long term future for the Liberal Party. The future of the Liberal Party is in the outer suburbs and
the Perry urban areas. But here's the blueprint to walk both sides of the fence, as it were. You can get rid of net zero. Say look, there's no sense in signing ourselves up to targets that it seems pretty clear we won't meet, and no one else quite frankly will meet. I mean, it's just words on a page. It means nothing and clearly going as hard as we have to try to meet it has bagged up the energy grid. So we won't pursue a net zero target.
But we will say there is a place for renewable energy in the grid, along with a mix of other sources, including nuclear, and we will move towards decarbonization at a time and a pace that economically best serves the people of Australia. We won't rush things. We won't do anything that unnecessarily drives up power bills. We will work first and foremost to keep the lights on for a reasonable price,
while also looking at how to make the grid cleaner. Now, I'm sure the left of the Liberal Party will say that's not good enough, but really you have to make a serious point of difference between you and the Labor Party. You have to say, look, we understand the environmental aspect and that is what we are working towards, but that
cannot come at the expense of the Australian people. I mean, it's all good and well to say that we have to save the planet, but what's the point of saving the planet if it means financially strangling the people who currently live on it. People didn't vote for a ratalus and same same coalition at this election, and they're not going to do it at the next day either. Now it's no secret that we need more houses, more apartments,
but in more places for people to live. I get it we're in a housing crisis, but I just don't get this obsession at the moment, particularly in New South Wales, with destroying existing productive assets in order to put up dog boxes. Now, obviously the plan to turn rose Hill Racecourse into homes has failed. It was voted down on Tuesday by the members of the ATC and rightly so
in my opinion. So now Chris Min's the new South Wales Premier, saying well, we'll have to find some other currently useful joint to slap tens of thousands of homes on. And the suggestion is that that place is Glebe Island, which is between Sydney CBD and Balmine. It also happens to be the last working port in Sydney. Now, the Maritime Union today has come out and said this is
a dumb idea. And I'm not saying we should be taking dictation from the wharf is there as bad as the CFMEU when it comes to Thagaray and dodgy deals, at least historically anyway. But this isn't just the wharfies, it's the industry too. They've set up the Working Port Coalition to fight against the joint being shut down and turned into houses. A lot of the state's cement and
sugar comes through the port at Gleebland. It needs to be noted and let's be honest It's not often that the unions and the employers are singing from the same hymn sheet, but here they are. They both say that getting rid of Sydney's last working is a dumb idea. Now, much like rose Hill, once you get rid of these things, you never get them back. And the reality is that yes, we need more houses. But the reason we need more houses is because the city isn't getting any smaller. The
population isn't getting any smaller. So having a working port in Sydney will only become more important because we'll need more volumes of stuff coming in. And if it's not coming into Sydney, then it has to go to Newcastle or Port Kembler. Then it has to be taken into Sydney. So you increase transport costs and that increases product costs, and on and on it goes. The need for a port is growing, The need for a racecourse in the Western suburbs is only growing, just like the population. People
want things to do. They want things to come into the city, don't they. And if you increase the population, you need the things to service them. You can't just build houses willy nilly and then hope that a city is able to operate. You have to actually think about how all these people can live and not just exist in a city. And this is the frustrating thing about planning and population. The only thing the people in charge
seem to care about is increasing the population. Poured all these migrants, more than a million under the Albanesi government. And then, oh no, we don't have any houses for them. Oh no, rents are going through the roof. Oh no, young people can't afford a house anymore. What are we going to do? Quick? Let's knock down the racecourses and the port so we can stack up a bunch of dog boxes. No one asked for this. No one asked us whether we wanted it either. We didn't ask for
a big Australia. But we've been told you must have a big Australia. You must welcome all the migrants. You must give up ports and racecourses so we can house all these people. Why for what?
Now?
I know migration is run by the federal government and planning is run by the states, but I don't see any premiers turning the these people away or saying turn off the tap. You created this problem by flooding us with people when we didn't have enough homes for them. You forced rents and house prices through the roof as a result, and now you tell us that we should be giving up productive assets to give all these people somewhere to live. This is not it's not a long
term mession. It's not what's best for the country. It's a short term fix to a problem the government has created, ostensibly because productivity is through the floor and the only way to stop the country from officially going into recession was to import masses of people and give them jobs. Don't forget seventy five percent of all jobs created in Australia last year. We're in the public sector or industries that are propped up by government funding like health and education.
