Lately.
Welcome the Late Ball.
It's great to have your company. I'm James macpherson with Liz Stauer and Caleb Bond. Obviously, tonight, the big story is the federal budget released by Treasurer Jim Chalmers just a couple of hours ago. We'll talk about that, but there's a lot more to get through as well, everything from religious freedom to whistleblowers to tough new penalties for pet owners whose dogs go rogue. We'll talk about that
as well. Plus, I want to show you a clip from Joe Biden today where he made a startling admission about Kamala Harris. It may be the first time Joe Biden has told the truth in his life. We'll get to that. Plus we've got what's making news tomorrow, as you can imagine, most of the papers dealing with the federal budget. In fact, why don't we have a look at just a couple that have already come through. Let me show you the front page of tomorrow's Herald's Son
in Melbourne. They've got a rather pensive looking treasurer on the front page with that sort of you're buying this expression, they.
Great expense, we're buying it.
I believe they're calling him charmed and dangerous. He's trying to charm us with a three hundred dollars power bill rebate, but dangerous live because the debt is going to hit a trillion dollars and keep going up.
Indeed, he meant it when he said in his budget speech this evening, this year's a budget for the forthcoming decades. Yeah, because they'll be paying it off. We will be paying it off four decades. Another front page spash on the Daily Telly, what's up, dark Well, jobless Australians up, grocery prices up, government debt up, overseas migrants, green's handouts and labour's total tax weight also up. I mean, what is there anything good to say about this budget?
Caleb, help us out here. Is there one positive?
Well? I suppose that the one positive, if your Jim Chalmers, is that it is very much an election budget. You know, he tried his hardest not to offend anyone. But of course the problem with that is that there is nothing much in there to deal with the real problems we have. And we know that you This night, Budget Night is the one night of the year where the Treasurer gets his day in the sun. He gets to stand up for half an hour and tell all the lies and
spin he can fit into that thirty minutes. So I sat down tonight to watch Charmers give his speech, and well, I wasn't very heartened because within thirty seconds he'd started, as Liz just alluded to with the cliches.
This is a budget for the here and now, and it's a budget for the decades to come.
It's not really a budget for the decades to come. It's barely a budget for the next year to come. But of course what they're banking on is that we will have an interest rate drop within the next year or so and they can go off to an early.
Election sell the election as well.
You know, we've done the hard yards, we got inflation down, and we need your will.
Help to keep on going.
So of course the main theme tonight was nothing else but cost of.
Living, cost of living, cost of living, cost of living, cost of living, cost of living, cost of living, cost of living, cost of living, and.
Of course one of the major planks of cost of living measures was one that we heard about months ago. But mister Charmers, or doctor Charmers as I should say, spent a lot of time talking about tonight, and that is of course, the reworked Stage three tax cuts.
Deliver as a tax cut for every taxpayer. Our new tax cuts for middle Australia, all thirteen point six million taxpayers will get a tax cut, a bigger tax cut than they would have under the previous government. Our tax cuts are better for families and communities, women and young people, just as every Australian taxpayer will get a tax cut.
I mean no mention, of course, of the fact that he redrew Stage three tax cuts, so many taxpayers are actually getting less of a tax cut than they were originally promised when this government was elected elected on the promise, by the way, that they would not fiddle which with Stage three tax cut. But doctor Chalmers pointed out a group of workers who he believed would benefit especially from the changes.
This is about rewarding the hard work of our nurses and teachers and truckies and tradees.
I'd love to know how long he spent working on that line, or you know, the nurses and teachers, the truckies and the tradees well.
A lot of tradees of course.
Earn more than one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, particularly if you're a construction worker and those workers are getting less of a tax cut than they were originally promised by labor.
Well done.
But of course then it moved on to energy. And we've heard this so many times. No, it's got nothing to do with renewable energy that your power prices have gone up.
It's Russia.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine triggered the biggest shock to global energy prices since the nineteen seventies. We know Australian families and businesses have felt this pain, and that's why we've stepped in to help.
Oh God, save me, but step into help they apparently have.
Would you believe it.
If it weren't for this government, your power prices and I think you know how much they have gone up, would have gone up even more.
Electricity prices would have risen fifteen percent in the last year if not for our efforts. Instead, they arose an average of two percent.
Two percent, two percent.
Has anyone looked at their power bill recently and really believes that your power bill has only gone up by two percent? But there's an answer to this, Oh my god, what can we do?
Were the government? We've got money. Why don't we just give it to you?
From July one, Australians will receive an energy rebate of three hundred dollars and one million small businesses will get a little bit more. The ABS has shown how cutting energy bills directly cuts inflation two.
Three hundred bucks.
