Show Good Evening.
Will tonight coming up my exclusive interview with Treasurer Jim Chalmers ahead of tomorrow's budget. But first some breaking news I can exclusively reveal. It was Anthony Albanesi's personal decision to support the vote at the United Nations to grant Palestine a seat. There was still ongoing discussion about whether to abstain when the Prime Minister made the final call. Anthony Alberzi confirmed this to Labor Caucus today, saying, and he said this twice, and I quote it was my decision.
So this United Nations vote was Albanese's captain's call. That's what he told Labor Caucus today twice, saying he made the decision. Now, he made these remarks in Labor caucus when Labor MP deb O'Neill asked him what he was doing to tackle antisemitism. Well, the Prime Minister never directly answered her question, instead speaking about the United Nations vote. Well, this is the most disgraceful decision yet taken by Albinizi
and Penny Wong. And it was a decision that Pennywog and Deputy Prime Minister Richard Miles agreed with rewarding a terrorist organization which has made no concessions at all towards peace by voting to grant it a seat at the UN, the Yuen which was created in the wake of the Holocaust to make sure the dark anti Semitism of the Nazis never happens again. What a failure of an organization
and a failure of our government. Pennywang and Albo voting to give Palestine where let's not forget Hermas is the current governing body in Gaza membership status. Penny Wong says this reflects Australia's commitment to a two state solution. The only problem, of course, is that Hermas and the Palestinians don't want a two state solution. They only want one state their own. They want the destruction of Israel, the annihilation of Jews. Well, here was Israel's response at the UN.
This institution, here, the United Nations, was founded with the mission of ensuring such tyranny never raises its ugly head again. Never. Today, you are about to do the exact opposite and advance the establishment of a Palestinian terror state, which will be led by the Hitler of our times, the Hitler of our times.
The Hitler of our times, precisely, Australia moving to recogniz Palestine.
A seat at the UN is fantasyland.
Especially when HERMAS is the current governing body in Gaza. I mean, suppose the vote got through, would the UN just welcome with open arms, the Harmas leadership or Mamudabas who supported the October seven massacre. It's incomprehensible. Well, Pennylong spin on this is that Hermas would hate the resolution.
Have a look.
A two state solution both Israel and Palestine is the opposite of what Hamas wants. Hamas does not want peace and it does not want long term security for the state of Israel.
Well, it's rubbish to say that Harmas wouldn't welcome this historic vote, because they did welcome it. They said, and I quote the Hamas said that the resolution is an affirmation of international cooperation and all they had to do to achieve this outcome was ruthless and in cold blood murder thousands of Jews on October seven and drag Israel into a war it never wanted, an impossible war tracking down the terrorists while trying not to kill hostages of
Palestinian civilians. No concessions have been made by any of the Palestinian leadership about Israel's right to exist, and there have been no commitments to stop terror. Nothing. This resolution is so absurd that Australia is utterly out of step with our allies. As Simon Birmingham pointed out.
Today, neither of our Auchest partners supported this resolution. The majority of our Five Eyes partners did not support this resolution.
So when you've got the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada as well as of course others like Sweden and Switzerland are the key democratic partners, Germany or Italy, what is it that the Albanesi government has such great foresight over But all of these are the key democratic partners, key security partners of Australia have come to a different conclusion.
On The Australian's Foreign editor, Greg Sheridan says the only explanation for such a move from Labour is tawdry domestic politics. He writes that the macro political calculation for Labour is obvious. There are one hundred thousand Jews in Australia and nearly a million Muslims. He writes that almost all Muslims are opposed to Israel. So Australian politics and foreign policy will
now contend with a permanent anti Israel dynamic. He says, a more responsible and experienced government with an outs more courage and heart would have avoided this needless sectarian divide. Now many commentators have pointed out that this move is Albanezi and Wong overturning decades of bipartisan support for Israel. But in truth, the moment Albanesi stepped into the lodge,
he abandoned Australia's historic commitment to Israel. Everything Albanesi and Penny Wong said prior to the last election about their approach to the Middle East being bipartisan has turned out to be a lie. Their greatest failure is turning their back on the anti Semitism crisis that's unfolding right now in university campuses and on our streets.
Now.
Greg Sheridan blames domestic politics, and sure, that's definitely one reason, but let's not forget where Albanese's own heart lies. That he himself was once a pro Palestinian protester.
Israel trum children owing wells.
And now Albanizi often says when he's asked about this topic, that he knows this is a difficult issue for people on both sides of the debate.
Have a look.
