From the Sky News Center. This is Paul Murray.
Live here on Paul Murray Live. I'm James Borrow, and we have got a huge coming up for you. We've got Brodwin, Bishop Joe Hildebrand here in the man Cave, plus James Ashby and Christy mcsweetey to bring you the big stories of the day. We might have some fun, we might have some fights, but we're gonna have a lot of laughs along the way. But before we get into that, well, I wish I had some better news for you tonight, folks, But I tell you what, Frankly,
it's all looking a little bit grim. All right, Look, it's not all grim, and I'll get to the good news in a moment, but first we got to have
a look at some basic facts of the matter. Now that we are a couple of weeks into a second Labor term and Prime Minister Anthony Alpinisi can no longer go out there claiming that, well, the only reason things are running off the rails is because we and Labor, as they're so fond of saying, are just cleaning up the mess left to us by the Coalition, which was of course basically the line that they ran with for the past three years.
The mists that we inherited. There is a lot of mess to clean up.
Another myss that the Albanezy government has to clean up.
Cleaning up the mess? What does.
Ah?
Yes, but now it's clean up on Aisle Elbow now and somehow the coalition though we're not able to counter all of that stuff about the mess at the last election. But hey, we move on. The facts are what they are, and they are grim. We know that Australia's overall GDP is plateauing on a per capital basis. We're going backwards again for the ninth out of the last eleven quarters.
Businesses are undertaking what can only be called a capital strike, meaning that they find our highly regulated economy simply not worth the risk of pumping more money into in terms of investment and in terms of productivity improvements, which should allow us to create more wealth with less work. Well,
guess what, they're nowhere to be seen. So, given this set of circumstances, the ordinary person might think that the nation's treasurer would be doing everything in his power to get out of this malaise and reset the economy to boom. But no, that's not the Jim Chalmers Way. Treasurer Jim Talmers has instead decided that this is the hill he wishes to die on, instead taxing the unrealized gains of the nation's top yeer supernuation accounts. Which is where I
have to say the good news comes in. You see, because yesterday at this time, there was a little bit of concern that the Coalition under the kinder and gentler Susan Lay and Shadow Treasurer Ted O'Brien might might decide to attempt some sort of negotiation with the government, you know, to put to bed all the old sledges by elbow about the Noalition, and that they might try and instead soften the edges work with Labor, put the policy through, but just simply soften the edge of this no good,
very bad policy that would open the door eventually to at tax by the government on the family home and lord knows what other classes of assets. Well, that's not happening now. The Coalition has formally enshrined its opposition to labor Semer tax after Susan Lay's Shadow Cabinet Cabinet signed off on its first major policy position since Labour's landside
May three. Electric victory. In a one hour virtual Shadow Cabinet meeting on Thursday morning, the first one convened since was laid the David Nationals leader David little Prown decided to keep the marriage back together well. The meeting was dominated by discussions on the government's super tax plan. Here's a bit of what Ted O'Brien had to say a little bit after the meeting today.
Labor's super tax, it's super big, it's super bad. We will it definitely as a coalition oppose this unfair supertax of Labor's every step of the way.
Thank you and hollylujah. This is exactly what the new party room should have decided. I just can't believe that it took them so long to do so. Now, the answer to the question why is very simple. See luring the coalition into talks over the supertax. That was a trap Labor set for the new Shadow treasure O'Brien, who we just saw there at his party room, because alban Easy's strategy was to try and neutralize them, to become
good faith consultants. But this is a position, of course, that would leave them to remain forever the bridesmaid come election day. The fact of the matter is that while it is fine for the opposition to negotiate with the government on policy that is broadly correct or helpful to the national interest. Say, if we were talking about defense or tax cuts or the like, well, yeah, that's okay, get together work on a b bi partisan but let's also be frank when it comes to this super tax.
And again, you cannot reiterate enough how much this is not just about those people who happen to have three million dollars socked away. It is about opening the door to all sorts of asset classes to pay for the government's profligate spending, which they have admitted will never come down and which is going to see us in deficits for the forward estimates for as long as the eye can see. Well, you know what, when it comes to this super tax, there is no way to roll in
glitter something like this. That is just so plain bad. Because even if instead Labor does go to the Greens, because they do have to go to the Greens to get it to the Senate, and they make it worse, well, the principle is what counts, and of course it is principles that the Coalition need to rediscover if they want
to win office again on the coalition side. But we know all that, but stick with me here because there is something else I think fascinating going on here, and that is the split within labor about how to deal with this. It's not just a coalition question, it's a labor problem too. Now on the labor side it has mostly been the Prime Minister Anthony Albinezi, ironically a creature of the labor socialist left. You know, the guy who goes out and fights Tories because that's what he does.