It doesn't really make up for the increase in your power bills, does it, even though apparently they only went up by two percent extraordinarily, And he says, look, it's actually anti inflationary. It's a real slight of hand that the boffins who work this out on paper say it's anti inflationary, because of course it means that power prices are actually less so when they're working out the rate of inflation, the contribution of power to that is less
than it otherwise would have been. But it means you have three hundred extra dollars cash in hand to go and spend elsewhere, so that money is still swimming around in the economy. It's not really anti inflationary. But let's not forget the government did promise a decrease in your power prices, and of course they couldn't actually deliver that, So why don't we just give you three hundred dollars instead, it's really similar to that number.
They promised your power prices would go down.
Households will benefit by two hundred and seventy five dollars on Apple reducing power prices by two hundred and seventy five dollars, price by two hundred and seventy five dollars two hundred and seventy five dollars two hundred and seventy five dollars a year, two hundred and seventy five dollars, two hundred and seventy five dollars a year.
Never mind all that, you're getting a three hundred dollars rebate.
Aren't you lucky?
Even if you're malcom turnable, Even if you're earning three, four, five, even twenty million dollars a year, you get three hundred bucks. Aren't you so lucky? And of course, we need other industry in this country. We've lost our manufacturing.
Et cetera.
So we're going to turn to the one thing that has made your power bills more expensive.
Renewable energy a crucial part of a growth agenda, which is all about attracting investment in key industries making our country are Renewable energy superpower.
Of course, we're about the only country in the world that would want to be a renewable energy superpower, because don't forget most other Western nations have agreed to increase nuclear power threefold by twenty fifty, going after net zero by that time. Australia is one of the only countries of all our allies who said we're not going.
To do it.
No one else wants to buy into a dot there's an open market for Australia to get on board with. And of course we need people to fill up these sectors and run all these quantum computers that were apparently going to build. So we're going to get loads more people into university tonight.
We're setting a national target of eight out of ten workers achieving a tertiary qualification by twenty fifty, and we're backing it in with new funding reforms to meet this.
Goal eight out of teen workers by twenty fifty. I hate to break it to your doctor charmers, but in twenty twenty two university enrollments where the lowest they had been in nine years. I think you're going to have a gargantuan task pulling that one off. And I mean you won't even be there in twenty fifty anyway, so what does it matter. You can promise whatever the hell you want, and then of course we had to draw
it all out. The NDIS, which keeps ballooning out and out and out, will be sixty billion dollars a year within a few years time. Next year it's going to be forty nine million. But it's time to crack down on.
The roots and ensuring that every dollar invested in the NDIS goes to those who need it most, which is why we're providing four hundred and sixty nine million dollars to keep working with the disability community and the states and territories to crack down on fraud and exploitation.
Short and look thrilled there, doesn't it?
I think I see, I think I see forty nine million before it's forty nine billion dollars. The budget for the NDAs will be in the next financial year. So there's beending four hundred and sixty nine million, which is nearly ten percent of the NDIS budget to stop people defrauding the NDIS. I mean, it's hardly a working system, man, is it?
Give me a break?
Anyway, We'll have more analysis on the budget later in the papers segment, and there's plenty of it to get through it.
Can I just say I've watched all of Sky News coverage tonight on the budget, all of it has been great, but that five minutes was the best budget spots I have seen.
Again, you're five.
Peter Dutton doesn't even need to talk tomorrow. He just needs to replay that little.
Spirit and I didn't even pay him to say that. Can you believe it? My budget is looking much better than doctor Charmits.
From now on.
Instead of Charmers getting half an hour for the budget speech, five minutes, Roler Bond can do it, so can you, buddy? Well to the news of the day today where we have a whistleblower story and you know I don't love many things as.
Much as I love a whistleblower story.
Well, today, former military lawyer David McBride was sentenced to almost six years in jail for being the whistleblower who exposed Australia's war crimes in Afghanistan, where he was deployed twice in twenty and eleven and two thousand and thirteen. How disgusting is our.
Government for prosecuting this man?
In twenty nineteen, Labor promised that they would put together a whistleblower protection agency.
Well, that never happened.
And then in twenty twenty one they promised that if we elected them, they would make whistleblower laws really, really tight, so those whistleblowers could blow all the whistles that they wanted.
That never happened either.
Then they got into power and their Attorney General, Mark Dreyfuss decided, I'm going to have a look.
I'm going to have a review at our secrecy laws.
And he decided then that actually, if the whistleblower undermines trust in the Australian government, undermines the community's trust in Australian government, then I will prosecute them. So what are they supposed to blow whistles about, Dreyfuss all the great things.
The government's doing behind closed doors. I don't think so.
Of course, what he's really saying is, if you really knew what went on here Ozzie's, you wouldn't trust us. So we're just going to make a damn well sure you never find out. And I can't think of anyone better to explain David McBride's full story to you than an organization who calls themselves the Australian government and makes these ads saying this is what government wouldn't speak like if they were honest.