We're not actually creating jobs and economic growth. We're running an immigration Ponzi scheme where you generate alleged economic growth by importing people and then the government essentially funds their jobs so they can go and spend the money, and they go, look, there's jobs growth, there's economic growth. But there's not. It's a band aid and we are having
to deal with the consequences. The face of our cities and our country is rapidly changing, and we don't really seem to have a say in what it looks like. We need to talk seriously about the future of our population and the future of our cities, what we want them to look like, how they can operate, how many people we can fit in them. But neither of the major parties really seem to want to have that conversation.
They'd rather just rip up things like race courses and ports and put up cheap apartments because hey, economic growth. But I think you and I both know that's a scam. Now. The nanny state is to have been out in force recently in South Australia. A couple of weeks ago you had the state government introduce a ban on ads for unhealthy foods and drinks on public transport, which includes processed meats. So you can't advertise a ham sandwich on the side of a bus anymore because, as we know, that will
fix obesity. But if it makes feel any better. It's not just us having this trouble. Over in the UK, some mob called the Food Foundation has decided that school
canteens should stop serving ham sandwiches and sausage rolls. The manager of this outfit, Rebecca Toby, She said it is particularly worrying to see children eating such a high proportion of processed meat, with schools and restaurants often serving up very meaty menus, businesses and policymakers must work together for people and planet to ensure that healthier and more sustainable, plant rich options are more available and crucially more available
to better support families tasting. I also found that children proportionately eat more processed meat than adults, But I mean, is that really is surprise. I think we all knew that children can be fussy, but they eventually grow out of it. And look, I obviously don't disagree that healthier options should be availab but this idea that you have to yank the ham sandwiches and the sausage rolls. Really the issue is apparently that processed meats cause bowel cancer.
But you know what, to be perfectly honest, I don't really care. I mean, yes, if you diet is entirely made up of sausages and ham sandwiches with white bread and wash down with chocolate milk, then perhaps you should reconsider your choices. But the reality is you have to die of something. We're all going to die one day if I die from enjoying a pork and finel sausage RIGATONI too much, then, so be it. That's just my
lot in life. If I shave five years off because I enjoy a bottle of red whatever, I enjoyed it while I was doing it. I mean, who decided that a long life and clean living was the best version of life? Maybe it is for you. Good luck to you, go for it, but just leave the rest of us alone with you now. I don't know if you've looked at the official recommendations around these things, but they're pretty
damn restrictive. The World Health Organization deems processed meat a group one castinagen, which I'm a racing man, so that led me to think that they must be the best castogen the top of the tree, and from a taste perspective, I think I'm right, But apparently it means they're deadly. Red meat is a group two a castinagen, which means
it probably causes bow cancer. So get this. The Cancer Council says you should only eat four hundred and fifty five grams of cooked, lean red meat every week, and suggests that four hundred grams of raw red meat once it's being cooked, at which point it's less than four hundred grams. Is enough to feed a family of four I mean maybe a family of four toddlers. Really, they recommend that you eat little, if any, processed meat. How boring.