Some Australians will have strong views, and I understand that particularly people who have relatives either in Israel or in Gaza or the West Bank will have strong views and it will be it is a difficult time.
He utterly misses the point.
This isn't a difficult issue because Jews have family in Israel, although of course many Jews do have family in Israel, and many actually have sons, young sons fighting hermas.
In Gaza right now.
But he misses the point because what Albanezi clearly doesn't understand and has never understood, is that this is an existential crisis for Jews the world over.
That's why it matters so much.
Penny Wang and Albanesi and other labor figures, they try to make this about net in Yahoo, but I'm sorry, it doesn't matter who is in power, whether it's net in Yahoo or another leader, because the terrorists aren't targeting net in Yahoo. They're targeting Jews, Jewish babies, Jewish children,
teenage girls, mothers, and the elderly. Her Mus wants to kill Jews, plain and simple, This is history repeating itself over and over again, an enemy determined to wipe out the Jews, and yet Albinizi stands and says, this is a difficult time. People feel strongly about it because people have family in the Middle.
East on both sides.
No, it's a difficult time because the Jews are fighting for survival. We're fighting against those who are trying to exterminate us yet again. And instead of leadership when we need it the most, we see American politicians absurdly call for elections in the democracy of Israel.
Will wake up, Joe Biden call for elections in Gaza.
And we see politicians in Australia squibbet and back in a rational resolution to give the terrorists a seat at the table at the UN, the very body created to try and protect Jews from the existential threat we're facing right now, the very body that officially gave Jews a homeland in the first place. This is why it's a difficult time. And your support of the resolution backing the seat at the UN without any peace agreement or any concessions only emboldens the terrorists and puts Israel in a
more isolated and vulnerable position. Now I'm going to come back to this topic later in the show. I'm going to be joined by barrister and director of UK Lawyers for Israel, Natasha Hausdorff.
You might remember her.
She went viral on a clip arguing with left leaning media broadcasters on the BBC and elsewhere. She's going to join me later in the program. As I mentioned, I've also got an exclusive interview tonight with Treasurer at Jim Chalmers as he looks to set the scene for the
government's high stakes budget tomorrow. Inflation the main focus as he rolls the dice in one of his biggest political gambles yet, and Albanezi hemorrhaging voters as it's revealed more than a quarter of people who back to the PM at the last selection won't vote for him again. Now let's bring in first tonight my panel, Sky News host Liz Stora and contributor Joe Hildebrand.
Welcome to you both.
Hello, well said, Thank.
You very much. Joe.
Now we've been speaking on this show about Elon Musk's X and his fight with the federal government in court to overturn a ban on the footage of the Wakely Church stabbing. The e Safety Commissioner Julie in Man Grant tried to extend an injunction on this, yet the court ruled in Elon Musk's favor.
Joe, this is an important win for free speech because.
The government wanted this footage of a news event banned, not just in Australia but right around the world.
Yeah, it's a really interesting one. I thought, in what i've kind of conflicted as usual obs city on the fence.
No I'm not, but I thought I thought the government or the regulator, Julian mcgrant and the Safe Commissioner had perfect grounds, especially in the heat of the moment, the immediate aftermath of the stabbing, where we saw what looked like a couple of copycat incidents, and certainly we know that it was going viral, and that there were plots or alleged plots among this person's immediate peer group where they were allegedly watching videos terror videos like this one,
and they were using these to sort of rev themselves up to commit another unspecified attack allegedly allegedly. This is all being investigated and some of the before the courts. So I think there was a justification in you know, I'm a pragmatist up fundamentally. You know, I'm not going to say, you know, we're going to let this terrorist threat, you know, sweep through the community, because on principle, I
will not bend. However, I'm also very prop fary speech, so I find it quite heartening that the Federal court has said, look at this initial stage of the hearing, we're going to err on the side of free speech. But it's still not a complete Basically, all they've said is, she said, well, can you keep the video down until the case is hurt and until there's a final decision, And they said, no, we're not going to do that. The videos up until the actual final decision comes down.
So it's sort of in a bit of limbo at the moment. But I do think it's good that courts, which sometimes have the tendency to err on the side of suppression and keeping the public as mushrooms, so actually said no, in this case, we're going to err on the side of letting the public, you know, letting this be out there until we're determined. Otherwise, even if I do, you'll think there were grounds, especially immediately after the attack, for the video to be removed.
Especially in the str I mean, Liz, this is a news event.
You wouldn't, as I've said before, you wouldn't remove footage of nine to eleven or anything else. So it doesn't make sense that this one particular attack you'd remove when there are violent video games, violent movies, violent terror, oh yeah, you know, violent television shows about terrorism. All of that could incite young people not to mention the hate preachers and nothing's been done about them.