Our whistleblower laws are here to protect you.
Just kidding.
You'll be prosecuted, bankrupt did and spend the rest of your life in jail. Old, No, seriously, you're like David who blew the whistle on war crimes in Afghanistan, including the murder of children. An official inquiry confirmed the war crimes took place. The journo who published the war crimes got an oam, the soldier who allegedly committed the war crimes got a medal, and the guy who helped reveal the war crimes he's about to get life in jail.
How else was he meant to blow the whistle? He wasn't silly, And David, we prevented him from using key evidence and witnesses to defend himself under the Act because national security. They're by forcing him to plead guilty. And that is why the first person to based jail in relation to war crimes in Afghanistan isn't a war criminal, but the guy who exposed the war crimes.
For shame Australian government.
Of course, David McBride did seek protection under the Public Disclosure Act twenty and thirteen.
Now, the way this Act works is that.
It doesn't It's literally just there to protect the government really, which is why in the ten years that it's been in force it has protected exactly zero whistleblowers. Well, David, you can stand proud and tall, buddy, and he clearly is.
This was his quote today.
I had never been so proud to be Australian as today. I have broken the law, but I did not break my oath to the people of Australia and the soldiers.
Who keep us safe.
Let's remember Albanzi's tweet back in twenty twenty after the shocking revelations brought to us by the Brereton Report.
He said, we must act on.
The Breton findings and never hide from the truth of our past.
We must also face the future to make sure that this.
Never happens again.
We owe it to those brave soldiers and whistleblowers who stood up, spoke out and said enough, Well you've got egg all over your face, you big fat liar. Of course, the reason why the government takes these prosecutions against these whistleblowers for exposing their own corruption is because well, firstly they hate their corruption being exposed. But secondly, gotten to make an example out of these people, don't you, which is why the judge today said that exact thing.
Lastly, a lego.
Respender must be a very cold day in hell, because here I am siding with a Teal also tweeted today, the prison sentence handed to David McBride sends a chilling message to whistleblowers across Australia.
David is the only.
Person to go to jail for Australian wrongdoing in Afghanistan. His only crime was exposing the truth. We need a better whistleblower protections urgently. Do you think they're gonna be forthcoming? Do you think they're gonna be forthcoming? It's Julian assanj all over again.
They just wipe their hands and be like.
Well, you exposed us, so now we throw you under the bus.
The irony in this case is that David McBride was not intending to get Australian soldiers in trouble. As I understand it, He licked this information to journalists because he was concerned that the military were unfairly targeting soldiers for killing Afghani's in self defense. So he liackd this material. Then the ABC used it as he had not intended to publish allegation sold and it became an anti soldier thing.
So that's a great irony in this. He licked information to get result A and ended up with result B. Now he's in jail. I guess he still believes it's worth it.
Yeah, Look, he probably should foreseen what was going to be done with that information when he leaked it. I mean, any self respecting journalist looking at that would have looked at it and said, well, I've got a war crime story on my hands.
Here was pretty obvious.
Look, if you are willing to take the risk of stealing that information and leaking at which he did, you should also be willing to take the fall for that. And as far as I can tell, mister McBride is more than willing to take the fall for that. He hasn't resiled from what he's done.
He didn't go to Spain for a year and then reluctantly came home.
But he came and he's faced it, and he's taken it very well. The concern I have is that if you say it's open the floodgates and every whistle blower is protected for everything, do you not then create a situation where there are no stage secrets and therefore every other foreign power is aware of everything we are doing. And we operate in a world where we know other
countries are very secretive about what they do. So why would we voluntarily give as much information as we can to countries like China then use that information against us when we can't do the same.
Tradition to use our war crimes in Afghanistan one of many wars in which we're just being America's little bitch and following them into these things, having absolutely no idea why we're really there except oh, America's there. We inevitably find out ten or twenty years later after these wars the fact that America was just shoring up its own selfish interests and we were just there playing patsy anyway, and Afghanistan is absolutely no exception. How is China going to benefit from that?
Well to that question, Judge Mossip, in his rulings, said that because there were hundreds of documents leaked, right, So he said that in those documents there was tactical information which could give an advantage to an adversary. He also said it would cause our partners to lack confidence in the Australian military that their secrets were not safe with us. So there were two practical ways in which the judge state, why compromised Australian security?
Why do you pretend, on the one hand to be.
Like, yay, whistleblowers, We've got protections in place. You've literally got these whistleblower laws, you've got the Public Disclosure Act, pretending like, hey, if you want to bust us, we'll actually.
Look after you. There there was the guy.
Richard Boyle I think his name was, who uncovered he was the whistleblower uncovering what the ATO was doing, taking way too much money off small businesses, etc.
And so on.