Don't get started on drinking. The Health Department says you should have no more than ten standard drinks a week, which quite to about six schooners of beer or a bit over a bottle of wine. If you have more than four standard drinks in one sitting, the drink police say you are a binge drinker. Now, a standard glass of wine is about one and a half standard drinks, so if you have one glass before dinner, one with one after, which would be pretty standard for a lot
of people. I'm sure many of you are sitting there having a glass of wine or a beer, or a brandy or whatever your poison of choice is. Right now. You are a naughty boy or girl. You have had too much. You're a risk to yourself, and of course you should have precisely zero cigarettes ever, because every cigarette is doing you damage. And that may well be true, but let's be real, it's not people who had a few darries on the weekend in their twenties who are
dropping dead with lung cancer. And I'm not telling people to smoke. I'm not encouraging it before the narks start writing in, but I am saying, whatever happened to moderation. I've written more on this in a column for news dot com Dot a you that'll go online tomorrow, so go and have a read of that. But the health zelots say they want to save your life, but most of the time it seems like they just want to sap you of your will to live. Now, I want to stand up for an underdog here. There's a bloke
in Wyala in South Australia, Mark Jones. And Wyala, of course, has been in the news recently for the steel works that the federal and state governments have had to bail out. But Mark Jones wants to open a small bar in the town. He wants to open it in the city plaza. It'll be called Draft and Drift. And his liquor license has been approved, so he's all ready to go, or he was anyway, until the Hotels Association came along and decided they challenged the liquor license in court after it
was granted. So now Mark has to stop work setting up his bar and go to court next Friday to see whether or not he can open. The AHA is challenging it because they say that the licensing licensing sorry court failed to consider the potential adverse effects quote unquote to existing pubs in Wyala. Mister Jones said, we won't have Pokey's, no bottle shop, no full meals. It's a small, intimate space serving premium cocktails and fine wine. There's nothing
else like it in Wyala. The money I'd bring in is nothing compared with the big hotels with gaming and meals. I thought it would be a welcomed edition in town. Wyala deserves something new, something different, And here's a bloke trying to make a go of things and bring some vibrancy to a regional town and the Hotels Association is trying to bring him down. Wyale is a town of twenty thousand people and I'm sure they can handle a
wine bar without sending the local pubs broke. And I love a good pub, as many of you will know, and the AHA does some good work, but come on, guys, just let the bloke have his bar. Joining me now is liberally MP Garth Hamilton and PR Council Managing Director Christy McSweeney team. It's good to see you both, and I was talking earlier about the proposition of netzero, of course being dropped by the Coalition. There's plenty of push from with in the Nationals for this to happen. Garth.
We spoke last week after you wrote in The Australian saying that you need to drop zero because it's blank check politics. Now that the Coalition is back together and you are both going to go off and have your respective discussions about policy and then come back together and try and form some sort of cohesive message, what do you think the chances are of the Liberal Party agreeing to drop net zero?
Honestly, I just think it's a matter of time. This is something that's happening around the world. I remember very clearly when we signed up to it, and we were told that we had to sign up to it because everywhere in the World's everywhere else in the world was signed up. It was something that we had to do. Well that proved wrong. You know one thing about net zero, one thing that's really important. No one knows the cost of it financially. I'll tell you the political costs because
we often don't talk about this. Since that day we signed up, we've lost thirty four seats in the coalition. We've lost thirty four seats since that day we signed up, to two thirds of which have been in the city. So I think we can completely throw away this argument that this is we need to keep net zero to keep city seats absolute nonsense. The proof is the opposite. Net zero has cost us city seats. That's a fact. The reason it's cost us that is, of course we're conflicted.
No one believes us on it. I think we just need to sort ourselves out, get over this and move on.
And I know Christy, of course I mentioned zoemckenzie earlier, who was saying, you know, my voters care about needs zero, and so I can understand from a personal perspective why she might be worried. But having net zero as a policy platform for the Liberal Party didn't save them in the Teal seats. So hanging on to it isn't in and of itself, going to help them win those seats back. So what is there possibly to gain in hanging on to net zero.
Well, first of all, Zoe is Ralph, and there's eighty eight other seats in metropolitan Australia to consider. But what we do who know, is that climate change and issues around net zero and how much Australians care about that has dropped down the order. It's about sitting at number eight or nine in terms of measuring against what issues people care about when they're all polled prior to the election.
So we've had a number of elections where's the number one issue or been perceived to be the number one issue and it's been replaced by cost of living, by crime, and by healthcare. And so whatever the policy the coalition parties come to, it has to be a policy that in part recognizes that if you want to prosecute a counter argument, that counter argument has been lost for about
fifteen years. So if you want to prosecute that argument, there's a lot of work that's got to be done with messaging to explain it, to tell Australians the economic cost of it, the job security cost, to tell Australians how we globally benchmark Australia with the United States pulling out,
with other countries relooking at this. But that work has to be done rather than making a blanket decision and the Coalition risking those eighty eight metropolitan seats again being perceived as a party that doesn't believe in climate change. And that's a risk, it's a nuance, but that work has to be done if that argument is to be made.
