Late Welcome the Late Debate.
It's great to have your company on the Late Debate. I'm James Macpherson with this store and Caleb Bond back after a week away.
You want to every other show, Kalb.
I know it's terrible to be back with you.
Lotto was well rather enjoying going home at about seven pm instead of eleven.
But that's okay.
The things I do to keep our beloved Late Debate viewers entertained, I.
Tell you what.
We're glad to have your back, Caleb.
We're a lot to talk about tonight, including coming up a little later, a woman tries to snatch a Trump supporter's mega hat on the subway, and well, let's just say instant karma.
We'll show you what happened a little later.
Plus when we look at what's making news tomorrow, of course, most of it will be about the federal budget being delivered tomorrow night, including a story on tomorrow's front page of the Daily Telegraph explaining just how young people are the hardest hit by bracket creep, and the Australian newspaper reporting tomorrow that it may your green hydrogen project will shut down just days after Anthony Albanesi insisted it's all part of the made in Australia future that he's been promoting.
All of that a little later, but first, a Sydney council will vote this week to remove anti racism signs that they erected just a few years ago.
The Cumberland Shire.
In Western Sydney was one of a number of councils that spent thousands of dollars putting up fifty racism not Welcome signs. This was all done back in twenty twenty two over fears that Chinese people would be blamed for the COVID virus. Now, just on that. If you're so irrational that you think your Chinese neighbor is responsible for a virus that originated in Wuhan, you're hardly going to be convinced to behave because of a few street signs.
But Cumberland Shire have decided, having erected about fifty of these signs, they're now going to bring them down, which begs the question, why are they saying the street signs of worked racism has been eradicated, Or maybe they've changed their minds and decided racism is welcome after all, or just maybe and I think this one is that they've decided the signs were always silly and provide no practical purpose other than allowing, you know, virtue signaling counselors to
grandstand the man behind the motion to remove these signs.
Paul Jared explained.
Quote, I know there's racism within elements of our community, sadly, but having said that, is it an issue that we have to put values on telegraph poles. You might put them on the front door of your building, but putting them on telegraph poles isn't something we should be condoning, Which is a really good point caleberin Liz, like, if you're going to put signs up saying no racism, how many other morality tales should you display?
This is the thing that Cumberland Council have been telling on themselves for so long that they're thoroughly homophobic.
I mean, where is the homophobia.
Is not welcome? So clearly is lamophobic? Where's the islamophobia is not welcome signed? I mean it is clear that they condone all of these things because they refuse to put up any signs against it. As I said privately to this lot earlier, I mean, clearly the signs are now surplus to requirements because they put them up, they fix the racism. The racism is gone. Why do you need the signs anymore. The fact that anyone thought and
they're everywhere. They're all over Sydney, I assume there are in other parts of the country as.
Well as a national campaign.
The fact that anyone thought, yes, I know what we can do to solve racism, will put a sign up on a Telegraph poll and that'll finally change everyone's mind. You don't change people's minds with street signs. You change people's minds by actually talking to them and convincing them of things.
And I think this is a.
Major problem with a lot of the campaigning on the left is that they don't understand if you actually want to change someone's mind, you've got to challenge them.
A street sign is not challenging any one.
It's a slogan, and so often that's all they care about. It's the symbolism, the virtue signaling to say that, well, this is what I think. I mean, I think racism is bad, so I must be a good person. But you've not made any attempt to actually change a racist person's mind. You've done nothing to better the world. You've just made yourself feel better. It's why they talk about, oh, we've got to change the date of Australia Day. You know how many Indigenous lives that would help in this country,
big fat zero. But it doesn't matter because I feel better because I think I'm doing something better for the world. That's what these signs were all about. I'm glad someone has worken up to the fact that they mean nothing.
Well, there's always been people on the Cumberland Council that have known this was ridiculous. So they voted in February of twenty twenty two to put these signs up. But the previous year the mayor at the time, Steve christ two, which you'd be familiar with is an absolute legend, had used a tie breaker vote to vote them down. These signs aren't going up in our electorate. This is ridiculous. Why are you inferring that our council is racist to
begin with? That's the unspoken inference if you're going to put up such signs. So the following year, Steve christu is no longer the mayor, and in February the council went to vote again back in twenty twenty two.