They prosecuted him, even though they then got their act together tidied up everything he brought to the nation's attention, so thereby admitting yes, what he said was right and now we're fixing everything.
Thanks for that.
They prosecuted him any way as well, because he put together the documents showing what they were doing.
Sure, crying out show, but there's a difference between talking about whether the ATO has taken money it shouldn't have taken from Australians and then state secrets in relation to the miller.
I mean, the accusation has no.
Difference when it comes to this is a government who in this no difference.
There's no differences.
I'm talking about the premise of my argument is I'm talking about this is a government who said they were going to set up a whistleblower protection agency, who promised us, it was one of their election promises, that we're going
to make these watertight laws for whistleblowers. Then their Attorney General does it swiftly and says, well, actually, if you so much as undermine the community's trust in government, Jeep, as you do that yourselves every other day, by the way, then that is grounds for prosecution and I will go after you hammer and tong. Hopefully the matter the nature
of the whistleblower. And that is why I'm using the example of Richard Boyle, because in the eyes of this government it doesn't matter but that to do with Afghanistan or the ATO, because clearly they go after you anywhere.
But I tipted that's hypocritical, but surely we just can't people running around revealing state secrets all the time. I mean, if that's the road we go down, there will be no security for anyone at any level of the military or government ever.
And if danger road we go down, then they can get away with blue murder, which is exactly what they did in Afghanistan and expect to get away with it.
So you're saying everything should be on the table and every foreign power should be aware of everything that goes on at every level of government.
No, because obviously we don't have whistleblowers coming out of our ears.
It happens very rarely, sadly.
Well, that's the concern is that you start to give permission for people. And the judge made this comment about McBride. He said McBride was very opinionated and very strong in those opinions.
He wasn't sorry for what he did. Neither is Julian Asanja. Neither should either of them be.
So if you don't want your corruption exposed, hot tip, just don't be corrupt.
So the danger becomes that individuals who are trusted with classified information, they're the ones who make a judgment call about what is worth leaking into the public era arena and what is not and you can't.
Definition of a whistleblower. Yes, that is what they do.
We're just saying it's incredibly problematic because, especially when it comes to military secrets, you're going to have stuff that is leaked that is not pertaining to the relevant situation. I you, Julian Assam's leaked a whole lot of stuff.
And nobody can point to it also linked by that harmed us in any way.
And McBride also leaked stuff which the judge said compromised Australian military tactics. So you've got a great conundrum for governments to work out how to make whistle blower legislation effective but still safe for the national secret Yes is.
Stop being a hypocrite and just get rid of it all because you don't intend to protect them at all.
That's fifth.
That's all I'm saying.
You are being hypocritical being like, oh, yeah, we care about this one hundred percent.
Transparency. Transparency is our middle name.
We've got these laws in place, we're talking about a protection agency.
We've got the public disclosures.
No you're not, but that's that's the whole hog or don't do it at all. While we're on the topic of transparencing, and of course on budget night there's lots of money being thrown around. We found out today that the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras in Sydney has copped more than a million dollars from the state government because that's the amount of deficit that they have found themselves in now. Of course, the Game and Lesbian Mardi Gras has been going in Sydney since nineteen seventy eight. It
is a long running and popular event in Sydney. But of recent years the organizing committee have sort of moved away from the original point of Mardi Gras, which was to fight against discrimination against gay and lesbian people, and they've bought into all sorts of other social issues, including ones that actually affect gay and lesbian people negatively, like you know, giving their support to Gaza, a place where you don't go terribly well if you are a gay person.
What a surprise that they would find themselves running out of money because they've kind of lost sight of what the event actually is. Now, I know, state governments give millions of dollars to all sorts of events to prop them up because they're loss making ventures, but it's deemed that they're good for the state in terms of tourism and publicity, et cetera, et cetera, and a lot of people go to Mardi Gras. My concern, though, is that it has turned into nothing more than an activist arm
for whatever the current issue is. And this year it was of course Palestine, and then it was police because you had a fellow who was allegedly murdered by a copper, or two people who are allegedly murdered by a copper, And so where the Mardi Gras decided we're not going to allow police to march in the Mardi Gras this year. Then you had all this uproar from gay police officers saying, well, are we even part of the community anymore?
On and on and on and on it goes.
There is an argument that something that has become so political beyond the point of the demonstration doesn't deserve the public money it's receiving.
I always thought that Marti Gras was a raging success, but to find out, as you said, by June they'll have a one million dollar deficit. They received a million dollars in February from taxpayers, and prior to that, taxpayers provided extra money to keep them cash flow positive in the lead up to the parade. So you know, the organizers when asked what's going on, they said cost of living pressures, which, well, I mean, we can all relate to that. So why don't they just get quantus to
fund them rather than the TACKA payers. But I mean, you see the great irony here, right, You've got an organization which is all about equality, equality, but give us special funding for us to do our thing. Well, you can't have it both ways. So maybe the Mardi grass should do what the rest of us are expected to do and live within their means.
