Why on Sky News.
This is Sharry Good Evening.
Welcome to the show tonight, full coverage of the Trump Camala debate. We'll cross live to Washington. I'm going to have the Republican spokeswoman on the show.
Well, is the.
Party happy with how Trump haddled the presidential debate? We'll get the insiders take, Plus I'll go through the top moments from the debate with Michael Kroger and Gary Hargrave. But first to the protests in Melbourne today.
What a disgrace.
Police doused in acid and horse manure, bins set on fire, rocks and rotten apples, tomatoes hurled, and balloons reportedly filled with vomit throne. Can these pro Palestinian and other radical protesters get any more vile? The scenes that we saw on the streets of Melbourne today were nothing short of despicable, an out of control protest where the woke set who claimed to be against conflict really lost the plot. They're so woke that they demand someone is counseled if they
don't get their pronouns right. Yet they're happy to violently hurl objects at the police, dows police in liquid acid, and engage.
In animal cruelty to horses and all.
On the anniversary of the September eleventh terror attacks. The Daily Mail called it our day of shame and it was forty two arrested so far. Out of the fifteen hundred.
Who took to the streets.
Twenty seven police officers required medical treatment and police were left with no option but to use rubber bullets and capsicum spray to control this unruly lot, tactics not used since the COVID lockdown, and then the protesters had the hide to complain. They felt sorry for themselves, posting photographs online of their bruises.
You can see here you go, they're quite literally throwing things at the police as they're trying to do their job.
That was really difficult to see.
This protest was meant to be an anti war rally, but these protesters are obviously not against conflict if this is how they behave, and it makes a mockery of the cause they claimed to support. The protests were so vile they even shocked the Prime Minister and Victorian Premier Jacinta Allen, who publicly condemned them.
People have a.
Right to protest, but they should make sure that they do it in a respectful manner. This event is bringing in a massive economic benefit to Victoria.
There is the right to protest peacefully, of course, but to behave in such a disgraceful way towards members of Victoria Police who were there doing their job.
They came with intent to provoke, to attack. What we saw today was not peaceful and it.
All began during peak hour early this morning, when parents were trying to rush kids to school and workers were trying to get into the office. But should we be surprised by this, because this is what happens when law enforcement failed to stop the Opera House protest or the assaults by Palestinian activists at the Melbourne City town Hall steps.
What can Anthony Albanezi and Premieer just into Alan expect when police have ignored or turned a blind eye to the aggression, violence and lawlessness of the pro Palestinian mob for months.
Today is the culmination.
This is what happens when activists think they run the town, They don't believe they need to follow the law, and each protest gets.
More and more violent.
Well, let today be a wake up call to the Prime Minister and the premiers to police and law enforcement agencies. Enough is enough, and I'm going to get my panels take on this a bit later. Michael, Michael Kroger will join us from Melbourne and he's got a lot to say on these vile events that unfolded today. But now let's go to the fallout from the highly anticipated presidential debate.
Kamala Harris has been widely nominated in the media as the winner of the debate, while the moderators have been panned for bias. From the first sentence Kamala uttered, it was clear that she was going to ignore the questions asked and get away with it. Instead, she gave carefully scripted, rehearsed answers that suited her narrative. She turned questions about her own policy backflips into stories about her childhood, and
then turned them into attacks on the former president. Her preparation paid off, and this must have come as shock to Team Trump. Kamala Harris had been afraid of giving live interviews. She's, as you know, shied away from any serious scrutiny. She even asked to be able to bring notes into this debate.
She exceeded expectations.
She performed well, and the moderators allowed her to give her spin without actually answering their questions. The same treatment was not afforded to Donald Trump. Okay, I'm going to go through now the top moments from.
The debate and to analyze them.
Let's bring in former Victorian Liberal Party president Michael Kroger and Sky News contributor Gary Hargrave.
Welcome, gentlemen.
Look.
The first, the first tough.
Question to Kamala Harris came forty minutes into the debate and she was asked why her policy positions on many issues had changed so dramatically. But instead of answering the question, she used it as an opportunity to talk about her values based on her mother and her family background, and she then quite amazingly shifted the answer into an attack on Trump for having four hundred million dollars. This was quite something to watch, really for any politician.
Have a look Vice President Harrison. Your last run for president, you said you wanted to ban fracking, Now you don't. You wanted mandatory government buyback programs for assault weapons. Now your campaign says you don't. You supported decriminalizing border crossings. Now you're taking a harder line. I know you say that your values have not changed, So then why have so many of your policy positions changed?
The values I bring to the importance of home ownership, knowing not everybody got handed four hundred million dollars on a silver platter and then filed bankruptcy six times is a value that I bring to my work just now.