Absolutely enough alb and.
Easy wanting to turn Elon Musk into a convenient villain exactly.
And as Brett Walker, the lawyer for X, has argued, and I think anyone who's seen the video would agree, the video in question does not meet the legal requirements. It's not sufficiently violent enough in order to meet the legal requirements to be taken down. And Elon has said, ad nauseum, we do not break the laws in countries, okay, So if something is breaking the law, we take it
off my platform. This does not break the Laura in Australia, and I think this is a great early win for X because we're also watching in real time the E Safety Commissioner being taught the limits of her powers. Obviously the trial will go on to investigate the merits or I would argue the lack thereof of the extent of her demands. But let's not forget this woman is racking up a big bill for the taxpayer in court.
So we've got this going on with Elong Musk.
We've got Billboard Chris, the Canadian whose posts that she took down after he simply posted regarding someone who advises the UN on health matters and he posted about this guy's ponchon for best reality and orgies and all never of I don't know why this is funny, Joe, and he commented, you know, why is this person someone that should be advising the UN or anyone else for that
matter on health issues. This is what the E Commissioner chose to flex on and is now being taken to court because once again she reached outside her jurisdiction and wanted someone in Canada silenced on the platform X. So she's embarrassing us on the world stage. Everyone's watching this play out with X knowing that it's Australia's E Safety Commissioner.
We're the first country to have one, and I hope that it's a very large billboard writ large for the rest of the Western world, being like you don't want one of these, Okay, they're expensive and they just keep doing stupid.
Malcolm Turnbill hired her.
She is a woke you know, former company employee from the US, and you know what, we should be concerned And I think this body needs to go back to what it was, what it began with.
As a children's e safety.
I think some of those from such obviously some of those important, some of those decisions, do you know, do vergon censorship. But just to be clear, like the reason for taking down the attack in Wakely wasn't that it was particularly obscene or particularly graphic. It was that it was being actively used by the associates of this person to kind of rev up people.
They don't know that at all. They spread like wildfire. Everyone had seen it.
That's why the rise actly solians worldwide.
She would be far better used spending her valuable time trying to get rid of children's pawn in Australia.
That's something we can all back.
Let's have a look at this move by the South Australian premier to have a blanket ban on social media for children under the age of fourteen. The Malanascas government has appointed a former High Court Chief Justice to examine the legal pathways required to impose a ban Joe.
This does seem sensible.
I think that a lot of parents don't want their you know, their young children to be on social media, but they also don't want them to be left out or to be bullied. So if you have a government saying, right, you can't be on social media until you're fourteen, that's.
Kind of absolutely. I mean, that's right. The premise of all freedoms, and especially freedom of speech is you know, consenting adults. So immediately when you children, that's right. We do only children drive cars, buy alcohol, you know, watch pornography and we and I think we're getting to the point where social media is just as harmful, if not more so in some cases than a lot of those scourges. It's in terms of just the way it gears your brain. We've seen in terms of the way it hurts kids
academic performance at school. They focus their concentration, their sociability, exposure to bullying online mental health because you think that your life is crap, because all you're seeing is sort of influencers on Instagram, you know, living their best life and looking like everything's fantastic all the time. So again I think there's every the last thing you want to do. However,
I suppose make it more desirable. But as Melanascus points out, you know, you know, smoking became more desirable when it was banned, but that doesn't mean that more kids did it than when or if it was available to if you want, all the time they.
Were I restreets.
What do you think there's I think obviously it sounds great on the face of it. The big question, and this is what the Essay Inquiry will look into, is how to enforce something like this. So at the moment, if you want to open up an account on either Instagram or Facebook, it's by their own stipulation you have to be over the age of thirteen. Thirteen is the very youngest you can open one. But of course kids lie,
so that hasn't served its purpose. What would it take though, for the government to be able to police that?
And that's where we see things.
Like when the Morrison government first looked into this in twenty twenty two, again with regard to online abuse and how can we crack down on this? They had an inquiry, and one of the recommendations that came back was a credit system in which if you wanted to have a social media account, you would have to supply the platform with one hundred points of identification your driver's license, your passport, etc.
And so on in order to use your account. So that was very curious to see.