It's a fair point and this is kind of what I was saying earlier that you need to find a middle ground where you acknowledge that we want to decarbonize in some way, but we have to do it in a way that doesn't economically disadvantage Australian people. Garth, Oh, sorry, we've lost Garth for a minute. There. We'll move on Christy to Asby because we saw this report. The Australian had it today from the Strategic Policy Institute, warning that
the ADF is in serious trouble. They said it will become a paper ADF because essentially the government has been focused on Orcus and saying, look, you know, we're all good here because we've got big picture ideas in the offing, but that doesn't really help us in the meantime. I mean, if we ran into trouble, we don't have the resources right now. Of course, alban Easy was none too happy about this, you can understand why because he's been called out here he was this morning.
Well that's what they do, isn't it ask to be? I mean, seriously, they need to I think have a look at themselves as well and the way that they conduct themselves and debates. We've had a defense strategic review, We've got considerable additional investment going into defense.
I think the PM work up a bit groggy this morning. He sounds like he smoked a packet of twenty five there. But leaving that aside, Christie, you know, the point is that we have had more than a decade and it's not just the Labor Party's fault. The previous government is at fault as well, more than a decade of poor defense policy, and I think it's only gotten worse under
this government. We are in the worst position we've ever been basically when it comes to the ADF and defense, and the Prime Minister just back to the way and says, ah, well, of course Asby would.
Say that, well, it's sort of you know, played the man, not the ball, right, and who knows if he had been probably briefed on Asby's report before he made those comments, or that was a line that politicians sometimes try and weave into things and try and respond with when they're not across in detail of the brief and sure, defense policy and defense expenditure policy and defense is a policy expenditure area that goes out sort of twenty five thirty years,
you know, and it's really complex and it's really detailed, and he may not be an expert in it. He may not be competent or confident to mount an argument on camera against ASPI, who are experts, who are people drawn from military battle, from long time defense intelligence, from defense industry, and from the Defense Department themselves. I mean, they are Australia's pre eminent expert group of defense analysts.
And I don't think it's probably right to mount a response to Australians wanting to know what his opinion was to their allegations or their criticisms of Australia's defense policies, saying well, they need to take a look at themselves and how they engage in public debate if I was wanting to learn about defense or I know whose side I'd be on in terms of listening to around defense policy.
But their report, you know, the cost of defense, they make an argument that Australia has never been less prepared for the threats that we face, and that we've never had more threats to face. And I think they may be right, you know, And what else do we know about defense? And we know defense departments, even though there's not a change of minister, defense departments like to run the government. It's a tail wagging the dogs, so to speak. And so it's a new government and defenses certainly using
Asby to assess their message. And I don't think they're wrong, and I don't think there's a defense expert in Australia who thinks they are wrong.
Yeah, of course. And I mean the government not that long ago was trying to cut money out of Asby, probably for good reason, Garth, because they are calling them out and telling them exactly how things are. But I mean it's not the only example we saw of that today. Of course, some Sharry was talking about before, you know, Paul Keating's ropable about the capital gains tax, the unrealized
capital gains tax. So they won't take any notice of the bloke you know who designed superannuation what he thinks. They won't take any notice of the experts on defense and they seem really cocky at the moment Garth, and with good reason because they had a good win at the election. But Albaneze would want to be very careful because governing is not going to get any easier from here, and if you get two cocky, he will slip up.
Well, look, that may well be the case, It certainly can't be the basis for our plan for the next several years. We've got to be able to form ourselves, be able to hold them to account very very quickly. But look, I think there's some points that we can make here that show this government can spend money. It can increase its defense spending if it wants to. And I'll give you a really quick comparison that shocked me when I went through this process. We spent about fifty
six billion dollars a year on defense. On NDIS, we spend forty eight. By the year twenty thirty five, we're hoping we can get out of fense spending up to one hundred billion a year, but NDIS by that stage will be one hundred and twenty five billion. If this government wanted to spend money on this, if it wanted to engage people and get moving it could. The truth is, I don't think it really focuses on defense. I don't
think it to solve this problem. I don't think this is an area where the government's going to slip up. I think this is an area where the government's going to walk away and leave a great, big void, which is, as you've pointed out, in the current environment, the absolute worst situation that Australia could be facing.