Kamala would have known this question was coming. It was an.
Obvious question, and we know that she was tucked away for days preparing with her team, and her team crafted away for her to turn a question that was meant to scrutin has her own policies into an attack on Trump without ever having to answer the questions about why her policy positions had changed so drastically. Michael, this was actually a masterful approach, and we saw the moderators just let her get away with it.
Absolutely, and you can summarize the debate this way. Trump was Trump ill prepared, rambling, and no killer punches for her until right at the end. He let the debate be about him and his presidency, and it was only at the end he reminded people she'd been and vice president for three and eighty years. On the other hand, she will have said to her advisors, I really don't know what to do with this debate. Tell me what I need to do, tell me what I need to say.
They crafted all of those phrases for how she'd appear. That you should look at Trump during the debate, shake his hand aggressively at the beginning, going over to him. She was like an actor, as people have said, like Robert Read in The Candidate, she just said to the advisors, tell me what I need to do, and say she did it, And I thought she did it very well. If there's any dubster who won the debate, if you understand betting odds, she went from two dollars fourteen and
during the debate her odds shortened. She ended up at a dollar ninety one. So all during the debate, the betting markets were saying, she's winning this debate, and the bad news of Trump is I think she did. There were low expectations and she exceeded them.
Yeah, and don't forget, of course that it's reported that she has the best strategic advisors from the team Barack Obama around her as well, so she has the best people who are helping.
Her prepare for this. But Gary, her preparation paid off.
And it looked like Trump just didn't have answers worked out to some of the attack lines that were clearly going to come his way.
Yeah, except Trump was a little more home spun the usual Trump staff and Hollywood. Harris was just following the directions she got from the people who were directing her, and she did. She learned a line, she came up with a few attack points, she kept coming back to it. I watched how she wanted to get to certain Crutch phrases, which then triggered a thought in her mind. I think she was too scripted. I don't think she was genuine.
I think she was making stuff up. And I think there was something like seventeen lies in the first few minutes of that according to some commentators. Look, Hillary Clinton won the debate as well, so did Joe Biden. When you know, you stop and look at it, you just know there's a long way to go. I don't think
it's moved the needle one way or the other. Trump supporters will be angry with the moderators, and rightly so, and Harris supporters will think this is a pyrrhic victory, But I don't know whether it actually achieves what they want. Which is to win the presidency.
Wilson, I mean the last debate.
Of course, you know Biden did so poorly that it effectively led to the end of his present, not his presidency, but his candidacy. But you mentioned the moderators, so have a look at this. Trump was hounded if he didn't properly answer a.
Questions Springfield, Ohio, and ABCDWS did reach out to the city manager there. He told us there had been no credible reports of President Trump. As you know, the FBI says overall violent crime is actually coming down in this country. But you have said, quote you lost by a whisker that you quote, didn't quote make it that you came up a little bit short. You did bring up something you said she went to negotiate with Vladimir Putin? Vice President Harris, have you ever met Vladimir Putin?
Michael Donald Trump himself came out afterwards. He went on Sean Hannity's show afterwards and he said it was three against one.
Would you agree with.
That, Oh, no doubt about that. You were watching it, You're thinking this can't be right. But this is the American you know, left wing press doing their best to help Harris Win. But Trump didn't help himself. I mean, you know, I think she will be a hopeless president. I think he's completely incapable of running the free world. She's been invisible as a vice president. No one can name a single achievement of hers. But Donald Trump was ill disciplined, as I said, And you know, I think
it's the sign of Trump over eight years. I think he says to people, you know, I've got here on my own. I don't need to listen to all you people. And you saw that performance today. He wasn't against someone today who had early stage dementia. And she was clever enough to say to her advisers, I don't know what I'm doing, Tell me what I need to say, and she did it.
Yeah.
Look, Meghan Kelly wrote a piece today where she said that the head of ABC News, and it was ABC News in the US that hosted this debate.
She wrote that the head of ABC.
News, Dana Walden, is a close friend of Kamala's and is apparently responsible for Kamalin meeting her husband.
So and Megan's argument is that it was actually a.
Mistake for the Republicans to agree to a debate on the ABC, Gary Hargrave, what do you think about that.
Look, I've been on both sides of this.
I've been a politician, I've been an inquirer, as a journalist or a reporter. Look, I just simply say to you that Harris did what I always tell people in politics to do. Answer the question you want to answer. In other words, tell them what you want to tell him. But the thing that these guys didn't do, the ABC guys didn't do, and it's pretty evident they're supported by management, which as you say, is close to.
Harris, is they just didn't pursue her.