And this time it got up.
So you can imagine that Steve Christu who is still on council, he is just not mayor.
And this fellow Paul Gerard, who's.
Been a counselor for fifty years as of September last year, congratsmate, talk about a lifetime of service.
That's incredible to put it up with all of that.
These guys, goodness knows how many numbers they've otherwise gotten on council. But smart counselors, no, there's no use me putting this to a vote if I don't have a chance of winning. These guys are part of the original contingent who votes to know in the first place. And it's funny to note that in February twenty twenty two, as Cumberland Council, I keep going to say, Choir Cumberland Choir, Cumberland Council was voting to put these up. Walara Council
were voting to take theirs down. Of course that vote didn't get up, it was lost by a vast majority. But those councilors in Wallara were doing exactly the same thing, saying, why are you insinuating that people who live.
In Wallara are racist.
We've had so many people complain to us and be like, why are these signs popping up all over Wallara? We don't where's the data to support this? Where's the racism outbreak? Is their violence? Is their name calling that we're unaware of, to which, of course, the councilors couldn't support their decision at all because as usual, it is, like you say, Caleb, just a virtue signaling exercise.
It is a problem in the Inner West where you are from and.
They I'm not sorry there, I'm not from where when you moved in there.
But they had to explain when they put these signs up in different streets, because I mean, it's fifty signs, right, so it's not every street, it's selected streets.
So they had to explain them.
When they put up a racism not welcome sign in a particular street, they weren't inferring people in that street had a particular problem with racism. But then what do you say to people of other ethnicities in streets where signs were not directed the council saying they don't care about protecting those particular people, which shows just how ridiculous this virtue signaling becomes.
I can't wait for the onslaught of racist people who now move into Cumberland Council because they've realized, they will realize fairly ap it's OK to go.
Yet it hasn't yet.
Been no no, I know.
And then hopefully Wednesday night.
Wednesday, hopefully we can bring you some good news.
You know. It's just that the force of those.
Signs has kept the racist people out of Cumberland for so.
Long, and that's going to be dagging away.
While we're talking about councils, and you'll remember back during the Voice referendum, there are a number of councils around the country that openly campaigned for the Yes side. I'm not aware of any council that's openly campaigned for the No side of the Voice referendum, probably because they figured that would be not a great use of taxpayers or rate payers money. But of course when you've got to left wing social issues to push well, rate pays money
is always on the table. And we have discovered some years later that one of the councils that was doing this the City of Melbourne. Of course, our mate Nicholas Reese is the Lord mayor there now they spend one hundred and forty thousand dollars campaigning for the Yes campaign. I mean, imagine what you could do with one hundred and forty thousand dollars. I was going to suggest you could employ someone in the town hall, but perhaps we don't want them to do that.
They've probably got enough of them already.
But you could instead to employ probably two people to go out and look after the parks and the playgrounds and whatever in Melbourne bike lanes. You go, well, we need definitely need more of them in Melbourne. Who could spend one hundred and forty k on helping to rip them out, starting to rip them out, I think, But this is what they are doing with your money, Because of course you can't make your mind up on your own. We need the council to take your rates from you
so they can tell you how to think. A spokeswoman for the council said that the council spent one hundred and forty grand on the campaign and this is how they justify it, with the majority of funding spent on educational information targeted those most likely to be uninformed about the referendum process, including non English speaking communities and older voters.
So in other words, they saw some vulnerable people and they thought they'd take advantage of them and shove it down their throats that they should go and vote yes. I mean, I thought we had the Australian Electoral Commission to inform people that there was a referendum on. If you weren't aware there was a referendum on and how you could vote in one, you probably were living under
a rock. You didn't need the City of Melbourne to spend one hundred and forty k to tell you that it was on, let alone how they wanted you to vote well.
And they spent this one hundred and forty k when they were promoting a fifteen million dollar deficit, So they spent money they didn't have pushing opinions they had no right to push on an issue they.
Weren't elected to address.