Yeah, well it just comes down to poor management. Really.
Mardi Gras went bankrupt in two thousand and two. It's not the first time that the government has bailed it out, Like you say, in the name of tourism, Caleb, But it becomes ridiculous when you have such it has become inherently political. Then it becomes ridiculous for the taxpayer to be funding it to the tune.
Of millions of dollars each year. It just doesn't make any sense.
Well, Clovermore said it's her goal to help it become sustainable. Well, as you said, it's existed since nineteen seventy eight, how long do you need to be sustainable? And the New South Wales Arts Minister John Graham, he said the Mardi Gras will be supported by the New South Wales taxpayer because it's a celebration of inclusion and community. We're making half of New South Wales pay for an event they don't like. Is hardly a way to celebrate inclusion.
You're included at least you're a police officer.
Of course. It's exactly talking of stupid. And every time we think we've reached peak stupid, we open our eyes and realize we're only at base camp. But we have great footage of a conservative YouTuber. Her name is Schuler and she went on to university campuses to ask young men if they would donate a testicle to transgendered people in order to fight toxic masculinity. Now, can you imagine a more ridiculous proposition? And yet how ridiculous have our university students become?
Would you donate one of your testicles to and if it transmit and help fight toxic masculinity?
I'd have to know more about the medical implications of me like having procedure to get rule my testicles, but like, I'm not against the idea entirely true.
Yeah, I mean I'm a transpomant, so yeah, yeah.
If I ever felt like I definitely was like, you know, I don't want kids, and you know, somebody explained like, you know, if I if I knew that things were going to function properly afterwards, I don't see a problem with that, right.
If there is a risk entail too, yeah, I'd consider Yeah, probably the way.
Cal I've got to ask you, would you donate a testicle to fight toxic masculinity?
No, not to fight toxic masculine.
My one question would be my ones with someone after My one question would be does it mean that it hurts half as much if you copy kick in the nuts?
If you get rid of one of them. That might be the only thing that would be some pro again.
Realized we're just I mean, they've got a girl with blue hair. They're being asked about LGBTQ issues. Do you reckon? They were just petrified of saying the wrong thing, so they feigned I'd think about it, or do you reckon? They were they've seriously been so brainwashed by work ideology they would.
Water bordered with said ideology.
Do you have to be a delusional You have to be you are willing to part with one of your nuts for the cause. I mean, do you do you actually think that's going to be somehow soldered on to a trans man.
I don't think so.
And yet some of them put absolutely no thought into it whatsoever.
They're just like, well, if it's for the cause, it's for the cause.
I guess they've got someone a woman standing there wearing the most obviously fake blue WI right, Like how they did not look at this woman and go, clearly, this is satire.
That's how far gone these people are.
And then comes out with this ridiculous suggestion, would you donate a testicle to stop toxic masculine? I mean, it's like going into a shopping center and saying, would you give me the three of your fingers to stop children being hungry in Africa? I mean, what difference is the corners? But they're not comparable causes. But giving a test you to get rid of a toxic masculinity? I mean, is she suggesting that It's a bit like when you're new
to an animal. You know, when your horses start going mad, so you geld them to calm them down.
You know, if every man.
Gets rid of a testicle, Well, I don't know that's going to solve every problem.
I think your most pertinent comment is how did they not recognize it was satire? I know, but the world right now is so mental that satires. Well I was dead, So you believe pretty much anything.
And you can't question anyone, of course.
I mean, you know someone says I've got the degree in gender studies and I wear.
A blue wig. Well you must be obeyed.
There's nothing potentially wrong with you whatsoever. And you had these moments and you think, my god, the world has gone to hell in a hand basket. We need someone quick, smart, who knows what's going on and consort all of this out.
And who would have thought it would.
Come in the form of the Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee sine Long. Now we know that Singapore, of course, they go very hard on things like crime. If only we could take the Singaporean way up in Queensland, for instance, where they have serious issues with the youth crime. I think in Singapore, you know, if you spit your chewing gum on the pavement. They cut your hand off or something. Right, you know it's serious, but you learn your lesson when you lose your hand.
Right, But I don't think they cut your hand off or something like that.
We get well, you know, same thing.
But over in Singapore they do not take kindly to woke ideology, and the Prime Minister has put it more succinctly, I think than I have seen it anywhere else.