Well.
It's Anthony Albanezi who suggested that he was going to be a bit open possibly to work with the coalition. But it was Treasurer Jim Chalmers who comes from the labor right and wrote his thesis about Paul Keating, who is mister crash through or crash on all of this. And that's because for the Treasurer of Jim Chalmer, he's playing his own power games. I think you know what
some of those are. And while he may have studied Keating, he learned his trade the treasury business working for the big spending Wayne Swan, whose mineral mining resource red tax was the supertax of its day. Now think back to that those days. It was touted as going to be this big hit on those scary rich miners. But as with the supertax, the tax raised no way near as much as it promised. In fact, it costs the government money in its first year before it was eventually speared
by Tony Abbott. Now the same will likely be true of any supertax that the Labor Green Coalition manages to pass, as it drives investors to simply change behaviors to ducket. As with Labour's hostility to big minors, though it's not really about the resources, it's not really about the revenue. No,
we know what this is about. The supertax is about punishing well off independent retirees, independent farmers, people like that who have had God help us, the temerity to accumulate wealth for themselves, for their own retirement and their family in a system designed by Paul Keating. And they didn't do what they were supposed to do, which is just hand their money over to a union leader. Super fun to manage, because remember, for the labor it's not your money, No,
it's all about your money giving them power. Now, I want to move on to news from overseas, big news out of the US where the past several hours, President Donald Trump has just signed an executive order barring anyone from a number of countries from entering the US. Among the nations Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Yes, I got them ball there in alphabetical
order for you. With their folks. Now, these are suspects, as you can imagine. Well, they're all up at arms. Oh no, it's like the Muslim ban in the first term. But sorry, guys, this is what Donald Trump was elected to do. This is not a buzzler ban or whatever you want to call it. But when you dig through the executive order, which is very detailed and very full of the rationale for this, you understand that what this is about is American security and the security of the
American people. Now. I know it's a controversial idea on the left that a president or a prime minister or a leader might look after their own people, but as
he said, it's about security. It's about the fact that people from these countries, well they're nations, they don't have the ability, you know, with their own systems to exchange information about people who apply for visas to go to one country or the other, such as, for example, if an Australian applies for a visa to go to the United States, well there's databases and information exchanges in CHECKSI you know, that's not a bad person when you get
that visa. And of course it was also about overstayers and some of the countries I just mentioned, well their countries have overstay rates, i e. The number of people that come in on a visa and overstay that visa and often don't leave. That's often more than twenty percent with some of these And I know that sometimes when I get a chance to speak with you, I talk
a lot about immigration. But there's a reason why, and I think what Donald Trump is doing it's all about this because immigration really is the everything issue, particularly for a country like Australia. Everything is tied up in it, housing, the economy, and these more nebulous ideas like social trust and that all important word culture. Now here's a little bit of what Donald Trump had to say today announcing this package.
The recent terror attack in Boulder, Colorado has underscored the extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted, as well as those who come here as temporary visitors and overstay their
visas we don't want them. In the twenty first century, we've seen one terror attack after another, carried out by fari and visa overstairs from dangerous places all over the world, And thanks to Biden's open door policies, today there are millions and millions of these illegals.
Who should not be in our country.
Well, that's Donald Trump. They're being blunt and to the point. And of course, as I foreshadowed, the usual suspects on the left are all up in arms over this. Here's Jen Saki, Do you remember her. She was the old Joe Biden prese terry talking on MSNBC to Minnesota Democrats. Enter Amy klobychar.
I think going after wholesale people who come in as refugees as a mistake for our economy. Yah, it is a mistake for our security, and it is obviously a moral issue for me.
Me as well.
I mean.
Trump cited the recent terror attack in Boulder, Colorado, in a video he posted to excite and the suspect in that attack is an Egyptian national. Egypt is not a country listed in tonight's travel band, which tells you, I think almost everything, even his own explanation doesn't make sense.