The Local Government Act governs how councils behave and I and we talked about it a couple of weeks ago. Blacktown Council Is voted to stop debating foreign policy issues, stop doing things to address things happening overseas. They just decided, let's focus on rates, roads and rubbish their relationary revolutionary idea, which makes you wonder why doesn't a local government minister move to change the legislation governing councils so they can't
do this kind of thing. Councils have no remit to be involving themselves in a federal government referendum, and yet they do these things over and over again.
We talk about it ad nauseum. It's a wonder why.
And maybe the coalition, if they win the federal election, maybe a local government minister will actually do something to rain these councils in.
No, because they're part of the problem. State governments push the same nonsense, so they're not going to smack down their local government cohorts. I mean this is something that this same issue was perpetuated, especially throughout the labor governments around the country. And it just goes to show because we all know the results of the Voice campaign now, don't we very comprehensive.
It doesn't work. So not only are you wasting rate.
Payers money trying to brainwash them, trying to indoctrinate them on their own dime, It simply doesn't work. But you're quite right, it should just be taken out of their remit none of this nonsense from you guys, Thank you very much. This is not what rate payers pay for six states in the US, which isn't that many when
you've got fifty states, but it's better than nothing. They have taken this to the policy level and they make sure that their local governments cannot engage, and not only on the ratepayer level, but tax pay funds aren't allowed to be implemented in a way that's going to try to sway the public psyche on matters like this, DEI matters and so and so forth. It's something that the government should do, and any government who was interested in.
Being effective at their actual jobs would do so.
It begs the question why is nothing happening? But speaking of things you'd like to see happen that, well, it's not happening if you're in Sydney beaches.
Get this.
The coastal councils have got together with the men's government and decided that at fifty one beaches across New South Wales they're going to take down the shark nets because the turtles are migrating during April.
We've had this squabble before.
How are turtles in any which way more important? Than protecting human beings from white sharks, tai sharks, bull sharks.
What is this nonsense?
And you've got to argue, why on earth are they doing this now? Notice it's the end of summer, so the peak season for beaches is over. So to me, it tells me they're actually not that confident in their alternative methods, which are going to be technologies of drone and smart drum lines. Just leave the nets up for crying out loud. Now will these alternative technologies work? I guess we're about to find out the hard way, aren't we.
I can't do this anymore. I gotta I gotta have a moment, a moment.
I'm in the turtles, the turtles who.
Might die so that people won't die. It's a disgrace, I.
Mean, for goodness sake. I know I've done this before. We've talked about this before. The animal activist loonies get on my emails and social media and whatever and carry on because I say this.
But we are number one. We're top of the tree. Evolution came through. We rose to the top.
We get to live on the land and we also get to go into the water. We make the decisions as human beings in this world as to how things operate. And you know, what would you rather? And this is you asked the greenies this question, and they always come back and say, well, it's the it's the shark's domain. You're going into his home, which sounds to me a bit like victim blaming. And you know, and then it's what is this since your fault, you silly? It is
you in the water? What you think you weren't going to get chopped on? But surely to save one human being is worth it. It doesn't matter whether you sacrifice one hundred turtles in the process.
No one wants turtles.
To die, but nor does anyone want a human being to die. And their suggestion seems to be that the turtles and the sharks have more right to be in the water than we do. Now, sure, they might be born in that water and they might live there, but by virtue of the fact that we're human beings and we've learned how to swim, we also have a right to be in that water, and we want to be safe.
When we do so.
The six councils that have signed up and agreed to this, Waverley Central Coast Northern Beaches, Southerlandshire, Woolengong and Randwick should hang their heads in shame because they are potentially putting people's lives.
At risk to save the turtles.
Again, I don't want turtles to die, but I don't want human beings to die, and that seems to be the alternative here. The greenis should just put their hands up and say, actually, I want people to die, because that's basically what they're on board that.
There was a scientist, Sheldon Dudley who did a major study of sharknets in New South Wales, in Queensland, and in South Africa, and he found shark nets were impressive in reducing the number of sharks and in all of those places, Queensland, New South Wales and South Africa, after the introduction of shark nets, shark attacks fell by ninety percent. He found him twenty one in New South Wales there were forty sharks that were caught in the net ziesa
sharks that they would want to catch. Of course, not all sharks are dangerous, but forty dangerous sharks caught and three hundred and thirty five non target animals, not.