In the West, they've got a movement called warkness, where you're super sensitive upon other people's issues, and you'll become hyper sensitive when other people somehow others say things or mention things, or refer to you without the respect which you or your super subgroup feel you or entitled to. It leads to very extreme attitudes and social norms, particularly in some academic institutions universities. You talk about safe spaces, you talk about appropriate pronouns, you talk about I'm about
to say something which may be offensive to you. If you don't want to hear it, perhaps you would like to leave now, and life becomes very burdensome. And I don't think we want to go in that direction. It does not make us a more resilient, cohesive society with a strong sense of solidarity. We must be more robust.
Sorry I gave Singapore a little too much credit. They don't cut your hand off. They just kind of supply. If they kind of hard enough, you might lose your hand. But he just puts it so well in the problem with woke ideology, and it's amazing. Here we are sitting in the West going, oh, what can we do about this?
And a bloke who is running a small city state that you know, in many ways has civil society sorted out better than anywhere else in the world, just cuts straight through the rubbish and says, this is why it's bad. If only we had more leaders like him.
We mentioned two things, resilience and cohesion, and no one can tell me right now that we have social cohesion in this country. And you certainly can't tell me that our young people are resilient and able to you know, sort of well things slight.
They're willing to give away their testicles of so wonderful to hear wokeness very politely, as is their beautiful cultural way, trying to describe the utter insanity of they had this.
Movement called wokeness.
But delves, which means they're not very robust. No, they're not very robust at all. Some very important news we have to get to tonight. The UN has double checked its figures on the death count in Palestine, and would you believe it, the numbers they were getting from Hamas aren't true. They cut them by almost fifty percent.
This is the quote.
The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs has revised its data attaining to the number of Palestinian casualties in the seven month old Garza War, reducing almost by half the number of women and children it previously said were killed in the hostilities between Israel and the Iranian backed terror group Hamas. So get this, they had claimed that fourteen thousand and five hundred children.
Had been killed since the war began. Two days later.
Early this month, the UN agency nearly cut the number in half. They're now saying that some four nine hundred and fifty nine women seven thousand, seven hundred and ninety seven children have been killed in the war so far. Now, how the only way to get in figures that inflated is to be taking the numbers of a terrorist group and publishing them as if it were fact, while Israel keep saying, we are actually doing everything we can possibly do, while these mongrels use the human beings as shields to
save civilian lives. We're not here to kill civilians. We are here to annihilate Hamas. And yet the UN recognize the.
World over has been trumpeting the.
Harmas figures and are responsible for so much of the uprisings we see across the West as people have believed these figures.
Unquestioningly, the figures that the UN have been promoting have caused huge anger against this They've led to charges of Israel using disproportionate force. They've also been the basis for claims of genocide, and what the UN have done is
basically just repeated Hamas talking points. If the new figures are true, then it would be about one to one in terms of civilian casualties and terrorists Israel claimed they've killed, which would make Israel in terms of urban warfare, one of the most brilliant, caring military forces in the history of urban warfare. So this is a massive back down
by the United Nations. But my question is, even if these numbers are half what they say, how do they know that that's correct, because they don't have any way of verifying on the ground what the actual numbers are. So it's curious that they've halved them. But how do they know that those numbers are correct?
They probably don't.
But I mean, the UN is just the most Johnny cum Lately organization when it comes to this war, isn't it. I mean, what was it January or February when the UN finally decided that they were concerned that on October seventh there may have been gratuitous violence in the form of rape and murder, etc. Against Israeli women. I mean, we already knew all of that, and it took them four five months for the UN to come out and say, oh, we have a problem here.
Oh we condemn this.
I mean, you know, we know what the UN thinks of Israel. What's the number sixty times they've condemned Israel or probably more I think, And how many times have they condemned Palestine. Well, they've just decided, they've recommended to the Security Council.
That they should be included in the UN.
All you have to do to be recognized by the UN, apparently is commit terrorist acts.
Who knew it was so easy?
Yeah, I think before we go to a break, let's talk about a quick story from your home state, South Australia, where if you own a dog and your dog attacks another animal or a person, you face fines of twenty five thousand dollars. That's the owner of the doll If your dog attacks an other dog or a person and causes injury or death, fifty thousand dollar fine. If that dog had already been labeled dangerous and you've failed to keep it from attacking. Is that fair? Do you reckon quick?
Let the dogs?
No, I'm sure they'll call off any future planned attack.
No, it's down to the owners. The owners control the dog, it's their animal. You shouldn't have a dangerous animal. The current penalty is two hundred, say two hundred and twenty five hundred dollars in so they're increasing the penalty by ten times. You know people running around with pit bulls
and all these sorts of things. There should be a major disincentive to allow dangerous dogs out in public, and a twenty five thousand dollar fine if your dog attacks someone sounds like a pretty good disincentive.
If you're mainly recognizing a pet almost as a weapon. If you're waiting around eat and that's responsible. If you're allowing a pit bull or a dog like that, just naturally aggressive, to be off a leash, then you irresponsible.