They just gave her the easy run, the easy way, and they just basically picked on Trump. Now, I've got to tell you it's angered a lot of people at the Trump base, and I think it's going to galvanize a lot of people to get out the vote.
So, look, we will see.
There's another what six or eight weeks to go A long way to go.
A week is a long time in politics. We've got six or eight of those ahead of a Shari.
No, we do, indeed, But I still want to go through some of the biggest moments from the debate today because it might be the only debate that the two of them do, and to me, it was clear that Kamala had Trump on the defensive. He was defending his record as president, and he wasn't really able to put the focus back on her until right at the end. She was able to present herself as a new candidate, as though she weren't part of the Biden team, and her very first answer in the debate set the tone.
The question was whether Americans were better off now than they were three years ago in the cost of living crisis. I mean, you might ask the same question of our Prime Minister alban Easy. But instead of answer that, Kamala Harris took the opportunity to speak about her personal background.
Have a look, Vice President Harris, you and President Trump were elected four years ago, and your opponent on the stage here tonight often asks his supporters, are you better off than you were four years ago?
When it comes to the economy?
Do you believe Americans are better off than they were four years ago?
So I was raised as a middle class kid.
And she went on, I mean, Michael Craigan, this is one of the biggest issues, the cost of living. She didn't even pretend to try and answer.
It's right, that's right, that's right, that's exactly right.
I mean, I have to get away with telling a story about your family background when you're asked about, you know, inflation.
In the cost of lipping.
Well, of course the moderators weren't intent on pursuing it. But this is where Trump should have exactly. He had a minute after that, of course, to answer you.
No.
Trump's whole problem is he is so ill disciplined. I mean, politics is a very Gary knows as well as I do. It's a very it's a very complex business in many respects, and when you're in a presidential debate for your political life, perhaps you don't know everything. Perhaps it's wise to say to people, perhaps no strategy better than you. How do you think this will play out? I'm absolutely sure from having talked to people over the years in the Republican
Party that no one can tell Trump anything. You know, As I said, he says, I got here on man, I don't need you people, And you could tell that today, right, he was lost. He's on about the dogs being eaten, you know in all this.
Yeah, we'll get to that.
He didn't pursue her.
I mean, as I said, this was a debate about Ronald Trump, not about her three and a half years as vice president and wa Cherry, this is the first time a lot of Americans will have actually seen her. Most people don't know anything about her. I mean, most people don't know she's vice president. This is the first time they've seen her in a debate and listened to her for an extended period of time because she's invisible elsewhere.
You can't see her apart from a clipper to rally, and people have gone away thinking, Yeah, she wasn't too bad. I don't know what people are saying that she's done or insipid or I don know. If she was out there and she did quite.
A good job.
That'll be the takeout from today's debate. And if she's smart, she will not do another debate.
Yeah, although her.
Team have already immediately demanded a second debate, and it's now Trump who hasn't agreed at this point of in time. Look, abortion featured as the second topic after the cost of living, which says something about how big this issue is in America, unlike in Australia. Again, Trump was put under scrutiny, but Kamala got away without answering the question about whether she's supported late her abortions.
Let's have a look at that exchange.
You should ask will she allow abortion in the eighth month, ninth month, seventh month?
Okay, would you do that? Why don't you ask that question?
And that's the question which the question you.
Could do abortions in the seventh month, the eighth month, the ninth month.
Look Gary again, the moderators, they did fact check Trump and they said there were no abortions which would.
Be murder after babies had been born.
But then they didn't follow up to ask Kamala the question about whether she did support late term abortions.
You know that they just swept over this.
And Sharry fact checking the fact checkers found that there were five or six examples of that in fantaside, basically after a baby's being born, after an abortion that went wrong.
I hate this subject by Jude, but I've been watching and listening to the commentary on this, and all I'm saying to is this that I think your analysis and your interest in the specifics of this is only a minute interest by comparison to a lot of people in America who did watch this and listen closely, and I think they will see through Kamala's phoniness and her bull tish And you know, Michael's probably right that there's a whole lot of you know, superfluous stuff that people thought
she wasn't too bad.
We're expecting it to fail. There was no words sued.
I get all of that, But when push comes to shoves, she didn't answer questions that were important to Americans around kitchen tables, like the cost of living, like the fact that some things grocery items have gone to fifty to eighty percent in America, just like they have here over the last couple of years. Like the fact that American jobs are being lost off shore because of things being brought in from other countries, just like here.
The price of fuel gone through the roof, just like here.
I mean, on all these different things that are real to people, there were no real answers from Harris. And I think she'll get marked down about this once people start to really look at it and say, you know what, she actually didn't tell me anything. Yeah, she looked Hollywood, but you know, heavens, we've got you know, Taylor Swift and Barbara streisand Mark Hamill and all these people who are just pumping for her. I think Americans are over it, Charlie.