All of them were turtles. A lot of them were just fish that you'd catch with your line and hook.
So for councils to be advocating for the removal of shark nets on some of our most popular beaches, I mean, including Bondai, their first responsibility is to ratepayers.
I'm not sure turtles pay rates.
No, if I can find a way to make them pay rates, they would be who.
Rely on tourism, who swim in those waters. The council was responsible first and foremost, in fact, only to protect them. Everything else is superfluous. Speaking of protecting people, the courts are supposed to do that, but increasingly people losing confidence in our magistrates and our courts to uphold justice and protect victims of crime.
What's happening recently.
Is more and more cases are being dismissed because the accused is pleading mental health issues. More than three thousand, five hundred cases were dropped last year in New South Wales alone on mental health grounds. Many of these cases involving common assault and people breaching AVO orders. But god off scot Free. The case is dismissed because, as I said, the accused said that they had mental health issues and
the case went no further. Now that's three and a half thousand cases dismissed up by one thy two hundred just five years ago.
So this is a growing problem.
David Hilpern, a former magistrate, said this is exploiting what some people would perceive as a loophole in the law.
It's not to.
Suggest there are genuine cases, of course there are with people with mental illness, but the threshold for claiming mental illness in court is arguably too low. There should be a greater hurdle than just suffering from a condition. There's no question that whether or not a mental health issue is present, that doesn't change the fact a crime has been committed. It doesn't change the fact that a victim
has been affected by that crime. And I think this is the natural result of pathologizing everything as early as Kindy, and we've talked about this on the program as recently as last week. Our children, our teenagers, are being increasingly pathologized. There's no behavioral issues anymore, there's no personal responsibility. It's
ADHD or some other issue. I know it personally myself because we had a kid who was mucking up at school in primary school and the teachers couldn't have tried to twist our arm harder if they had help to get us to go get a diagnosis, so they'd received more funding. So you're continually pathologizing things. Is it any wonder if that starts in kindy that eventually you end up in our courts with people claiming the same thing.
And if you.
Follow this to its logical conclusion, could begin to make the argument that every criminal has some kind of mental illness, because because most of us understand what is right and wrong, you might, in the case of someone who was caught going five compters over the speed limit, say they had.
A mental illness.
But most of us understand what is right and wrong, and so there are clearly people who just have no compunction about the fact that what they are doing is wrong, and so that is in some way a mental illness because it's out of the norm of what the rest of us experience. So why don't we just say everyone is associopath or a psychopath or or whatever it might be, and they've got a diagnosis for having been so, which is why they committed the crime, and so everyone.
Gets let off.
Sure, some people are off their brains, they're having mental episodes, their schizophrenic, whatever it might be, but it doesn't change the fact they have committed a crime. And quite often you will find it is people who have committed crimes while having mental episodes who are the the last people who should be allowed out or in the community or let off on a crime, because they should be locked up somewhere for their own safety as well as everyone else's.
It's a cop out. And this is happening increasingly now, and funnily enough, we should note it's happening mostly at courts in wealthy suburbs. And why do you think that is because they've gone to their lawyer and said, what do I do to get off on this? And the lawyer said, well, if you're going to get a diagnosis and they say you had this mental illness when you committed the crime, then you're in a.
Much better position to do it.
People who are going to magistrate's courts and whatever in less socioeconomic suburbs often are self represented, or they've just got a duty solicitor of what is that they have someone to tell them to go and do this. These are people who are being advised clearly to get a diagnosis because it'll help you get off on a crime. Well, that's not in the spirit of the justice system. Quite often it doesn't seem to be a justice system. It's a legal system. It's not delivering it all.
Yeah, Section fourteen of the Mental Health Act has to be reviewed. That is patently obvious when you look at these ridiculous numbers.
But like we say, it's the same with bail laws.