You should be now, well, somebody has to be responsible. And some of these attacks result in fatalities otherwise being horrifically scarred for life, So it makes sense you've got to punish someone. And in the nature versus nurture argument, obviously, if you're on the nurture side, it's always always the owner's responsibility.
I mean, look, twenty five hundred dollars fine if your dog kills someone. If you killed someone with your car, you're out for either murder or manslaughter. But your dog does it and you copp the same fine you'd get for sort of serious drink driving or something. It seems
ridiculous you deserve to have such a serious fine. If we're not going to put down every pitople in this country, which I believe we should because they are dangerous dogs, then a large fine is about as good as we're going to get.
Well, Calibond will never get such a fine because he owns a cat and cat cat men. We're going to go to a break when we come back. We'll look at what's making news in the papers tomorrow. It's the budget, of course, but we'll look at how the papers are reporting Jim Chalmer's speech earlier this sevenon that's coming up in a moment. All right, well, let's look at how the papers are going to report Jim Chalmer's budget speech. Liz, what does the Australian say.
The Australian does not disappoint James bug it on after pay is the main headline. Gotta love that Jim Chalmers has splashed seven point eight billion on new cost of living measures, including three hundred dollars energy subsidies for every household and boosted rent assistance designed to artificially lower inflation and heap pressure on the Reserve Bank to cut rates ahead of the next election. Of course, this budget is all about trying to win said election.
It's all a sugarhead.
Everyone gets a pony, some of you get a pony for your pony. It's incredible, and yet I'm just looking at our national debt and my eyes are watering because this does nothing to address that whatsoever. It is all about winning the next election and giving everyone.
That quick sugar hit.
Being like oh, we have a surplus, probably the last one you'll see in a very long time, especially if you stick with this government. I was actually talking to someone today and brace yourselves. I'm glad you're both sitting down. I was talking about the National.
I literally said to me, no, we we have a surplus. Good glue die.
Oh no, they literally thought the nine point three billion dollar surplus is us being debt free and having that little golden egg just sitting there like a nugget.
I'm still not over it.
How are we supposed to get ourselves out of this mess when the average Australian doesn't even realize how big a mess we're in.
The pointed that you shared that conversation because you told me you'd keep that in.
I can't.
I kind of admire that.
The wishful thinking or the blissful ignorance, you know, they say, and we sit here every night and talk about the troubles of the world, and you watching at home.
Of course, informed that's why you're watching us.
So we have to deal with the troubles of the world while others just skip through fields of daisies. But when you talk about the debt, right, and I mean this is such an election budget. And this is going back to the point we made earlier about you know, this is not just a budget for today. It's a budget for decays. It's barely a budget for the next few months. It is literally, let's just get us through to what will hopefully be an early election. Now there will only be an early election.
I believe if interest.
Rates go down that will be the trigger for an early election.
But it's it's highly likely.
I mean, a charmer says we'll get some inflation down to two point seventy five percent by the end of the year. I think that's a bit of a lofty ask, and without that coming down, you're unlikely to get that reduction in interest rates. But beyond what has been put forward here, which is all about winning that election, there is nothing. There is no plan whatsoever. There's no plan
for debt reduction. There's no future proofing. I mean, net debt goes from this financial year four hundred and ninety nine point nine billion dollars to six hundred and ninety seven point five in financial year twenty seven to twenty eight, right, it just keeps going up. Real debt is more than a trillion dollars. There is no plan whatsoever.
Chalmers is betting everything on this budget in that we're distracted by some shiny things three hundred dollar energy rebate. He's betting that inflation goes down, then they go straight to an election because they've proved they can manage the economy. But if inflation goes up, then he is completely screwed because he's bet everything that it won't. You've got the Reserve Bank warning that we can't have any inflationary pressure. He'll be blamed for it and then they're in big trouble.
Speak of elections, it's not just Albanezi who's excited about this budget for an election, but Stephen Miles is very excited about the federal budget because of course Queensland has a state election in October, and he tweeted tonight all Queenslanders will now get a thirteen hundred dollar energy rebate. He actually said, the olben Eezy government has these the words topped up our one thousand dollars rebate with another three hundred dollars.
My idea was so great theave.
Copy topped it up.
Let's go to the front page of the Adelaide Advertiser The headline says, three hundred dollars drop in the ocean.
Voters whether in huge bill rise, will get a seventy five dollars a quarter energy bill rebate as charmers bets the next election on the modest cost of modest is true cost of living relief cutting through and of course they talk about how there's also the revamped Stage three tax cuts that the article goes on to talk about the fact that the gross debt will blow out to more than one point one trillion dollars, the Labour's budget surplus and the cost of living trying to deal with
the cost of living stuff, they've got this little budget surplus. Adam Bant today, let me show you an Adam Bant tweet because this is why Adam band should never be allowed near the national accounts. He said, Labour's budget surplus is your cost of living increase? With millions stuck in poverty? Do we have millions stuck in poverty?