I think they're over it, and I think that Trump actually looks like the merchant of change again. If Americans want change, that's where they're going to go.
I don't know about that analysis. But look, we're going to come back to this topic on the show. I've got the Republican official spokeswoman coming on the show. We'll see whether they were happy with the debate, what she has to say about the minerators. Also, Adam Crichton's going to join me live in Washington. But let's return now to these vile, violent protests in Melbourne today. Absolute mayhem, Michael Croker. I mean, these protesters pretend they want peace,
but then they were so violent. I mean twenty four police officers have had to have medical treatment police horses.
They were crawled to police horses.
I bet you many of these as his claim that they're against animal cruelty.
So what people around Australia have to understand the Victoria is we have about five thousand professional demonstrators in this state. It's a Wednesday here, but we still had several thousand not having to work and we're able.
To demonstrate Sherry.
Victoria has a mixture of Palestinian extremists, left wing fascists, Neo Nazis, Aboriginal extremists, Antifa supporters, and anarchists. It's an intersection of all of those people. So an anti war demonstration the Palestinian flags are raging, but those groups of extremists, and you add to that a few global warming extremists, etc.
Etc.
That montage of people, that montage of hatred of the West is the core of these demonstrations in Victoria. There's about five thousand people that the Palestinian rally on Sunday now that they're at the anti war rally today. Next week a lot of them will be an extinction rebellion protests, etc.
Center. That's about five thousand of them.
The problem with Victoria is this the state Victorian labor government for ten years has let these extremists run a.
Muck in this state.
In the city of Melbourne, they've took powers away from the police, including the move on laws that Robert Clark brought in when he was Attorney General in the Bayu government a decade ago. Right the state labor government are in charge of policing in this state and they have allowed this situation to occur.
And it is shocking that.
Young, young Australian only Victorian policemen and women have to go to work and put up with this disgusting behavior. Who would want to be a policeman or woman in this state when you have an insipid week labor government that is intimidated by extremists, as Albanize is intimidated by a left wing extremes.
I mean, just.
Cindra Allison, just surreleant, stand up to these left wing extremists, ploase.
Stand up to them.
I agree.
This is the culmination of ten to eleven months now of just being weak or taking no action, barely any arrests on people who are being openly violent on the streets. I mean, how many politicians officers have we seen seriously targeted violence graffiti? How many rests have been made from those? I mean, if there have been, it's not been in a big public way. So there's no deterrence here. Gary, don't you think this is part of the problem.
And look in Victoria does have a huge protest organization, There's no doubt about it. It's twenty four years today since the s eleven riots against the West basically took place in Melbourne when the were World Economic Forum. I've got a few years about that, but they were meeting in Melbourne twenty four years ago, September of two thousand and.
Of course I know.
I just simply say to you, this is a tradition, This is a second generation of the same anarchists. And Michael's right, there are people who just hate the West. They look for any excuse to disorient the West. And yet we're talking about a gathering of people who are selling munitions arms a credible event. We had the same thing in Brisbane a couple of years ago and the same sort of things happened there. The Greens are at the heart of this. They give comfort to all of this.
But it's the radical anarchist, the people who just hate Australia. They look for any excuse to come out. And as I said, twenty four years ago, today, the same thing was happening in Melbourne, the same thing, and of course since then the only rubber bullets that have been fired have been at COVID protesters.
So you know, it's just Melbourne has lost its way. It's sad.
The great city of Melbourne is now the place to flea. That's what the number plate should say, Victoria the place to flea.
It's a real problem.
And until there's a change of government down there, there's not going to be any change of approach on this.
I think, yeah, and it comes down ultimately to political leadership. Were yet to see whether the protests.
You know, tomorrow might be as bad as today. Look, we just don't know, we hope not.
Just quickly before we go, I want to finish on a story by my colleague Caroline Marcus. She revealed that a University of Sydney's staff member who was put in charge of managing complaints about the pro Palestinian protests along with anti Semitic incidents on campus, actually appeared to have
posted anti Israel content online herself. According to Caroline's report, she accused the Israeli government of genocide, and she dismissed a complaint from a Jewish academic staff member about the calls for Interfada, saying that it couldn't be classified as hate speech.
Michael.
She has since been removed from the job, But imagine someone who has an anti Israel position. According to what she's posting online. Being in charge of managing complaints tells you everything about the University of Sydney, doesn't it.
Yeah, well it does.