Well, as long as China still thinks he's a handsome boy, he'll probably think he's doing it all right. Christy. You know EV's I think you like them about as much as I do, which is not very much, and most of us watching it home would be of that view as well. But you know, I hate regulation, and this
is another example of overregulation. I think in New South Wales now they're looking to bring in all these new rules that if you want to take your EV to be serviced, and you know, fair enough, your life is difficult enough as it is because you've bought an EV, but you go down to the mechanic, and even a mechanic in New South Wales now who's already been working on evs has to go off and take a bunch of new courses in able to be able to look at EV's and learn about batteries and all this sort
of business because it's supposedly dangerous. So of course that will mean it will take longer to get your car into be serviced, and it will drive costs up because they have to pay for all these courses. I mean, for goodness, say, why can't we just let people get on with life.
Well, first of all, there's not enough evs on the road versus internal combustion engines for a start for this regulation to come into effect extremely quickly. It's slated to
be due on the second of September. Now, the industry, which includes Australian Aftermarket Automotive Association, major industry groups like Capricorn Capricorn who have thirty thousand members across Australia and New zealand five thousand in New South Wales, ninety seven percent of their members of small businesses employing around an average of five people have said there's been no clarity. There's been consultation, but it hasn't come to small businesses.
And what do we know about small businesses ability to engage in console? They're flat out, they're facing skill shortages in the automotive sector. They're just trying to keep their business afloat in these economic conditions and keep their customers happy and meet demand a mid supply chain costs as well.
They don't have time to engage, so they're all very, very surprised that the New South Wales government has now said to them, by the second of September, you have to train all your staff on these New South Wales Government mandated to approved training courses, which are multi day courses. You have to close your business to be able to go and do them, or you have to stagger your staff one at a time. They're not held across many
areas in regional New South Wales. And if you don't do that on the second of September, when an ev car comes in, you cannot service this and you have to turn away customers because you're not compliant. Now the automotive sector says, well, fair enough, we accept that there has to be industry transition and we welcome industry transition.
The automotive industry is already training people, of course with supply groups and guess what that training is fit for purpose, So you don't have to close your business and shut up shop if to actually do that training.
But if he's one bug it has said, if you want to back something up, give it to a government to do. I'm sorry both both of you run out of time. Christium Xquen and Garth Hamilton. I'll see you both again very soon. And a note to my accountants as well. He's trying to phone me. Mate. Turn on the TV. Aren't you watching? After the break? Lisa Godard and Joe Hildebrand don't go away joining me now Lisa Godard from a Journey Media and Joe Hildebrand, of course
Scar and News contributed. Lisa, welcome to the guest from Brisbane.
It must be a little colder here is freezing down here. I have to say, you've got it freezing cold.
I prefer it. I prefer it that way. I specifically requested it. And Joe, can you believe we're just complaining. He didn't listen to the sermon earlier from the health police about how you can only have four standard drinks in anyone sitting and you can only have six schooners of beer a week. He was just complaining that coming here is cutting into his drinking time.
It's terrible I've never I've never faced more of a threat to my functioning alcoholism, and I have with my appearances on Sky News. Well that's exactly, It's what most people may think. I'm actually sober when I appear on again.
Look, at least at least it provides you with the money to go and buy your Pike's reasoning, which I know.
Is that's exactly right. And for drinks, I mean, that's not unreason. I wouldn't have more than four drinks an hour.
No, No, I wouldn't have thought so either. It's it's a good way to prepare and more fall out today from the shadow ministry. Of course. Look, it's pretty clear that there were a few people more than a little peeved that they didn't get in there. I thought Michael McCormick today was very interesting when he was asked on the ABC you know whether or not there was a threat to David Little Proud's leadership, and he goes, well,
you'd have to ask David about that. And then he was asked whether or not, I'm asked whether or not he has any ambition to be leader again, and he said, oh, well, never say never. I mean, they're not hiding there staying here, Lisa.
Now, if you look at one O one in media messaging, it's as soon as you go out and say deny it or so well, it's a question for him, of course, there is something to smell there. So they're all doing it and it's a case now of just when will we see that next move made?