Troubles as well, how yes, but very curious to see because people also do have a right to privacy online, and it bears mentioning that a lot of people who choose to be anonymous online aren't just the trolls, they are conservatives, like libs of TikTok. Very famous case there who ended up being dotted and her identity was made known,
but known across the world. She's brilliant content, but she had chosen to keep herself anonymous because she knew by sharing this conservative content, I will be made to pay dearly in my personal life. So I think there's no way to enforce something like this without railroading people's Josie very quickly.
Budget tomorrow.
Yes it will be incredibly boring, but don't go anywhere.
Yeah, I'm knowing you to the lock up.
I think the truth is walking a fine line.
That's exactly right, and I think he knows that we'll be boring. He knows that he's really got to This is going to be a really tricky one to land. He's got to thread the needle, as they say he can't. He knows that people are crying out for relief because of the cost of living pressures that we all know too well. But of course any relief that he does
give runs the risk of being inflationary. So again it's just that catch twenty two cycle where people are hurting because of high inflation, so you help them, but that could cause high inflation, so you can't help them, but then they're hurting and again. So I think he's provided a very bullish forecast that by early next year inflation will be back down between two and three percent. I think that's pretty heroic.
God.
I hope he's right, and that's Treasury's forecast. The RBA is a bit less optimistic, but I think he'll really be trying to thread the deil. And to be honest, I think he's a perfect man for the job because he is a genuine moderate, a genuine centrist, and hopefully he will just sort of hold that middle line.
All right, Joe held a round the store. I thank you both so much.
Thanks chair.
Now after the break, Treasurer Jim Chalmers joins me ahead of tomorrow's high stakes federal budget. I'll ask him about the difference in that inflation forecast that Joe just mentioned and what it means if he gets it wrong. Stay tuned, welcome back. Well, it's the night before the federal budget and Treasurer Jim Chalmers joined me to speak about the cost of living inflation and whether they'll be a surplus. It's the only television interview he's doing today ahead of
tomorrow's budget. We spoke in the last half hour and here's what he had to say. Treasure thank you so much for your time this evening.
Thanks very much, Sherry for having me back on your show. Now.
We're in a cost of living crisis.
The RBA governor says that people are skipping medical appointments, Others are sending their kids to school without lunch. Families are even living in cars. What will you do as Treasurer to help vulnerable Australians in tomorrow's budget.
Well, really, the main motivation behind this budget is people doing it tough. And we want to do more than just acknowledge that things are difficult for people right now, we're actually doing something about it. So there'll be cost
of living relief in the budget. There'll be a tax cut for every taxpayer, but there'll be additional cost of living help on top of that as well, at the same time as we try and build much more housing, because that's one of the reasons why people are under so much pressure, that absence of housing.
Look you right at the top of your notes, the words forty one, the first two digits of the logan postcode where you live. You've just spoken about tax cuts. You've said that they amount to about thirty six dollars a week, the Stage three tax cuts that will take effect from the first of July. Do you worry that this won't be enough to lift people out of the sort of extreme financial stress that they're suffering.
Well, that's why there'll be more than the average of thirty six dollars a week. I think that's really important, that cost of living help that will come from that tax cut for every taxpayer, right up and down the income scale. All thirteen point six million Australian taxpayers will get a tax cut, and eighty four percent of those taxpayers will get a bigger tax cut than they were going to get before under the old Stage three plan from our predecessors. But tax cuts are not the only
cost of living help in the budget. There's more help on top of that, and that's because we recognize that people are doing it tough and really the centerpiece of this budget. It will be a responsible budget, but the centerpiece will be cost of living help at the same time as we invest in the future of our economy.
Can you be a bit more specific tonight you're handing down the budget tomorrow. What is the centerpiece cost of living help that Australians who are struggling will receive tomorrow.
People will see in the budget when we announce it tomorrow evening. But we know what the pressures are in our economy. This inflation, which has been a feature of our economy since before we were elected and continued after, is really the main thing that is putting people under such pressure. We know that and that's why the main purpose of the budget tomorrow is to provide those tax cuts for every tax payer, to give additional cost of
living relief. Because we recognize that people are under really quite extreme pressure, as you are right to outline, and we're going to do something about it.
Well, on inflation, the Treasury has a more optimistic outlook than the RBA. The Treasury forecasting that inflation by the end of the year will be under three percent, around two point seventy five percent, while the RBA has it at three point eight percent. Of course, Treasury Secretary Stephen Kennedy sits on the RBA board, So how do you explain this discrepancy between the Treasury and the RBA forecasts on inflation.
Yeah, it's very easy to explain, Sharon. I'm glad you've given me the opportunity because our political opponents either don't understand this, which is troubling, or they're lying about it, which is even more troubling. That the main difference between the forecast from the Reserve Bank and the treasure is that the Treasury's forecasts take into consideration the policies in the budget. Now, we speak with the Reserve Bank Governor from time to time about our settings in the budget.