Isn't it funny how she said there? It tells you almost everything, because there's a little detail here that Jensaki being all very more realistic about the need to let everybody from the entire world come into the United States, no questions asked. And that is this the guy who allegedly committed that atrocity in Boulder, Colorado the other day, which involved fire bombing, throwing burning liquid onto elderly Jews who were at a quiet vigil for hostages being held
by hamas well, the man who allegedly did that. He was an Egyptian, yes, but also guess what he was in the country illegally? He was a visa over stayer who was allowed to remain in the country by the Biden administration, which also let him in. And now, of course there's a huge fight with the Left which are now trying to keep his family, also presumably not there legally, from being deported. My god, what is wrong with these people?
The fact of the matter is the alleged Boulder fire bomber shouldn't have been there in the first place, but
the Biden administration let him stay in the country. All of this is why I think borders were such a big issue at that last election, before Boldham, before any of the other other things, because the Democrats you saw it there in that clip with Jensaki, You've seen it for years, didn't level with the people about the consequences of what they were doing and admit that for all the lovely diversity and this and that, and maybe some parts of the economy benefited. Oh the gloriou the Cuisines
that we get. Well, you know what, there's a big issue when you let social trust go by the wayside on an issue like that. Because now we know that the Democrats did not do it right. We know that they are getting immigration wrong. They're just as you're doing it in countries around the world, including Australia. Now we don't have the same source of problems, thank god is the United States, but we do have crowding, we have
housing issues. We have the fact that our economy is now being propped up by mass migration that no one asked for, but which both parties seem hell bent on continuing. And we also know that when politicians don't play straight with the people, like the Democrats I just showed you well, voters move more out to the extreme, which is why I wanted to just show you a little clip here
from Denmark. Now we don't talk a lot about Denmark, but it turns out that Denmark is basically the only country in Europe that has a handle on its migration situation and which also levels with people about what they're doing, why and what the consequences are. And this all clip's been doing the rounds today and I want to share it with you. It's a Danish politician talking to a journal from the BBC, a journal from the United Kingdom, which of course is right now being torn apart by immigration.
Have a look at this.
Unlike other European states, the government here publishes controversial and worrying crime statistics. They revealed men from some non Western backgrounds are as much as six times more likely to commit violent crime than white Danes. The facts horrified voters. You release crime statistics showing the nation of origin of people convicted of violent offenses. Why have you been doing that?
That's because a lot of people were feeling this. And if we want to solve ordinary people's problems, then we have to know which problems there are in society. And there were a problem in society, and these high amounts of crime rates reduces the trust or breaks the trust between people living in our country.
Have you ever heard a politician in the English speaking world speak so straight about the issue of immigration. Imagine that, being straight with the people, leveling with them and asking them what they want for and then doing it. Why imagine a country where they do that. It's almost like there's a system with a name with a word that sounds an awful lot like democracy. Hey, before I get onto the panel, I want to bring you a bit
of breaking news. Detectives in Queensland have charged two individuals with murder in relation to the disappearance of seventeen year old Phoebe Bishop.
Now.
Phoebe has not been seen or heard from since May fifteenth. Police said tonight that a thirty four year old man and a thirty three year old woman, understood to be house bates, have been charged after multiple searches of a national park, a property near Bundenberg and a vehicle Phoebe's remains have not been located, but the man and the woman are due to appear in Bundenberg Magistrates Court tomorrow. So breaking news there, folks. Now, let's go into our
all star panel tonight. Here joining me now is former Speaker of the House you know well, folks, Bronwyn Bishop and Sky News contributor and Daily Telegraph columnist and great friend of mine, Joe Hildebrandt. Bronwyn, Joe, We've got so much here to talk about. But I really think that all of this fascinating stuff that's happening behind the scenes as well as in front of the cameras over this
issue of the supertax is absolutely fast. Now, Jim Chalburn says been sort of portrayed as this kind of modern day Robinhood and he's going out now to get backing from the Greens. Hey, I thought they weren't in coalition. Who knew what? Apparently they are in the Senate. While everybody else is saying this is maybe not such a good idea. Here's a little bit of ethny Aalbity is earlier today.
Have a look, well, there's not anything new here. This has been before the Parliament for about two years. Yes, yeah, this says about this has been before the Parliament for about two years. What we need to do is to make sure that our superannuation system is fair.