And congratulations to those Jewish students in Sydney who are campaigning for the removal of the appalling, discredited Mark Scott. All strength to their arm. I hope they succeed. But what do you think, what do you expect under under Mark Scott? Whose performance has been disgraceful. He's brought enormous discredit upon Sydney University, which is now must be plummeting
in the rankings of universities of prestige. The only performance worse than the Sydney University performance is that of the Australian National University, who've since allowed a Hummas supporter who was expelled to come back to campus. I mean, shame on the A and U, Shame on these universities. And
I don't think you'll see all this behavior. By the way, if Sarah Henderson, if Dutton's elected Prime Minister, Sarah Henderson becomes Education Minister in this country, all this nonsense will stop under her.
Yeah.
Well, they've certainly indicated they would be very tough on this all right, Michael Croaker, Gary Hargrave, thank you for your time. Now let's go live now to Washington. The reaction has been from the presidential debate as we've been discussing that Kamala Harris performed better than expected. Most people say she won the debate, but we're not any clearer on her policy platforms. The Australian's Washington correspondent Adam Crichton joins me.
Now, Adam, great to see you.
Look you've written tonight in an article for The OS that Donald Trump failed to link Kamala's poor record as part of the current Biden administration sufficiently, and I think this is right. He allowed her to present as a fresh pair of hands.
Yeah, certainly, that's true. I mean he finished actually quite well. I thought at the end of the nine minute debate he really emphasized the fact that she's been in this administration for three and a half years, and so if she has all these policy ideas, then you know, why haven't they already been implemented? And so he finished well on that, But you know, we had ninety minutes to dwell on that, and I don't think he really did sufficiently.
So look, I think he appeared tired, he appeared angry, and as you just said, I think the expectations bar for Harris was very low, and she exceeded it. She'd been practicing for five days. You know, she's a polished fifty nine year old politician. She's not an eighty one year old. So it was a much harder contest for Donald Trump this time. And I just think that his lack of preparation really showed on the night. He didn't have any great one liners. You know, she had a
lot of one liners he didn't. So look, I think overall, the you know, the fact that the Betty markets moved away from Donald Trump from about you know, fifty four percent chance of winning to forty seven percent chance over the ninety percent, sorry, over the ninety minutes. Rather, I think that basically sums up the outcome.
For the night.
And I think the debates are incredibly important because, you know, apart from the news that you hear in the media and people might just get snippets of things here and here and there, this was an opportunity for millions of Americans, some undecided voters, to tune in and hear directly from Trump and Kamala and the way Kamala presented, you know, she was smiley. She might have won over some female voters.
She presented as a more palatable option, perhaps, whereas Trump might have seemed a bit more aggressive or even angry, because Kamala did bait him. She attacked him multiple times, and he took the bait. She was almost deliberately trying to get him annoyed. You know, she said, world leaders are embarrassed by him. She said, you know, top military figures say that he's a disgrace. No one goes to his rallies. People not no one goes there, but people
get bored and leave early. All these things that you could see got to him because he is an emotional figure. So do you think this debate, you know, would have changed the minds of some undecided voters.
Well, I don't really think so. I mean, and in the history of presidential debates, they typically don't make much difference, to be honest, with the actual outcome of the election. I think we put so much focus on this one. Be of course, what happened in June was so spectacular, but we really didn't see anything like this. And look, this was actually the earliest presidential debate except for the one in June, since two thousand and four. So there's still fifty four to fifty five days to go until
the election. Plenty of time for stuff ups on both sides. Look, I think, you know, I think for women, you know, you know, not that I can talk obviously not a woman, but certainly to the extent that the issue of abortion was a discussed, I think she spoke pretty well, and I think Donald Trump probably really failed to, you know, to prosecute the idea, which is a good one in my view, that you know, that the issue is i mean is now back with the states in the US,
and that's a very democratic outcome, if you like. But he didn't really excel there. And yes, look as you say, I mean, she baited him all over the place on his criminal record, on crowd sizes, on his inheritance his father. Yes, so look, he just wasn't prepared.
Yeah, it put him on the defense of the whole time. Adam, I want to go to one of the most crazy moments that has got now a lot of media coverage out of the debate, and that of course, is when Donald Trump said that immigrants were eating.
Their pets, their cats and dogs.
This has been on social media for a couple of days and Jadie Vance posted about it. But then Jadie Vance kind of walked it back a little bit and said it might not be right. Let's have a look at what Trump actually said in Springfield.
They're eating the dogs the people that came in, They're eating the cats, they're eating they're eating the pets of the people that live there. And this is what's happening in our country. And it's a shame.
Adam, this was a gift to Kamala Harris. The border crisis is an issue that plays in Trump's favor, but instead of prosecuting that, now everyone's speaking about is this exactly probable conspiracy theory that migrants are eating people's pets.