We've been able to give her a briefing about what's in the budget. But because of the timing of the Reserve Bank's forecasts. They weren't able to include our policies in those forecasts that they released last week, and so the main difference is not necessarily a difference of opinion,
but a difference of timing. And so because Governor Bulleck released hers before the budget and because ours will be released with the budget, it means it can take into consideration the spending restraint that we're showing, the way that we're designing our cost of living health Our budget will be part of the solution to this inflation challenge, not part of the problem. The budget will put downward pressure
on inflation, not upward pressure on inflation. And that's why the Treasury forecasts are different, because they can take all of that into consideration.
So, just to clarify that, are you saying that the budget measures will bring down inflation by up to one percent?
We're saying that the design of our cost of living policies, combined with our spending restraint, the fact that we have been banking such a big proportion of the upward revenue revisions in the near term in the budget, all of this combined the really responsible and restrained way we've gone about things, means that we are putting downward pressure on inflation.
In the budget. The Treasury has been able to factor that in because it's got all of the effects of all of our policies, including our cost of living policies. The Reserve Bank timing of their forecast didn't allow for that, and that's the main reason for the difference.
So if you're saying that the budget helps the fight against inflation, does the budget therefore make a rate rise this year less likely?
Look, I focus on my job rather than the Reserve Bank's job. Obviously, they come to their own decisions about interest rate movements. They come to those decisions independently. I don't tell them how to do their job, and they don't tell me how to do mine, and that works just fine. I think my focus is on getting inflation down as soon as we can. We all want to see inflation moderate a further and faster. We've made really good progress together. Inflation is almost half what we inherited
when we came to office. We're actually ahead of the inflation forecast that we had in the last budget update. So we've made some welcome and encouraging progress on inflation. But it's not mission accomplished because people are still hurting. That's why the budget will be so focused on the cost of living, and it's also why it won't be
a slash and burn budget. Because people are under pressure and the economy soft, we can get on top of inflation without slashing and burning the budget, and you'll see that in what we release tomorrow.
Treasury, you've indicated that you're going to give substantial energy bill relief intomorrow's budget, that that will be one area of cost of living relief.
Of course, that is welcome.
If you reduce the price of energy, there's a reduction in that component of the CPI, which is what you've been speaking about. But it also means that people will have more money in their pocket which they could spend in the economy and then could raise inflation.
How do you balance that risk.
Well, first of all, people have to wait and see what extra cost of living help is in the budget. But if you look back to the energy you build the relief that we provided last time in last budget.
Instead of energy prices going up in the year to March by around fifteen percent, they went up by two percent, and so we made a difference and that was consistent with inflation moderating quite substantially, which I think is the main reason why I wouldn't agree with those who say that that kind of relief, you know, getting energy bills down,
adds to broader inflationary pressures in our economy. What we've seen in the past is it actually puts downward pressure on inflation, not upward pressure on inflation, and without preempting what is or isn't in the bar. Tomorrow, I think people will see that what we've been able to do, and consistent with the Treasury advice, is put downward pressure on inflation with our cost of living package without adding to broader inflationary pressures in the economy. There's more than
one way to provide cost of living help. If your mail checks to people, it's more likely to be inflationary. There are other ways to go about it which is smarter and which make sure that we are part of the solution rather than part of the problem when it comes to inflation.
Now, another initial that you write in your notes, this was reported on in the Cinn Morning Herald today is sh for steady hand. This is a reminder to keep inflation in check. It's well known that every minister, particularly in a labor government wants to spend in their policy area. Were you prepared to be unpopular with your colleagues to keep spending down to keep the budget contractionary.
Obviously, we're prepared to take tough decisions. I don't take them on my own. I've got an ex beneture of view committee. I've got a Prime Minister who takes a very responsible and restrained approach to the budget, and I've got a wonderful colleague in Katie Gallagher, the Finance Minister,
and we all work together. I think the whole government understands that we've got to get on top of this inflation challenge and that means being restrained, sequence targeted with our investments, and so we are able to do that in the budget that you will see tomorrow. I think there's always the case in budget so there are more good ideas than can be funded. Often you can only funder a small sliver of the good ideas that people put to you. I think that's well understood right across our team.
Yeah, makes it a very difficult task as treasure being the no guy, I imagine. Look, one of the biggest pressures on your budget is the ndis According to the fin Review, initial estimates said it would only cost around thirteen billion dollars. It's now on track to hit one hundred and twenty five billion in just a decade's time in twenty thirty four. If it does hit that, it would be three percent of GDP. Why not means test it like the IMF has suggested.