Broad Bishop, I see you shaking your head about. We see this routine that the Prime Minister does all the time where it's all what, it's perfectly reasonable. It's before the thing, you know, for the Parliament. It's Australian and that's what we do. Your reaction to.
That, look, it makes me just see then, because what I'm seeing is that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, with their big majority in the lower House and the Greens as their de facto partners in the Senate, are now so arrogant and so robust in their statements that they can do anything they like, anything at all, to
say that this stuff has been in the Parliament. It's been rejected every time it got into the Senate, which is why they don't want to sit until the new Senate is convened, when they could do their deal with
the new senators who are in place. So it just makes my blood boil that the reality of this pernicious and theft tax is going to be forced upon the people because unlike that when they'd said they're not going to do any deals with the Greens, they're in bed with them already, And for ALBERNISI to come out and say, oh, well, we're a subject to having a chat about maybe with the opposition, but June Chalmers comes in say, oh no,
we'll take the Greens any day. So this pernicious tax, which is going to introduce a new concept, which incidentally came from Joe Biden in the first place, of taxing unrealized capital gains is a principle that has to be opposed and opposed and opposed, and should they force it through, it's got to be one where there's an undertaking to repeal it because it is just so such a wicked
tax to impose upon people. And you watch once it's put in place, your friends will see it's getting out into other areas.
Wasn't of the Morrison government that first put in the fifteen percent that we have.
Now we're not talking about oh sorry, okay.
Not talking about We're talking about what we're talking about, Joe.
About putting a tax on unrealized capital gains, and that is something that has never happened in this country. By anybody. It came from Biden under.
Their This's my question for you, Joe. You know you talk to these people, you talk to these people on the left. Why is it so important for labor to do this really highly contentious tax which we know is probably not going to raise a huge amount of money because these things that come in at the very top end of the scale, whether it's the top tax bracket or this sort of thing, it's only going to raise
a few bucks. A lot of people are already shifting their money around so that they don't get hit by it. Why is it so absolutely important and why shouldn't we be suspicious that this is just the first thin edge of the wedge to get this principle bedded down, that we could go after other things besides, you know, your actual income and the money that an asset is spinning off through dividends or through capital gains sale.
Yeah.
Look, I think there are certainly god riles that the government could put around it, what even just to miswaze people, that's right, and they're not doing that. I think it's probably a matter of personal pride for Jim Chalmers, and he is, as is, you know, quite well known. I think someone who can be quite proud and quite stubborn about things at times.
And again wants to reinvent it.
And it wasn't particularly fond of that essay either, But he is someone who I think, you know, I mean, his position, obviously, I think, both publicly and privately, has been that all these concerns are just, you know, just a.
Media beat up.
It's just lies by news corporal or the Australian Financial Review or whatever. And my sort of response to that would be, well, so what who cares? Even if even if it is these are obviously concerns that people have. These these reports are not coming out of thin air.
They are quoting people who are raising these concerns. Why not just if you're absolutely convinced that the family home or the family farm won't be affected, why wouldn't you just put in an explicit carve out that says the family home and the family farm cannot be counted in this three million dollar figure? Again, why wouldn't you just index it rather than saying well, someone else can just index it later on. So I support this, but I think it is it could be sold safer.
But this is because the arrogance is there it says we can now do what we like and screw everybody else.
But it has been there, It's been there, But it's been there, it has been fantastic.
Doesn't matter it was rejected.
But it's happened to have anything to do with you.
Just remember, just remember in two thousand and four when John Howard got a great big majority and one four senators of which Barnaby Joyce was the fourth, came in which allowed work choices. This is their work choice.
I think there's a great lesson in all of this year. I think work choice is a great analogy to this. I think the hubris of getting what is it ninety three seats or whatever like that, hubris meets nemesis every day of the week.
Joe, Yeah, except I just think that she again, as John Howard also said, politics is about the sheer, you know, undeniable iron laws of arithmetic and the number of people that this effects compared to the number of people work.