These cases come down to a magistrate's judicial discretion. Okay, so only that judge has got the full facts of any one case. Of course, these are assessed on an individual basis. They're looking at all the facts, the crime that was committed, the fallout from that crime, how many victims, is this person likely to reoffend, is it their first offense? And then they're also weighing up the strength or weakness of that person's claim to Oh, but I suffer from
poor mental health. Now is that just an extreme case of anxiety?
We don't know.
It's up to the judge to say, look, you may have a case of ADHD that's quite severe. That doesn't just what you have done as an example. At the end of the day, it comes down to whoever that judge is and their judicial discretion and once again, we the public are sat here going what on earth are you flogs thinking? Because it's not an instruction. Section fourteen is like, well, where's some guidelines. At the end of
the day, it comes down to the judge. Why are so many judges, one would think knowingly being taken for a ride.
The other issue here that we never talk about is what are we doing with serious mentally ill people. If you walk around any CBD, whether it's Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, it's amazing how many people who are clearly not well are behaving in very odd fashions all around the place. No one seems to do everything, everyone walks around them. I noticed just this weekend in the CBD police dealing with a guy who clearly was not right in his mind from moving him on.
I'm not sure what help.
He gets, let alone what protection there is from the public from people who clearly aren't right. And that's an issue that no one wants to talk about.
No, and it's a disgrace.
I mean, you know, we changed our thinking last century on how mentally.
Ill people should be treated. That there used to be asylums, insane asylums where.
We locked people up for their benefit and the benefit of the rest of society, and at some point we decided, oh, well, that's not humane.
We have to allow people to be out in the community. But again it's not.
Just about the rest, it's about them as well, because they often pose a serious risk to themselves and the public mental health system is in tatters.
If you go to a hospital.
And try to get treatment for a mental health issue a public hospital, it's almost impossible. I mean they want to get you out the door as fast as possible. There was a case in Adelaide last year or the year before where there was a bloke who had presented to hospital with the mental health issues and he was detained there by police order for fourteen days I think
it was. And then at the end of that fourteen days, instead of the hospital telling the police that they were going to discharge him, they just discharged him.
He just left and he walked out and.
He went into a real estate agency and he killed someone. Right, So the system does not talk. The left hand of the system does not talk to the right hand. How do these cases happen? And of course if you are having issues with mental health, follow the number on the bottom of the screen. We've talked about Trump derangement syndrome before.
It's a real thing.
I mean, people who just cannot get it through their heads that somehow the majority of electors in America would think he was the right look to be the president. Will show you one of those people later in the program before we leave you tonight.
It's a great clip.
You've got to stick around to the end of the show for that one. But now they've moved on from just Trump derangement syndrome. Now they're on board with Elon Musk derangement syndrome as well, because, of course he and his doge mob have been going through the books in America and cleaning it up and getting rid of government waste.
And they can't believe it.
I mean, how dare you threaten our public service jobs and actually try to get some value for the taxpayers of the United States. So they gathered online over the weekend in a meeting they call themselves Tesla Takedown, to talk about exactly how they're going to take down Tesla, which is, of course the electric vehicle manufacturer owned by mister Musk. I'll show you some highlights from this meeting. We'll start with Micah Lee, who is a journalist.
Take a look.
We're a non violent, grassroots protest movement that's focused on an actual winnable strategy to bring down Elon Musk. If we kill the Tesla brand, if we drive down the stock price low enough, we can force him to sell his stock to pay back the billions of dollars of debt that he took on to buy Twitter. This will drive Tesla stock into a death spiral.
So there you go. That's the plan. We're going to force him to get out of Tesla.
How are we going to do that, Well, let's start with a woman, a professor.
She's a professor memes. Apparently he's her plan.
I study memes, and the most obvious meme nobody's.
Talking about is Elon's black hat.
And he thinks of himself as this black hat hacker that's broken into the government and socially engineered his way into the treasury, and he's going to abscond.
With all the data.
It's an obvious data heist, but he believes he's living a meme. And so we need to be very clear about what our demands are, about what our bright lines are, and that we're not going to stop until Tesla is done with Musk.
He's the richest man in the world and he's just living in a meme.
You know, he's not aware that he's in the real world.