Look, we intend for the NDIS to continue as a demand driven scheme, and our overriding objective here is to make sure the NDIS can deliver for the people it was designed to help. That's our primary motivation. In order to do that, we've got to make sure we're getting value for money. We've got to make sure that we can afford the growth in the system. Nobody's contemplating hacking the system back. We're just talking about managing the growth
in the system. I really commend and pay tribute to Bill short And has done a mountain of work in this regard and across our cabinet. We're very conscious that the cost of the NDIS has been growing quickly, it will continue to grow quickly, but we need to make sure that we're getting value for money for all of those billions of dollars that we're investing to help people who need and deserve our assistance.
Look.
A centerpiece of the budget, also a centerpiece of the Albanese government's pre election pitch is the Future Made in Australia program. This involves investing in select companies, such as the billion dollars in the Quantum computing company. As you know, venture capital companies regularly invest in startups that fail or don't make money. How can the government outperform these professional investors and why risk a billion dollars of taxpayer funds in this way?
Well, what you're seeing the budget Tomorrow's Sharry, is that they are a range of different leavers that we are proposing and funding to make the most of this vast industrial and economic opportunity which has been presented to us
by the global shift to net zero. And so in order to grab those opportunities, there will be a whole range of policies that I'll announce tomorrow, are very coherent, considered a targeted set of policies, whether it's the tax system, whether it's the kind of investments that you describe, whether it's making sure that we're attracting and deploying private investment and private capital much more effectively in our economy. You'll see that it is a much more sophisticated and coherent package.
There are some elements of it which is about grants, but that's not the whole story. And what we're trying to do here is not replace private capital with public capital.
We're trying to use the leavers available to us as a government to attract much more private capital to invest in opportunities, whether they are industrial or energy or resources, or relying on our skills base, to make sure that we can create a new generation of growth and prosperity in this country, which recognizes that the world is changing, the pace of that change is accelerating, and we've got some pretty handy cards to play to make sure that
our people are beneficiaries of that change rather than victims of it.
Look hearkening back to a treasurer before you, when you encourage parents to have more children, why are you sending this message to Australians.
I'm really pleased you asked me about that cherry. I mean, I think it's one of those occasions you'd be familiar to it with your long experience in journalism. Sometimes the headline doesn't really capture the conversation.
You know.
I was asked whether, in the context of an aging population, would be better if birth rates were a bit higher. I gave the same answer that treasurers since Peter Costello have been giving. It's been uncontroversial for a couple of decades now to make that point. But more importantly than that, I said, it costs a lot to have kids, and people are making their own choices, and I understand those choices.
Not for one second do I want to tell people what to do with their own lives, and especially their own family lives. That's not how I roll, That's not how I go about this job. My job is to make sure that people can make choices if they want to, and that's why I'm investing billions of dollars in early childhood education, expanding paid parenta leave, paying the superannuation guarantee on paid parental leave, so that people have more choices available to them in the context of raising kids being
so expensive. I understand that, and so I'm not telling anyone what to do. I'm not giving anybody any free advice about how they manage their own families and make their own decisions. I'm simply making the point that raising kids is expensive and we want to make it easier. If that's what people want.
To do, treasure can we expect another surplus tomorrow night?
I have to wait and see, Shari. We've certainly been shooting for that, as you know, not as an end in itself, but because getting the budget in much better NICK helps us fund our other priorities. And as I've said a couple of times tonight, our big priorities in the budget are responsible budget, help with cost of living, and invest in the future, and getting the budget in much better Nick is part of that. Yeah.
Look, you reportedly went for a run at the ripe hour of three forty six am yesterday, three forty six. As Kevin Ryder's Prime minister famously only slept for three hours a night, how many hours are you managing at the moment.
Was not a lot of sleep at the moment, Sharry. But I don't expect people to get the violins out about that. Around budget time, It's not unusual for treasurers to only sleep a little bit, and I figure if I wake up earlier, I may as well make the most of it, So I go for a very slow trundle to It's a good way I think to clear the head before a big day.
All right, Treasure, I appreciate your time this evening, as you say, before your big day tomorrow.
Thank you so much, Thanks so much, Cherry, all the best, all right.
Coming up, the fallout from Australia's latest betrayal of Israel after voting in favor of Palestine becoming a member of the un Natasha Horstaff will join me after the break. Welcome back to the program. We'll pro Palestinian protest rupted during Duke University's commencement ceremony, with dozens of students walking out during guest speaker Jerry Seinfeld's speech.