Yeah, look, I mean it is, you know, it does seem fairly unlikely, although in Trump's defense, that is what some locals have been saying on video at at local council meetings. But I mean, to your point, this is a really good example I think of where Trump, you know, could have really hit her hard rhetorically. I mean, the population of that town, Springfield, has gone from fifty eight thousand, you know, to eighty thousand in about three years because
of haitient immigration. It was clearly unwanted by the local community. I mean, that's that's a thirty three percent increase in the population, which you know, I mean for any community is going to be unbearable. And yet he did not bring up those figures. I mean, to me, that was that was very, very silly. He should have talked about the numbers, you know, the draw on local social services,
et cetera. But of course instead he focused on pets, which you know naturally prompted all the pundits afterwards to say that he was making up conspiracy theories et cetera. You know, whether they're true or not, I know, we might find out in the future. But look, it's a real area where he failed. I think that's his strongest area.
Certainly, Yeah, it is his strongest area, along with the economy. But you know, he just didn't prosecute the case. Tonight, Adam Crichton, great to see you. We will read your full analysis in The Australian tomorrow.
It's up online now all right, still to come.
Last night, we expose the farce of the Prime Minister's pledge over a social media ban. This is all spin and no substance, right out of the political satire. The Holo men will Shadow Communications Minister David Coleman will join me next. Plus the Coalition accuses Labor of bad mouthing the RBA governor. Is this critical relationship on the brink. I'm going to discuss this with my political panel in
a moment. Welcome back. Well, the countdown is on for the Prime Minister to legislate his new social media ban. But as I mentioned last night, this is going to be very difficult for the government because it lacks so much detail. Labor couldn't get its stories straight out, and Easy was saying one thing about the age range his communication minister was saying another. And the tender for the company to run the trial doesn't even come back until October.
Well to discuss let's bring it now, Shadow Communications Minister David Coleman.
David, Welcome to the show.
Look, this is quite extraordinary that the Prime Minister announced this, did a television breakfast blitz, but then there was no policy to back this up.
There was no age that he'd nominated, and he's saying legislation will be introduced by the end of the year.
But do you think that's going to be possible given the trial that he's talking about isn't going to start until at least mid October.
Yeah, it's hard to see how they do it. As Shari, it's completely an art to leave fascicle. So you know what's happened here is the Prime Minister's realized he's losing on this issue. He's behind on the issue. The Coalition's been pursuing this issue for a long time. Premium Alnowskis has from South Australia as well, and he's gone, okay, we'll do an announcement. We'll say we're going to do age verification for social media, tick, and everything will be fine.
But as you said, they've done absolutely no work on this and they haven't even started the process of a trial for age verification technology. They announced the trial back in May. They put out the tender for the trial yesterday. People don't even have to respond to the tender until the seventh of October.
I mean, it is just ridiculous.
How can you have an age verification policy for social media when you don't know what the age will be like? It is just the most fundamental point.
And then the minister, the Communications Minister, Michelle Roland said, well, she might introduce legislation without the age limit in it.
So what would that legislation actually be.
Well, who knows. I think they're making it up as they go along. I mean, this is, as you said, this is like something from political satire. Peter Darton, in contrast, came out in June very clearly said the Coalition will do this, will do it within one hundred days of being elected and the age will be sixteen. So no ambiguity from Peter Dutton, a clear strong position. Sitting here today, we've got a government that says they're going to do this, but it hasn't done any work on it and has
absolutely no idea how to do it. And it's symptomatic of the government more generally, you know, weak, indecisive, driven by events, flapping in the breeze, and that's no way to run a country.
It was one of the worst cases of a political announcement I've seen that has no detail behind it. I couldn't believe so much of the media failed to call this out. You just said it was like a political satire. Well, it was like this scene. I showed this last night, but I've got to show it again because it is such an accurate depiction.
Have a look at this from the hollow men.
I don't think we're at the press release stage.
Come on, math, We're always at the press release stage.
But what are we announcing?
Prime Minister declares war on a childhood a visa.
But that's just the line.
What comes next?
Well, that's your job. Well that's what you get paid for to come up with all the other pages.
Everybody's really excited about the PM's plan.
There is no plan.
We've announced it and people love it.
Nothing has been decided.
It's actually an indictment on the media.
And I don't like to criticize the media that he was able to do a TV television breakfast let Sunrise Today Show ABC and multiple interviews with journalists without anyone actually pointing.
Out that the trial for the tender for the trial that he.
Kept talking about doesn't even return to until October, so there's no way in a month and a half he can have the trial done, conducted and the legislation wrapped up. Do you think this is just the press gallery bought the spin?
Oh?