Please give me a break, Actor John Cusack, I mean, Charlie, he puts h may I want it?
Didn't He's a ghoul.
These are unprecedented times of mass criminality going on in the United States right now, and that, like Trump, Musk is a pathological liar. He's a criminal, He's a sociopath and a ghoul.
He is a criminal.
We shall await the charges. But my personal favorite is Jasmine Crockett.
She's a US rep. And well, this is why she wants e Long to go down.
I'll make sure that I keep it short, but I am truly here for very selfish reasons, starting with on March twenty ninth, it's my birthday and all I want to see happen on my birthday is for Eli to be taken down.
Yet that's what we want in our elected representatives, isn't They have lost the plot because they can't get over how effective that mask has actually been with his doge. It's just blowing their brains that someone's actually gone through the books, going, hang on a minute, there's a bit of waste here. We can do something about. Maybe we've been running the show improperly for a very long time.
They can't cope with it.
Of course, boasting it, you want to drive Tesla stock into a quote unquote death spiral. Do they forget that thousands, maybe millions of Americans have stocks in Tesla, many of them it's their pension plan. And on top of that, I think there's about one hundred and twenty thousand people employed by Tesla's So they're not just talking about hurting
one person because they disagree with him politically. They're talking about hurting thousands, tens of hundreds of thousands of their own countrymen because of their own political bias.
And it's incredibly popular.
There were like two eight hundred people on this call at any given time during it. And these are the ones who are leading these protests. They want mass protests on the twenty ninth of March, not even necessarily in places where there is a Tesla dealership. Those are being targeted. They're very calculated, but they're like, heck, if you just want to protest Tesla in the.
Straight as well go for it. These guys know that sixty.
Percent of Elon Musk's wealth is tied up in Tesla, and if they can make a big enough dent by people not wanting to buy them anymore lest they be graffiti less they're carby Molotov cocktailed, as has happened to Tesla dealerships across the US at this point, then they're going to be successful.
People are too scared to buy them now.
And the stocks were already falling, and even the current owners are saying, well, I can't even onsell it because nobody wants it. They've taken to using stickers that say.
I bought this Tesla before. Elon Musks, through his.
Weight behind Donald Trump, please don't target mine. The Trump administration has talked about classifying these people as domestic.
Terrorists, and yet here.
They are having an organization call with thousands.
On it, planning their next steps. They were even really.
Instructional, saying don't do the swastikas. We don't want any more swastikas out into the world. As you will recall, Elon was accused of doing a siege hile in a ridiculous rally move which was clumsy at best, but they're still running with this idea of he's a closet Nazi. Completely unfounded of course. So they're saying, when you graffiti these cars, please no swastikas.
They even suggested to just graffeiti.
Them with a man's private part, that's fine, or some expletives that's fine too.
But no swastikas. They literally got down into the nitty.
Gritty of how to deface people's private property, but.
Essentially use a form of domestic terrorism because you're the idea is to discourage people from buying a certain product because they're going to make a target of themselves if they do that, they're trying to terrorize them like it is actually a.
Form of terrorism.
And I'm trying to think of an example of this if it were to happen in Australia. And it's almost impossible to think that anyone would do anything like this in Australia because we just don't do those sorts of things here. But if you are saying to someone if you buy this product, which is a legal or normal product that until five minutes ago, was like a symbol of how great you work, because you were driving around
in a Tesla electric car. So I'm doing something to help the planet, and all of a sudden you're supposedly evil for doing it. I mean, do they understand that they're trying to bring down an electric vehicle manufacturer?
Here we say it wouldn't happen in Australia.
The only Tesla dealership in Tasmania has been vandalized with this kind of graffiti that has been encouraged in the United States, but pretty much these days, if you wear a Maga hat, and as you said, we'll show an instance of someone with a Mega hat being abused a little later in the program. If you were a Mega hat or you drive a Tesla, you're almost guaranteed that you're begging, making yourself a target. You're begging for chars,
domestic terrorism. They are bullying, humiliating and threatening people to make a political point.