Have a look.
Now, Jerry Seinfeld is Jewish and he is a supporter of Israel, but none of this was mentioned.
During his address.
So what were they doing at a Jewish famous comedian.
Outrageous.
Well, Joining me now to discuss the rise of antisemitism is barrister and UK Lawyers for Israel director Natasha Haustoff. Natasha, great to see you in Australia.
Welcome to the country. It's wonderful to be him in person. Thank you. Now, this latest clip with Jerry Seinfield at Duke.
This is just a reflection of the anti Semitism that we've seen right across university campuses here in Australia, in London, in the US.
Do you think this has always been there or what's driving this? Well, unfortunately, I think it's a long standing.
It's an instances like this that we see the mask of anti Semitism, if it were ever applied properly slip. These protests that manifest themselves as anti Israel are in fact targeting Jewish students on campus and public individuals that are recognizably Jewish. So this modern form of anti Semitism, which is supposedly acceptable, this due hate in the form of anti Israel sentiment that needs to be called out for.
What it is.
Now, we've just been speaking about the United Nations vote on Friday, New York time Saturday Australia time, where you know, Australia supported the UN vote, many other countries abstained, you know, not voting.
No.
What do you think you know I've said this that this is giving support to terrorism. You know, this vote wouldn't have happened if it hadn't been for October seven. We haven't seen any willingness by any of the Palestinian leadership, whether it's Hamas in Gaza or the Palestinian authority in the West Bank, to actually put forward or come to the table with plans for peace or concessions on Israel's right to exist.
Yet the UN has tried to move this resolution.
I mean extraordinary that that should be a concession the acceptance of Israel continuing to exist. It's important, I think, to be clear that Harmas has been very vocal about using the prospect of a two state solution as a platform to continue it's a nihilistic agenda against Israel, and the so called moderates in the West Bank have been funding the terror salaries for terrorists, including Harmas terrorists and others that cross the border on the seventh of October.
So the notion that there is any partner there for peaceful negotiations towards a two state solution has of course been utterly destroyed by what we saw seven months ago.
What's particularly concerning about the position that Australia has taken now is that it is out of keeping with a consistent policy that a negotiated solution is the only proper way forward and we've seen consistent steps against unilateral moves, even reversing the recognition of Jerusalem Israel's capital, up until this point, where unilaterally voting for this resolution in the General Assembly. We should be clear that this is a
political resolution. It doesn't have legal effect. Nonetheless, it sends a particularly powerful message and one that isn't in sync with so many of Australia's allies, the UK included, who abstained on this, the US who voted against it. So that is a remarkable change and very concerning, as you said wonderfully in the opening, that one that ultimately rewards the terrorism, brutality and the atrocities that we saw on the seventh of October.
We are seeing some international countries accuse Israel of war crimes and genocide. Many figures of the left join in these accusations. As an international lawyer, can you tell us what legal standing they have to make these claims?
Well, the claims are baseless in terms of legal claims. I would call them political claims, and they certainly fed into the UN Security General Assembly resolution that we saw, They fed into Security Council resolutions that have been passed. It's important to acknowledge that these also aren't legally binding. Only those passed on the Chapter seven of the Charter have legal teeth. But I think what we're seeing is
a continuation of these blood libels. I mean, there's no other word for it, these extraordinary accusations that accuse the victims of genocide, the victims being Israelis on the seventh of October, of perpetrating the crimes that were committed against them, so far as war.
Crimes are concerned.
While we have seen reports both of the United Kingdom government also of the United States government that have looked into allegations of breaches of international humanitarian law by Israel and that have stated in clear terms that there is an evidence to support them. By all accounts, the conduct that Israel has displayed in this conflict, as in previous rounds of wars in Gaza, has been beyond what Western allies could have achieved in similar circumstances, and the.
Death toll, the civilian death toll much lower even by proportion of the population.
Well, the death toll is a tricky one to interrogate because the only figures that are being repeated consistently by the international media come from the harmask controlled Ministry of Health. I doubt that international journalists would be repeating figures from ISIS or Arqaida with the forcefulness that they are parroting these figures. They have not only been shown to have been inflated and falsified in various reports from academics that
have interrogated the data. Even the United Nations has now walked back on some of the claims that has made with respect to the numbers of women and children. But critically, these numbers that her musta putting out do not tell us anything about the civilian to combatant casualty ratio. And you're absolutely right that the ratio that has been touted of one to one in this conflict is utterly unparalleled and testament to the measures that the IDF take to prevent civilian casualties.