Look, I think that because it's such an important an issue. You can understand the media, you know, being interested to talk to the Prime Minister about it. I think as those first few moments of fallen by the wayside and people have started to look into this, the general view is complete skepticism. I mean, everyone in this building sees this for what it is.
I mean, it is a.
Joke and it's a shame because this is a really serious issue. The issue of social media and what it's.
Doing is massive.
And that's why you know, as you know, I've been very focused on this for a long time, so as Peter Dutton. That's why the Coalition took stock such a strong stand on this month ago.
And you've got a Prime.
Minister that had actually opposed the age verification trial that we tried to legislate back in November, walked into the Parliament and the Labor Party voted against it. Six months later they said okay, we'll do the trial, and then four and a half months later they hadn't even put out the tender. And you know, this is the sense the essence of this government. You know, it's one thing to put out a press release, it's another to actually govern. And they have just no idea how to govern.
All right, David Coleman, thank you very much for your time. Now, still coming up on the show is the Republican Party happy with Trump's performance and the presidential debate? Will an insider would join me? Plus Labor accused of bad mouthing the RBA governor. I'll get into that with my political panel next. Plenty more to get through tonight, so let's bring in National Senate Leader Bridget McKenzie and former Press
Secretary to Julie Gillard Darren Barnette. Welcome to you both. Look, tension between the IBA and Labor seems to be continuing. This was a big issue in Parliament today. The Treasurer denies there's any rift, despite his failure to criticize Wayne Swan's harsh assessment.
Have a quick look.
You know, I have a respectful working relationship with Governor Bullock and with her colleagues. As Governor Bullock has made it clear on a number of eleag we work well together. We've got the same objective, we've got different responsibilities.
Bridget, what do you think do you think there is a genuine rift here between the government and the IBA and is this a concern for our economy?
Absolutely, Sharhie. You just saw the Treasurer act like a very naughty boy who'd just been made to apologize. There was absolutely no sincerity there. In fact, he got his father out, Wayne Swan this week to back him in and sort of do the tough talking that Jim was
felt he was unable to do. I mean, it isn't just the Coalition, it's economists, it's former leaders in our country that have said this discussion and debate that Jim Chalmers has been driving in the public sphere against the Reserve Bank Governor Michelle Bullock has been appalling, has un mind the credibility of the economic partnership that they're supposed to have with government, and they're both pulling in the
wrong directions. The fact remains, and Jim doesn't want to own up to the fact that he is the Treasurer and that means he is responsible for our economy and when Australians are doing it as tough as they are, and they're feeling they're doing it tough because real wages are going backwards and standard of living has dropped nearly ten percent. So it's a fact the Reserve Bank only has one very blunt lever. Jim has a lot of
tools in his toolkit, he's refusing to use them. It's one thing to write a PhD about Paul keating a former treasurer. It's another one to actually start acting like one. And unfortunately he's been left wanting and now he's just making excuses for his bad behavior.
Darren, do you think Wayne Swan's comments would have put Jim Chalmers in a difficult position because they are close.
I think they did put him in a difficult position. I don't think that Wayne cleared them through head offers. I suspect you just said what he thought, and Wayne is in that phase of his career where in many ways he can do that. But Jim needs to be responsible. It's an important job and Jim takes it very seriously. You obviously have known Jim for a long time. He takes his job very seriously and he would not like
that kind of distraction. But equally, there is tension between the Reserve Bank Board and the government about how we need to ease that cost of pressure, a cost of living pressure for everyday families. I think the government is sincerely hoping that the environment is right for rate cuts. This side of the election, and that's really what this is all about. What's the settings going to be when we go to the polls early next year.
Yeah, and at this point, I mean, everything can change, but at this point it doesn't look like there.
Will be happening soon enough, no, if at all, before the election.
Now, I want to get both of your thoughts and the horrific protests in Melbourne today, bridget You know a lot of arrests that I and arrests police had to have medical treatment. Do you think this is, as I do, a failure of political leadership over time that has got us to this point.
Look, Sharhi, you and I have talked about this for a long period of time on this show, about police across the country seeking to keep the peace instead of upholding the law. And that's where we've seen some really appalling public protests, particularly post October seventh here on the streets of our major capitals on the East Coast in particular. And you know, every single time people get away with behaving badly, treating other Australians with contempt and disrespect, anti Semitism, rife.
They just these protesters who are all professionals, Let's face it, go one step further, one step further, and now you have appalling behavior is being thrown at our police force and that is absolutely unacceptable in a liberal democracy such as ours. It's just incredible, these scenes.
Absolutely disgusting.