And I dare say the magacrowd can take it. But the Tesla buyers, who are probably on board with the lefty climate cult, they're not cut out for this kind of pushback to Victoria now, where you may remember former Premier Daniel Andrews and the lead up to the twenty eighteen election, promised to build Craigieburn Hospital Community Hospital.
And nine others like it. What a way to get votes.
Who doesn't want more hospitals in their state. As we know nationwide, no state is doing very well when it comes to their health portfolio. Well now two of those have been built, but they're sitting vacant.
Nobody's using them.
They are not open for business, and it's got locals wondering what the heck is going on. Quote it's been sitting abandoned for months now. One local mother wrote on Facebook, the lights are on twenty four seven. What a waste of electricity. Another local wrote, I would say the state government is baroke real broken. To that local, I say cigar for you, buddy.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. Now.
The idea of these extra hospitals was to take the pressure off the emergency departments in the bigger hospitals.
What a wonderful idea.
But here we are in twenty twenty five and the state doesn't have two cents to rub together. It's one thing to build it, it's another thing to staff it, to run it, to actually be a functioning hospital.
They haven't got the shiggy well.
I think you hit the nail on the head. They promised to build it.
Excit over and of course the building it is you get to wear a high viz vest and hat opportunity expensive one. But I've got an idea. It doesn't matter that these hospitals are empty of patients. Why don't they use them as juvenile romance centers that could work in Victoria.
Use them.
If someone had told you five years ago that there would be a state government somewhere in Australia that would build hospitals and then.
Just shut the gates, leave the lights.
On and not have anyone you would say, oh, come on mate again, offered.
I've said immediately Victoria.
Heah, Victory. Now that that's a very good point. But how ridiculous.
How can you go to the expense of doing I mean that's the most expensive part, is to actually build the thing and then you shut the gate and leave it there. I mean, if you live next door or you live in the local community and you've been promised to hospital, I mean you do expect the front door to open every now and again, don't you. It's nice there to be able to walk past it go oh look, we've got a new hospital, but no one goes there.
That's fine, seriously helpful.
Well maybe they could staff it with some of the public servants that the Coalition is going to cut if they win office. Of course, Peter Dutton has promised to slash thirty six thousand jobs from our bloated public service, very similar to what Elon Musk is doing in the US.
And Anthony Albanezi.
Is making this sound like the worst thing that could possibly happen. He's the Prime Minister talking about the coalition's plan.
And the idea that Peter Dutton wants to do. Two things when it comes to public servants. One questioned working from home, But secondly he's also said I want you to be at home seven days of work, twenty four hours a day because he's going to sack thirty six thousand public servants.
Hang on, hang on, can I just interrupt.
I've just learned from the Prime Minister that unemployed people are not allowed to leave the house. I didn't know that was a thing.
They trained at home four seven.
No wonder they're unemployed because they can't go out and.
Go do The funny thing is someone wrote that line for him. I thought it was really good and I'm not sure if it was the delivery that let him down or the line. But then came Finance Minister Kadie Gallagher and she said that if Dutton slashes thirty six thousand dollars from the public service, it's going to endanger the nation.
She said, defending our.
National interests delivering aucust maintaining a robust immigration system. That one is funny. A robust immigration system. I'm not sure where she thought that one from our veterans. It requires funding and requires people. The safety is at risk under Peter Dutton, who is more obsessed with slashing government jobs. The reality is the public service has to be resourced
to do the job we want it to do. Now, this, of course assumes that Peter Dutton's thirty six thousand jobs gone will sort of just be evenly spread across all departments, including the defense. So she makes it sound like suddenly we're not going to have, you know, submariners to We
don't have submarines, so it doesn't really matter. The thing I thought was brilliant and a total own goal here is in this statement, Calebs, you talked about the fact that we are you know, increasing our defense spending as a percentage of GDP to two point four percent over the next decade, which is hardly anything at all.
Yes.
And in addition, if we're cutting public servants from the defense forces, isn't just a couple of weeks ago, Liz, that our defense force were unaware a Chinese warship was firing live rounds off the coast of Sydney. So maybe there are some people who, you know, maybe shouldn't be.
And also we can't recruit any speaking of numbers, lady, because you guys outsource the ADFS.