I think, Joe, yeah, I think that's probably right. I mean, my favorite bit, next thing, Michael McComb coming out. So, David Little Proud is the leader and I support the leader. I support the leader. You always say I support the leader. You never you never say that by name. So David Little Proud is the leader and I support the leader. And then the next day you say Matt Canavan is the leader and I support the leader. Obviously, I think David Little Proud has not covered himself in glory in
the last week or so. Clearly, Matt Canavan doesn't want a front bench position because he wants to be able to speak his mind and it's good for everyone else that he gets a chance to do that. Michael McCormack and Barnaby Joyce, We're never ever going to be nominated a Little Proud for the NATS carve out of the cabinet or shadow cabinet spots. So I don't think there are any surprises there, although you know the number of other Number one rule in politics is keep your friends
close and your enemies closer. So you know, if you want to give Joyce or McCormick more of a reason to roll you, I think you know, the difference between a backbench's salary and a minister's salary is probably about one hundred thousand reasons or so.
Yeah, how would you like to be just into nampajmper Price at the moment though you know you've changed party rooms. You go to the Liberal Party and you get rewarded by Susan Lee by being taken out of the portfolio in which you have great strength and being put into defense industry.
Well, the problem with this, I think is the Liberal Party are always fighting this. Well, you have a women's problem, what are you doing about it? And right now you've got four of them that have been pretty much sidelined. So it's a really bad look when you think about here's a female leader. You've put fourth senior women to the side and never jimber Price was great during the Voice campaign. They needed her desperately to do that. Now she's got nothing in return. She was shaping up to
be potential deputy leader. What does that say. I just think you're right, Joed, is to keep your enemies close. Look at what she's done with Angus Taylor. So I think that there if she's saying, we've got all the players out on the field, everyone's out there, all of the members at the moment, I think there's a lot of them plotting what's the next rematch? Are we plotting for the next that next game.
On the field Susan Layer's defense.
Just enter Price did join the Liberal Party with the sole intention of rolling her as the leader. I mean she was going to run on Angus Taylor's ticket, so that was the whole reason behind it. But I think I think Jacinta was who is a dear friend of mine.
I love her very much.
I think she was hopelessly misused in that quasi doge portfolio. I don't know why you would get someone who is such a firebrand crusader on indigenous affairs and say we're going to give you a really dry kind of fiscal portfolio and again to give her defense material, give her defense material, like why give her anything at all? Like, well, who do you think is going to open the newspaper?
In mindest?
I wonder what just Center Price has to say about, you know, whether or not there's enough scrambled eggs and at the astral Summarine Corporation, I mean much.
I think Tha's are a real disservice, and I think does the coalition of disservice as to be honest as well? Because I think she's a good performer. I think she's a vote winner as well. Over in the US, of course, the Trump tariffs have now been sort of halted for a while because the courts have said it's not legal. They're now going to take it. He's going to take it up to the Supreme Court and say I should
have this power. Does it really matter, though, because my reading of all of it from the beginning is that it was never really about the tariff's being one hundred percent or one hundred and forty percent or whatever number he slapped on each individual country. We ended up with ten percent. Of course, China went through the roof, but he went negotiated with China and got things back down. I don't know that Trump ever really intended it to
be the be all and end all. The idea was to try and force other country is to give him more amenable terms, and in some cases he's achieved that. So in the long run, Joe does he care.
Yeah, it's an interesting one. Someone taught me.
There's a new law and new sort of rule of thumb in international diplomacy these days called the Taco rule, which is Trump always chickens out. So Trump talks big, but then he never actually follows through. And I think an addendum to that would be that Trump actually kind of relies on the guardrails to both to kind of rain in some of his worst impulses, if you like, or most successive ones.
So he relies on the Supreme Court.
The courts have done it before, they did it with his immigration bands from various Muslim countries, they've done in other areas, So he kind of relies on that because that means he can say, well, everything'll be fine if the courts hadn't have stood in my way. And it also gives him an off ramp, so he doesn't have to go all the way with his great stuff. So I think there would definitely be some many in the Republican Party who are very very rel that this has happened.
And it might be that some in Trump's circle are kind of like, well, we didn't really want to go through. You know, got all the paperwork of you know, applying all these tariffs, collecting them all. What we wanted to do was throw a giant rock in the puddle and just let it ripple out through the globe. And so you could then come to the table and say, all right, we'll increase our defense spending.