Now the Australian has revealed that the Teals are deminding a seventy five percent emissions reduction target by twenty thirty five. Darren, Look, it's one thing for the Teals to be ideological and idealistic like this, but it's quite another to actually deliver this in reality.
It's a glorious world when you're a protest vote and the Greens have that luxury, and to a large extent, the Teals have that luxury. But I guess what they're doing is tilling the ground for what happens if there's a hung parliament, and if there is, they're going to have to pick a side. So that will be the real test of what the Teals are made of, and to some extent, what the Greens are made of is
what do they do if there's a hung parliament. They hold Liberal seats, but a lot of their policy agenda shifts fear progressive and left. So it's going to be a fascinating time up until the election. Will the government give a twenty thirty five target. I'm not sure that they will, particularly when they have a.
Twenty thirty one.
Clearly he doesn't want to, and I'm not sure that it's to our national advantage given other countries won't put one out there before the Brazil Summit late next year. So it's jockeying for position in public policy terms.
It's going to be interesting to see how I actually read bizarrely the Climate Change Authorities paper about what they're thinking is around the twenty thirty five target and bridget they had concerns that if you set a two ambitious target there could be social and economic consequences.
That's the Climate Change Authority.
Well, I know, Shahi KOUI fantastic. The Climate Change Authority is finally woken up to what the National Party in the Liberal Party have been saying for a long time. All on the journey, but let's not trash the joint and people and our country on the way through. What you've heard from the teals with this claim is the ticket price for the next Prime Minister of Australia. And I know that Peter Dutton won't be prepared to pay that and I do know that Anthony Albanezi will do
anything to stay in the lodge. And so this is going to be critical going into the next selection that you will have a prime minister, because all the polls are pointing to a minority government. Labor government is going to have to do a deal with the Teals and the Greens, and that means the type of target that is going to wreak havoc not just on our productive capacity of our mining industry, but our agriculture that actually our transport mechanisms etc. We're already not meeting the targets
we've set, We're already falling behind to twenty thirty. This just shows how ridiculous the Teals policy settings are.
Yeah, all right, Bridget McKenzie, really appreciate your time tonight in camera.
I'm Darren Barnette here in Sydney. Thank you.
Now after the break and insiders take on how Republicans thought Trump handled that debate that's coming up after this break. Well, let's cross now to Florida, where I'm joined by RNC spokesperson Elizabeth Pipcole's great to see you again. Look, what is the sense in the Republican Party about how the debate went. Most commentators and media outlets say this was a win for Kamala, who performed better than expected. So is there disappointment about Trump's performance tonight?
Rest of all, thank you for having me back. No, I wouldn't say disappointment at all. I would say you're right that people were surprised by Kamala Harris's performance. I think the bar was set very very low with that last debate, of course against Joe Biden, which as we know, changed the state of the race. At the same time, Karmla Harris had the bar set so low that people are excited that she got through the debate. And I
think that that's what's disappointing, right. We wanted answers. I think the American people deserve answers, and we left that debate with no answers, no clear context on where she stands, why she changed so many of her views, and what her plans are for the future, and how they would differ in any way from the current administration where she
serves with Joe Biden. If we didn't get any of those answers, more Americans are divided than ever, as there's anger about how the debate was moderated, and I truly think that last night did not go as the American people deserved. And that's truly where my disappointment lies.
Look, Kamala Harris was clearly very prepared, carefully crafted answers to every single topic. Should the team around Trump have prepared him more for this debate?
You know, I'd say the answer lies in the American people, what they think and what they want. I don't think the American people were satisfied with what they got last night, truly. When it comes to the answers of Kamala Harris, I think having perfectly crafted responses, it doesn't actually, you know, lower your gas bill, it doesn't actually keep us from World War three, which everyone talks about every day now, doesn't make Americans feel safer. I think she had perfectly
crafted responses about everything that's wrong with Donald Trump. We saw insult after insult and low blow after low blow. I was very disappointed. Actually, I didn't expect it to be that nasty that quickly. But I think preparing as much as she did, to be as nasty as she was to him personally, and not preparing to give the American people the answers that they're looking for. I think that was a mistake on her part. I think that
will backfire. At the same time, everyone deserves other candidates to be prepared, and I appreciate the fact that it was clear that she did prepare for the debate. I just don't think it was in the way that she should have prepared for someone that's currently serving as vice president of this country.
Yeah.
Yeah, And of course Taylor Swift came out right after the debate. Presumably that was a planned moment to give momentum in Kamala Harris's direction, and Taylor Swift, of course endorsed Kamala Harris called her a warrior. Elizabeth Pipco, thank you very much for your time tonight, and we'll have a lot more analysis tomorrow night on the show.
I'll see you at eight o'clock. Right now, here's Paul Murray.