But the po the pointo office, the iron laws are arithmetic, and what do we want to on the topic. But the are law of arithmetic is that labor actually did not win a huge primary voting. It wasn't like there was a mass round swell of people voting for labor, but the number will be not today today today anyway, Hey, let's move on here, because we spoke about and I talked about this Trump banning people from different countries coming in. This is all part of a munch broader border control
program that he's been running. And it's about terrorism, is about security, it's about the economy. It's about a lot of things that people, frankly here are afraid to talk about here. And I wanted to bring up and get you guys to react to that Danish politician that I just showed you a clip of because I thought that was fascinating because it was a real breath of fresh air to hear a politician say not everybody who comes
winds up working out wonderfully. Do we in Australia need to start having harder conversations about the size of our immigration intake. I know we don't have the same of the same problems as the United States, but you talk to people, people are feeling stressed from traffic, social cohesion, schools, everything broad with this, we got to say that the whole mass being Australia think did start under the Howard government. There was an awful lot of that that began during
that era. Is it time to tap the brakes?
Well, the hard doctrine was that Australians will determine who comes to this country and the manner in which they will come. Now, if you take that doctrine and apply it not only to both people as it was initially, and apply it to a more broader scheme, then you can develop an immigration policy which it allows people to become part of our culture and not here to overturn our culture. And that's something that's being felt right across the Western world, where you hear Istama even start to
talk about it. And Trump, the one thing you can say about him is he is, truly, I think, the only politician who gets elected and then delivers on what he said he do and people are horrified because they said, oh,
but but but but he shouldn't do that. Well, he said he would, So I think it is a question that is really people are feeling more and more, and not just in the area of housing and congestion of those issues, but every morning when I listen to a radio broadcast, I hear about some shooting or stabbing of people who are now in gangs which are becoming frenched seemingly. We have an anti gun policy here, but it doesn't apply to criminal So I think there is need for
us to look much more, particularly about that doctrine. We will determine who comes and the manner in which they come.
Joe, do you think that that labor has I mean, labor's now in power. The Liberals have now basically said well, we're going to look at everything. We're not going to to any sort of number now, but you look at the UK, you look at Canada was possibly a better sort of comparison. Is this issue going to start to bite for labor when they need people to come in
to keep the economy looking sweet? But every planeload means the market just means that you're not going to have enough housing for everybody, and it's making it tough for people who here and can vote and are going to start to really feel the pitch. Is labor setting itself up for a problem here?
I think there are two different issues, and both the potentially potential problems. The first is there's nothing progressive. There's nothing compassionate about unchecked migration and open borders. There is nothing progressive about saying you just get in a boat and if you happen to survive the journey, congratulations, will give you a visa. We've tried that, Labor's tried that. It was deadly for the people involved, and it was
deadly for the prime minister involved. It was one of the two big reasons that Kevin Rudd ended up getting rolled. Is absolutely insane. You have to be able to control your borders, and I think you know, Labor, like Kirstarma, recognizes that now. And the one thing the Democrats were really really stupid about when Joe Biden got elected was overturning all the stuff that Donald Trump had previously done when they could have actually just kept it in place
and then blamed all the bad stuff on him. That was the most politically stupid thing ever. The second thing is overall levels of migration, planned migration, skilled migration, and whether it's too high. I think we've obviously saught this massive surge after COVID where you were sort of making up for all those lost years. The numbers have now been cut dramatically by the hundreds of thousands.
Well, we'll see about that hopefully those pressures. But hey, before I let you guys go. We've got to go and break a second with Brounwell. I need to ask you about this whole controversy about the Liberal Party and women. We had those comments that went around there were I think largely manipulated by people, you know, with lesson good will. Shall we see about women in the Liberal Party and that we might Oh, I don't know from of action for men, because all the women are so now effective
and strong and assertive. Of your reaction to that, broadly because you are a living proof right here that women can make it in the Liberal Party.
I've been first to do it many times. No others have followed, so it's true. But the important thing to know here is this is really a fight for the so corporate the left of the Liberal Party who want the administration gone. They want to take it back. You remember it was Horwin who was the one who failed. Oh yeah, the nominations of the councilors and the repercussions
of that are huge. But they want to get control back and this so pa quote what you will has been given them the ammunition de father shots and it'll probably work.
Give it to them on a silver platter anyway, got to leave it. Dear guys, now, don't go anywhere after the break. Thanks, So what's Hue Hildebrand, Broadle Bishop for your time today, But you don't go anywhere. Stick around after the break. More fired debit on this and so much more with Christi bmcsweeney and James Ashby after the break. Stick around. Hey, welcome back to the program. James Borrow here filling in for Paul Murray Live. Thanks so much
for being part of the conversation tonight. Now let's keep it rolling here joining me on the panel. The next panel is PR Council Managing Director Christop McSweeney and One Nation Chief of Staff James Ashby. Lady gentlemen, I want to keep it going here and talk about this whole issue of the women in politics. We covered off a little bit of it with Brown Bishop beforehead, but this is really starting to turn into quite the little firestorm here.