All right, we'll chuck.
More money to NATO, all right, we won't you know, we'll give you a better deal on your exports.
But what you've got now, though, Caleb, is you've got a lot of uncertainty because if he does push ahead, and he does, he's going to appeal what happened. So you've got investors everywhere thinking, well, well, what do we do so.
And if you're an investor in Australia going, oh my god, that the unrealized Capital Games text coming as.
Well at the market.
In big trouble, we got more to get through. Don't go away, Joe and Lisa will be back right after this, back in the Man Cave with Lisa Goddard and Joe Hildebrand, Lisa, what was the go There was meant to be this prot today on the story Bridge in Brisbane, your hometown, of course, because the thing's crumbling basically, and they've shut
down the footpath. So they were going to have a protest saying that one of the lanes of traffic ought to be turned into the footpath, and the coppers went to court and banned it all.
What's going on, good background, So eight o'clock tomorrow morning, story Bridge, six lanes of traffic closed, shut down to all traffic because the cyclists want to have one lane dedicated to cyclists and pedestrians. Now, at this point the police have said public safety emergency crews can't get through. It's going to cause gridlock. After court they went we have a magistrate who actually said, yes, I agree, this is a problem. We could be putting people clives. This
is not safe. So while your protest doesn't get to go ahead. Finally, if only they could do that for climate change protesters. Do it cyclists, get them off the road, that's great, But if they could do it for the climate change protesters, imagine what would happen the bridges weren't blocked, the road weren't blocked.
I think it's time for I don't know whether people would hate the climate protesters or the cyclists more to.
Be they're both similarly sanctimonious. I'd want to know, like, if they're planning and saying, oh, we want to shut down one car lane, one traffic lane for cyclists and pedestrians, what are they going to put between them all the other cars? So you need the barrier, so that would then take up room as well, and then you would have to have the like they'd have to get on it. Just it's just something tells me that these guys aren't structural engineers.
Funny about that, and often I think cyclists are. But they think that everything should be there, so you know, that's just how things go.
They are astronomers, so they know everything.
Pay registration.
They don't pay registration, and they are taking up space on the roads.
Don't go down that road. Elon Musk, of course we're talking about EVS earlier, but one of the great makers of the EV's, Elon Musk, is pulled out now from the Trump administration. His time is coming to an end, and he's basically said, look, I've had enough, and I don't think you can really blame him, Lisa. I mean, he's paid a heavy personal price for having been involved in setting up DOGE, And a bit's been made of the fact that he sort of criticized the Big Beautiful
Bill in the last couple of days. Are there erections between him and Trump or not?
Do you mean we're not going to see any more of the dancing what we do? It's not the first time they've had a stout. A Musk was against the tariffs. Now he's come out and said he's against the bill because he's basically says, I've gone in there, I've done the work. Obviously he didn't get the cuts that he thought he was going to achieve. But the new Big Beautiful Bill, which it can't be two things at once with this thing is it's not going to it's going
to cannibalize any savings that he has actually made. So look, he says it's time to go back and focus on the business. There are the arguments there that because he has done that work, a lot of the federal agencies that's sort of minuskulled away at they now have no longer powers to sort of go after him and the investigations that he was fighting. So, look, it could be good for him. It'll in the SpaceX world.
It probably proves Joe, doesn't it that, you know, in life end, in politics you can't have at all, and people are very idealistic when they go in, but they soon get beaten down.
Look I'm not a zoo keeper, but I'm pretty sure if I had two male lions, I would not.
Put the same cage.
I mean, I mean, anyone who couldn't see from space that Elon Musk and Donald Trump teaming up together.
I mean, you know, Batman had to have a robin.
It's not Batman and Batman, you know, and when it's Batman versus Superman spoiler alert.
So so I think this is always going to happen.
Musk is already going on about people in the Trump administration are undermining him, and this is actually a really common throughout history. This is what people have always said when there's ever been dissatisfaction with a sort of supreme rule. It's not it's not that Donald Trump doesn't like him or his undermining him or trying to get rid of him.