All Right, Natasha, I'm out of time. Wonderful to have you in Australia. Thank you so much.
It's wonderful to be here. Thank you.
Now, after the breaker grim outlook for the pm is new polling data shows he's on track to lose more than a quarter of voters.
At the next selection. I'll break that down with my panel next.
All right, let's bring in our political panel Farmer, media advisor to Scott Morrison, Andrew Caswell and former Queensland Labor Secretary Cameron Milner.
Welcome to you both.
Cameron.
Let's start with the poll that your company, GXOS Strategies has done. It's shown that Anthony Albanize is on track to lose more than a quarter of his original voters at the next federal election. Took us through it.
Well, Char.
Most of the polls are showing not much movement in the primary votes since the last election, so we wanted to drill deeper. We want to understand what was really happening with the voters out there in Australia. And what we found was over one in four people who have actually changed their mind away from Albanize in just two short years. And then we went further to understand why, and we asked them what they thought of Albanese as the leader and they said, to you, his weak, useless
and a liar. That's what two thousand Australian said of the Prime minister. Three and four also said he was doing nothing about the cost of living and so the critical number one issue for voters. He's not doing enough on and they trust him to be able to do the job either, and the warring sign for Jim Chalmers. Seventy nine percent of respondents said that they didn't think tomorrow Night's budget would do anything to ease their cost
of living pressures. So we're in a crisis right now cost of living, with an untrusted, unliked prime Minister as Labour's main vehicle for sending their message out there, and voters who just don't think Labour's doing enough on the number one issue. That's what our poling found.
Shari Andrew Carswell, I just had the Treasurer on my show. He said that he is planning strong cost of living relief in tomorrow's budget. Obviously, this is going to be a delicate tightrope to make sure that the relief is targeted enough that it won't push up inflation.
Do you think that will be a risk?
Well, it's a huge gamble, Sharie.
And what we heard from the Treasurer tonight is that he is taking a big risk here by lowering the expectations on inflation well below what the RBA will say. And this is a risk for two reasons. The treasure assumes that the cost of living measures in his budget tomorrow will put downward pressure on inflation, and particularly headline inflation, which is his preferred measure, and that will lead to
a lowering of interest rates. But the problem is when the RBA gathers to consider monetary policy and the setting of interest rates, it doesn't really look at headline inflation.
It looks at trim demean inflation, which is.
Inflation stripping out all those short term volatile measures that impact cost of living up or down. What do you think is in his budget tomorrow that impacts that are volatile, short term measures that impact on cost.
Of living, his entire cost of living package.
So he says it's going to be putting downward pressure on inflation, and the RBA says, well, we're not even going to consider that in now calculations. And the second thing is is this core belief that these measures will actually put downward pressure on inflation. And you have a look at whether it's it's a relief for renters or
it's relief for those who have excessive energy bills. To make that assumption is to believe that the people getting this relief will suddenly not spend the money that's been freed up in their budget on other areas of the economy, they won't save that money.
That is the assumption here.
That is a huge assumption to make in the middle of a cost of living crisis when their bills to be paid. Yeah.
Well, I asked him about that when it came to the energy relief that you know it will bring down one component of the CPI. But is he worried that people are going to spend that money elsewhere and thus push up inflation. He was confident that wouldn't happen. What do you think, Cameron Milner?
Well, I think it's a huge risk. I think it's a huge risk and only time will tell. But if the RBA raises rates, labor is gone.
If the RBA goes up, labor's out.
You think that people will directly blame the government if the rate's absolutely.
On their watch.
Absolutely, Charry, Yeah, what.
Do you think, Andrew Carswell?
I mean the first interest rate rise was when you were in government, was when Scott Morrison was Prime Minister.
Well.
I think the issue that the Australain people have with this current government is the issue of competency. They've proven to be in combonent on so many levels, but the economy has been the one thing that they've managed to do okay on and that's all credit to Jim Charmers on that. So if they failed that test of competency on the economy, gone, I mean.
Cameron very quickly.
You know, we are seeing in every other policy area just these radical proposals. Charmers is the only moderate figure You've got ten seconds.
Oh look, and thank goodness we've got Jim Chalmers there because the left or in control of so much other agendas with his labor Albanese government.
Yeah, which we've been absolutely smashing them on, night after night. Andrea Carswell, Cameron Milne, I'm so sorry it was so quick tonight.
I'm not going to be back tomorrow. It's a budget. See you Wednesday night. Here's Paul Murray