Here's a little bit of what Bridge McKenzie had say earlier today.
I think Allen's problem was assertive women as opposed to wallflowers, and I think we need more assertive women because we have to fight for the future of our country and our communities. That's why you send us to places like Canberra, and I think we shouldn't take it backward step in doing that.
And here's what Anthony Alberizi had said.
There are more more women in the Labor Caucus in the House of Representatives whose first name begins in a literally than there are liberals and national women on the floor of the House of Representatives.
First of all, is it just me or are we seeing so much of Albanisi in a hard hat and high viz that you think Scott Morris's back in power? But seriously, though, Christophercsweetey, you are an assertive woman, what do you make of all of this issue? Was Adam Stockfield taken out of context? Is this a beat up? Or does do the Liberals really have real work to do, particularly when you look at the primary vote intentions of women, preticularly those under forty five. Where does this all go
for the Libs? How much of this is coming from inside the House? To talk us through it?
Christy, Well, first of all, I'll put it out there that the reason why this has been how it was reported, I think to the media is because we've got a really unusual situation where the right of the party is against.
Is it.
The right of the party wants a break up between the federal intervention and the moderates of the party don't want it either. But then they're on opposing sides of
how the Liberal Party should go forward. They're all agreed that the state branch should be free of federal interference, particularly of people from Melbourne, which is of course Alan Stockdale, former politician here in Victoria who made those comments, and Richard olsten Form how a government communications minister who's also been appointed two leader panel of how the new South
Wales division will sort out its ongoing factional war. So we've got both factions on a bit of a unity ticket talking about these comments, using them against each other. But however, we've also seen the Prime Minister be able to again make his point which is resonating with the Australian public, that Labor is the party of women, that the Liberal Party has a perception issue with women. And I think if we have people who are party elders or custodians of our brand, they have to be aware
that hey, you know, things get reported these days. You know memo to people from before the Internet, which is of course what a lot of people out there think the Liberal parties run by Now it's not, but that's a perception when the women of Australia see really old guy saying comments about women in the Liberal Party and in politics in general, and that adds to that perception and it's a huge contrast with the Libor Party. The
Prime Minister is utilizing that and perception is reality. He's right to do it because it's really working for him at the moment. I have unpacked the issue about issue of women in the Liberal Party, why we don't have enough of them, you know, pacing the financial A lot of people didn't agree with me, but I'm for it.
But look, I think there's a fascinating thing here too that you touch on. You know, not only the factional warfare within New South Wales and the Moderates and you know, all the nonsense that they can get up to, but James Ashby Christy makes another fascinating point here, a suggestion that really, on some level this gender issue is almost a proxy for generation. You know that this is about generational change and that it's coming, it's being expressed through
the lens of gender. Is there a problem in both major parties when it comes to getting that younger generation of voters engaged in politics. And where do you see the role of minor parties like your own in potentially filling some of those gaps where the big institutional parties, be they the Libs or the Labor Party, fall through the cracks.
Well, I'll stop by saying one nation have never had a problem with women. We've had a woman lead our party for almost thirty years now, James.
But I also don't see a major problem in our parliament either with women. We've got three leaders now.
The Greens have got a female leader, the Liberals have got a female leader.
One nation's got a female leader.
And that's pretty good without having quoters in every party.
I think it's quite great. I think we've made.
Allowances in our parliament now where we've got family friendly hours so to speak.
We don't sit during school holidays. You know, all those things have gone a long way.
But I must say, if you're not fit for parliament, as in, if you can't and I don't care where you're male or female here, if you can't handle the rough and tumble of the place, don't go there because it's a rough joint. If you've got thin skin don't enter politics. And a lot of women don't like the rough and tumble.
I get it. They'd rather spend more time at home, and they don't want to.
Get into the weeds of debate, and they certainly don't like having disagreements with people.
You know, that is part of politics, and women need to be aware of that.
If you want to enter it, you have to be thick skinned and you must be aware that it's not for wilting lillies.