Millions?
Wonder them?
Isn't this unable to afford rent, medication, groceries or degrees? Accurrently, if you can't afford a uni degree poverty, he says, labor are proud of hoarding nine point three billion dollars from people doing it the toughest. That's not responsible, that's cruel. So, according to the Greens, a budget surplus is cruel responsive because you are hoarding money.
Yeah, cut down death is hoarding.
What is responsible is spending every last pen.
And then some like this government hasn't done that.
But I just love this three hundred dollars drop in the ocean headline because we all know that's going to absolutely everyone. It hasn't mean means tested. Every bajillionaire in the country also gets this. I'm sure they'd happily forego it and give it to people actually in need and choosing between I don't know, eating today and paying their energy bill. But this government is essentially compensating us for their own energy policies. They're like, oh, well, look it's okay,
we'll give you free money. Hey, it's our money anyway, we'll take it.
We were promised to reduction in energy prices. Remate is not a reduction.
Rather than reduce the two hundred and seventy five, there's no reduction. They're now just handing out free money, being like, spend this voucher at the door and well that's some wrong.
So taxpayers are spending three billion dollars and then some in order to try and cover up a government failure, of course, and while the budget pours.
More billions into their jolly green dream, which is only going to result in more ex.
Courrect three hundred dollars.
You know, it's if you are earning fifty grand a year, three hundred dollars perhaps does mean something to you, sure, but if you're earning more than that, three hundred dollars is basically a drop in the ocean. And let's not forget of course that. Of course, he talked to broadly tonight about the changes to Stage three tax cuts and how great that is, and that delivers a tax cut to every Australian if you are one of those low earning Australians, so you know you've been delivered a tax
cut in these changes to Stage three. It's what fifteen dollars a week or something like. It is a minuscule tax cut that has been delivered by this government and they're crowing about it. And as Ross Greenwood pointed out straight after the Treasurer's speech tonight, even though you have had a tax cut, this is still the highest taxing government Australia has seen in.
Twenty three years.
Let that sink in, and that's largely because of bracket creep, because you know, as inflation goes up, of course your wages will have to go up to some degree, and so all these people have moved up into the next tax bracket. So that lovely pay rise you you just hand half of it straight over to the taxman. And it means that the federal government's income tax receipts in the last five years or so have increased in the order of thirty forty billion dollars. They've not raised taxes
at all. They've actually lowered taxes. But at the same time as they've lowered tax rates, they've actually dragged in more tax from you because your income has gone up. Let that sink in. Try and make it make sense, but they don't want you to know that because of course, well it's good for them.
They make more money.
And while we're on the theme of cost of living, let's go over to the Canvra Times tomorrow where it says election ready, pain relief, What a surprise, And then you see doctor Charmers in all of his doctor gear Treasurer Jim Chalmers has cast aside worries of a slowing economy to deliver a host of measures designed to help
millions of Australians struggling with the cost of living. Well, good luck really is all I can say, because even though he said tonight we're going to essential we have the level of migration, we have not seen any inkling of that whatsoever so far. I have no idea how he thinks he's going to achieve it. I have no idea how he thinks he's going to achieve the reduction in inflation he says he's going to deliver it could all go very Piershe.
The other little thing from the budget, because remember when Albanezi won the election and referendum on a Voice for Indigenous people, and we spent four hundred and fifty million dollars on the referendum, spent twelve months talking about it. That failed, But you'd think there'd be something in the budget for Indigenous people. Fifty one words, three centences regarding Indigenous people. We're going to go to a break when we come back. Joe Biden tells the truth about Kamala
Harris startling admission we'll show you that in a second. Okay, So most of us would admit that Kamala Harris is probably the dumbest politician in the world right now, but Joe Biden reckons he's found someone even dumber himself.
Joe Biden, I work for Kamala Harris.
I asked her to be my vice president. I knew I needed somebody smarter than me. I'll tell you what though, when he says he works for Kamala Harris, he doesn't work for Kamala Harris. He works for Barack Obama. But in terms of his acknowledgment that she is smarter than him, I reckon. That's the first time Joe Biden has actually told the truth.
Of it question first in that race.
But here was the Honorable Levy at a health forum talking to a pile of young people.
She's trying to connect and be cool, so she drops the F bomb.
We have to know that sometimes people will open the door for.
You and leave it open.
Sometimes they won't, and then you need to kick that door down.
Exteals my language.
Life advice from the Vice President of the United States of America.
Oh for I mean no, no, no, I can't do that.
I mean, come on, you know, surely you're in front of a crowd, you're the vice president.
You can swear as much.
As you want behind closed doors, but she always seems like she's on drugs. That's it from us, good night,