It's his advisors. It's those around him, but those those sort of you know, those snake tongued kind of brocracy and who's all the roxy And again I think it also shows it's so easy to say, oh, you know, we'll just fund everything, or we'll just make get all our money back by just cutting the ways, cutting the wayst cutting this, cutting that you know, we'll do it, and then when you actually get into it, it's actually like there's institutional facts that play, but there's also kind
of like some stuff is pretty important, like you know, the garbage does need to be collected. So I think there's a limit to what you can do. And of course this is exactly what Musk did to vivic Ram and.
The two of them were made because remember they were.
And then of course basically Musk did to Vivac what Trump has done to Sorry Trump's advisors.
Yes, I've always wondered why people need days of our lives. You've got for you before we go. Winners and losers of the week, Lisa, I.
Think the winner, and this might be for the past month, is Anthony Albanezi. Joe, you will like that.
Thank you. Well, now you've taken my go I don't know what I'm going to be All of.
The focus has been on the coalition, so Albanez is there. He's not under much scrutiny at the moment, so I think he's the winner and loser has to be the French president. Surely if he the look on his face when he realized that camera was on him for many reasons, he's the loser of the week.
Sure.
Yeah, Look, i'd have to say albows well, I mean, albow has been there, He's still in mine now.
I'm sorry.
That is going to be the winner for the next like six months, isn't he?
That's right?
I think the loser, I think would have to be Sadly Susan Lay. I think because just that's right. Everyone keeps changing, Everyone says something different every single time, so we're going to have to settle that. But I think the through no fault of her own. She's trying to
make the best of a bad lot. But basically every single pathway you look at it, like you choose your own adventure book, it basically all ends with her in a world of pain right up to you know, the Nats cracking the Sads and leaving again, Angus Taylor having another go the numbers change after the Senate changes on July one, so she loses possibly to possibly three then
depending on how that to your elections go. And then of course you've got twenty twenty eight, which she can't win anyway, which could see the return of Dun Dun Dum, Josh Frodenberg and the King the later in waiting, so we.
Shall see Joe Hildebrand, Lisa god I thank you for joining me tonight after the break. Did you know that wind can be stolen? Yes, we have found yet another problem with renewable energy. They're arguing now that wind is being stolen from other countries that more rapidus. Now, look, if we didn't have enough problems with renewable energy as it is, we've found another one. People countries, i should say, are now being accused of stealing wind from other countries. No,
I'm not joking. Belgium is apparently stealing the wind from the Dutch so they're not getting enough energy out of it. This comes from a bloke who runs a weather forecasting service over there. He says, wind turbine is designed to extract wind from the air. If you measure behind a wind turbine, the wind is blowing less hard. Behind a wind farm with many wind turbines close together, you really
see lower wind speeds. His name is rimco Versilberger. Probably buggered that up, sorry Feller, but he says that the lower caused by wind farm can be quite long. When it comes to large wind farms. You can still see lower wind speeds one hundred kilometers away under certain circumstances. Within that one hundred kilometers, of course, there are other wind farms. So what he's saying is there is this wind theft where one country puts the wind farm up
in their country. Of course, in Europe they're all very close together, and then the country next door puts up their wind farm, and they're essentially saying, well, you've stolen our wind because you put your wind turbines in first. I mean, for goodness sake. Look, I had never thought of the idea that wind could be stolen, but it seems it is the case. Thankfully Australia doesn't have to
worry about that too much. But I'm sure if someone else can find a way to extract some money out of us, the Pacific nations will be saying very soon that we're stealing their wind. And how good is this one hundred and one year old bloke in Adelaide. Now he is the oldest tennis player in the world. In twenty twenty three, became the oldest tennis player in the world. He's currently preparing to go and play in a competition
in Croatia. He's not giving up. I mean, I know, I said earlier, a long life isn't necessarily the best version of life. But he's certainly enjoying a long life. And you know what he sees the secret is to living to one hundred and one years old. He drinks a liter of milk a day. I mean, everyone has a different answer for how they've been able to live so long. He says, a liter of milk a day. I'm sure they're healthy. Expert to say no too much fat,
you can't possibly do it, But it works for him. Mate, Good on you. You are an absolute legend. That's it for me. Up next to the later bait. Good night,