I don't know, Christian, what has just picked up something that Dave's just said there? Because I got to see you want to pick up well, I want to pick up a little bit here. Do you want me to talk about just a bit about because well just one thing, just one thing, just one thing, because if you tipped out of Parliament everybody who's thin skinned, there'd be a
pile of men and women there as well. So I just I just wonder if, yeah, if you know, we do have a number of gents who are also the sort of the thin skin Persuadi and Christy.
Well, I think with the men they refer to it as the glass jaw James, and I will support James as well. You know, one nation was founded by you know, Senator Pauline Hanson, by a woman. She is a survivor
of the Australian Parliament. They have tried to say that she wasn't going to survive many many times, and she keeps coming back, and she's been attacked by the Coalition, by Labor, and you know, the Australian public continues to welcome her back into the Australian Parliament and you know, tribute to her and her work over the past three decades. But I also will say look, first of all, yes, there are female leaders in Parliament. The Coalition has a
Senate leadership team that's female. We've had female opposition leaders. The Premier or the Chief Ministry of the Northern Territory is a female Coalition chief minister.
But the.
Gender percentage of women in our party room is at twenty percent. Its struggled to get above twenty to twenty three percent for the last twenty odd years.
That means there's a.
Structural problem in the selection of candidates. And part of that structural problem in the selection of candidates is a selection process which favors people who turn up to twenty five different events a week and put in work for the party, and there's a reality that if you're a woman raising children, juggling your career, perhaps caring for aging parents, you cannot turn up to twenty five events a week, whereas, in contrast, a lot of men can because you know,
if they have a family, they have a wife at home looking after those children, or they're.
Sharing the parenting.
It's just reality and the Liberal party structures need to change to reflect that.
Oh look, I wish I could do twenty five events week, but I'm here talking to you guys on skydews. Hey, look, hold it there, because we've got so much to talk about. After the break, we're gonna have a little break here and then let's talk about indigenous leadership and whether there's need for generational changes there, and also what is going on down in Tasmania. It is absolutely bonkers down to the Apple Aisle. Stick around after the break, more debate,
more chat coming up. Welcome back to the program. James Morrow here filling in for Paul Murray Live. Hey, look, got a great panel here, James ashby Christophcswey. James, I want to start with you on the next topic here, big story here. Pat Anderson, one of the country's best known indigenous advocates. She has said that it is time
for an eviction notice. She said for those indigenous elders who have been in the room with government for decades and have failed to achieve positive change for the nation's aboriginal communities. She said that the same people have spoken for the mob in both transparent and non transparent ways. They've been the desert drivers of various policy agendas for thirty forty years and obviously there's still a big gap to be closed, and awful lot of problems in a
lot of communities. She's in the Northern Territory, you're in Queensland.
Tell us Is she right?
And is it time for a complete rethink of the way that Australia manages the way that we help and deal with our indigenous brethren.
I partly agree with what she's saying because of the simple fact that the systems that we have been working with are failing. Pauline Hansen, myself and other One Nation members Malcolm Roberts go into Indigenous communities on a regular basis. Some work really well, and then you've got those ones that are just repeat offenders, and doesn't matter how much money you throw out these causes.
Some of these towns just don't want to thrive.
And I've seen some of the best, most fantastic schools equipped with free breakfasts, free lunchers, great teachers, well equipped better than some of our community schools here, public schools around where I live in Yupoon. But the kids they still don't turn up to school. Parents don't encourage their kids to go to school. Kids aren't going to school. Fair kids just have got such an opportunity ahead of them with the way in which we fund opportunities for them.
But when the parents don't drive them, when the parents are out gambling or drinking. And this isn't all the time, but this is an overwhelming number of people that are disadvantaging their own children. And we're not closing the gap, We're only making things worse. But the thing that I don't agree with pat On is that every Aboriginal should
have a say in this. Reflecting on the simple facts she wants to bring back the voice Australia has voted not to that absolutely got to be able to move forward. But we've got to move forward as Australians. That's a simple fact, James. We do not need great division in this country. Something has to change otherwise we're just going to continue wasting good money after.
Bad I think you got that absolutely right, James asked me, Hey, Christy, I want to talk to you about what is going on down in Tasmania. We don't talk about Tasmania anywhere near enough in this country. It's a beautiful state. Hobart is one of my favorite cities on the planet. But they've just had this crazy no confidence vote in the Premier Jeremy Rockcliff, tell me what has happened down here well, and what does this portend for Tasmania because they've gotten
themselves into a huge financial hall. Labor says they want to take the reins, but you know that that's only going to make things worse.
Look, Tasmania is now looking at its fourth election within seven years. They've only had one fifteen months ago. So if anybody feels like, oh, that was only you know, very recent, it was the reason for this is that while the while the Liberal Party did form a government, they had to form it cobbling through a lot of minority interests with the Crossbach Labor has come today as saying that there is over expenditure, which includes the AFL
Stadium for the new AFL team. Now the AFL has said that the Tasmanian government had to put in something. The stadium was to cost seven hundred and fifty million, it's now blown out to over a billion dollars. The premier made a commitment in his election speech that he would only spend something like just over three hundred and fifty million on it, I think, and now of course it's almost tripled in an expense, So that's a commitment that Labor Party is saying that he's left the state
into financial disrepair. On there's issues with the Tasmanian health system. They're perennial. The other thing is that the Rockcliffe government has commissioned the building of new Spirit of tasmanias and they're the ferry crossing ships for want of a better word, that carry people across a bass stroke from Melbourne to
Spirit of Tasmania, pillar of Tasmania's tourism industry. But the ships cannot come to Tasmania even though they're nearly built, because the government hasn't provided a birth or for them to dock at. So there's a number of controversial issues in Tasmania and the Labor opposition leader has taken this as an opportunity to force the Premier to go to the governor and say we're going to have an election because he knows that the Liberal Party isn't going to
elect a new leader. And also the opposition leader has refused to test his ability to form a government on the floor of the parliament, forcing Tasmanians into an election.
Jesus, it's a mess.
It's a muddle.
It's a massive models. I see you're shaking your head here.
Yeah, well, it's the most over governed state in the whole country. Thirty five state parliamentarians. Then you've got twelve senators down there federally another five Lower House members and they still can't get their act together. All those counselors as well. I just keep seeing the money thrown at politicians and it is just a s show. Let's face it, there's only thirty five of these parliamentarians in the state and it acts worse than a classroom with a few less kids in it.
It's dreadful.
And to think that, as Christy said, they haven't even lasted six day months and they're calling for another election. It's embarrassing and both major parties should be ashamed of themselves. The only reason labor A keme to go to another election is because they don't want to govern in a coalition with the Greens here. So that's why it will go back to the polls and it will happen rather quickly.
James Asky, I cannot believe that you're suggesting that there's any jurisdiction in Australia that's over governed. I mean, come on, Paris the thought rut of the day. Thank you so much for your insights on TAZ Media Tasmania. We love you, not necessarily government, but we love your peena wire anyway, Thank you so much. James Ashby Christiy hicksweety don't go away. I'll be back with the final thought after the ring. Welcome back to the program. James Mara here for Paul
Murray Live, and before I hand off this evening. As you probably know, I'm a New Yorker. I come from the United States and I follow American news very passionately here and I was catching up on news from the old hometown before I came on air tonight, and I saw some of a debate that the Democrat mayoral candidates for Mayor of New York we're having, and I think it tells us a lot about where US Democrats are overall. Have a look at this.
It's the Donald Trump administration will use the fact that they fund seven percent of our city budget as leverage over us to try and give up whichever category of New Yorkers they are pursuing in that day.
We have to keep ICE out of our hospitals, out of our schools, out of our houses of worship, out of any public institution, and really limit cooperation of ICE with the NYPD.
I want to make sure that, as with so many.
Lawyers, our immigrants have lawyers, and our immigrants do what they came here to do.
Absolutely warn people before they walk into ICE. I want to expand NYC care so it's not just in health and hospitals, but in our federally qualified health centers as well.
That'll make sure, thank you, thank you.
And there was a lot more too, including raising taxes, interfering in the housing market, and a whole lot of other hard left stuff. And what it told me here was that after the shellacking that the Democrats got in twenty twenty four, they still don't get it. In fact, they're still running on a program of open borders, mass migration and of course all sorts of other socialists nonsense. It's not what the people voted for, and in fact
it was rejected at the election. They've got a bit of a problem, bit like our own liberals right now in Australia. They don't know quite why they lost and they don't fully know what they believe in to take them to the next election. A lesson for everybody and all that. That's all the time I've got tonight, But stick around here. You can watch me tomorrow night at eight on the US Report. And here's the Late Debate coming up next