Recruitment to a jolly Swiss company.
And it's interesting that they're using this like they're treating this public servant issue the labor party as though it's like a major election issue, which I met thirty six thousand people. There are something like one in seven people in this country who work in the public service, but most of them are at the state level, they're not
at the federal level. But they're trying to tug on those people and make them think, like, you know, your number could be up tomorrow, You're going to lose your job. And that's why labor governments in particular want a big public service because if you've got to rely on the government for your money, my guess I'd better vote for the mob that's going.
To keep my job.
Indeed will in a moment, we'll look at what's making news tomorrow, and of course all the talk is about how Jim Chalmers will deliver his budget tomorrow night.
We look at what they're saying in just a moment.
Well, with Jim Chalmers bringing down his budget tomorrow night, as you can imagine, most of tomorrow's news will center on the budget and finances.
Liz, you've got the Daily Telegraph, I do.
Indeed, will it make any difference.
To these guys?
Gen Z hit hardest by tax brackets creeping US out reads the slash. Young people are being hit the hardest by bracket creep, with gen Z and millennial full time workers on a median wage paying up to three five hundred more income tax now than three years ago age fifteen to thirty four will experience the biggest jumps in how much of their wage goes to the tax office in percentage items sorry, percentage terms.
According to new.
Coalition analysis, young professionals like Manly couple, which you can see there in the picture. Hannah Maxwell and Matthew Nicole, both twenty one, say current tax rates can be daunting in a costs crunch. Yeah, I don't suspect any relief will be coming there anytime soon. I've always thought that our tax bracket.
System here is utter nonsense.
The fact that someone on as little as forty five k excuse me, forty five K and one dollar our tax the same percentage as someone on one hundred and thirty five K.
No one can make that math work.
And I can't believe this hasn't been an issue that the Coalition has run with so much more.
Because bracket creep is the dirty secret.
Right governments have used this, and this is why the Coalition hasn't talked about it, because they've been guilty of it too, and have used this for a very long time to just claw in more and more of your money without actually having to tell you.
That they're going to tax you anymore.
And it does disproportionately hurt young people.
I've been saying this for some time.
That was the biggest problem with the changes that Labor made to the Stage three tax cuts, where they didn't get rid of the thirty seven and a half cent tax bracket because it is young people who will have career progression in the next decade who will see more of their money eaten up by bracket creep. Now, I know Paul went through some numbers in his program before us about how much government spending has gone up and government apartments have gone up in the last twenty years.
I'll give you some numbers over the last ten years. Income tax receipts this financial year so this we'll hear some of this in the budget tomorrow night are expected to be four hundred and ninety six billion dollars.
That's double what it was ten years ago.
Right, So, how in that period of time do you manage to increase your income tax receipts by that much? The working population has increased by twenty five percent in that same period, and yet we have doubled the income tax receipts.
How do you do it? You do it by bracket cream.
People earn more money naturally, inflation goes up, which means they earn more money in their wages because their wages have to go up to match it, and then the government cashes in.
It is a joke. Something has to be done about it.
Well, this story talking about how it affects younger people comes from analysis done by the Coalition. The Coalition are always struggling to attract younger voters. It's amazing to me they haven't made an issue of this and come up with an idea to help young people out.
So hope they run with it now. Now, of course, tomorrow will be the bouget and we will find out what Jim Sharma's has heated up for us in the Microwavey will be here at eleven PM to talk it all through. I hope you can make it through. I know it's a long time, but we will give you the entertaining analysis of the budget when you get to us at eleven, because you'll be sitting there with a glass of red and you'll be ready for a bit of fun with it. That's exactly what we'll give you.
But the papers tomorrow are alluding to some of what will be in the budget. The Canberra Times says back for the future, Treasure Jim Charmers sees one hundred and seventy seven billion dollar debt turnaround will enable the federal
government to invest in the future. Today's budget papers will forecast gross debt of nine hundred and forty billion dollars for this financial year, down from the one point one trillion dollars forecast at the twenty twenty two election, a reduction for one hundred and seventy seven billion dollars in real terms. Hooray, the debt is slightly less big than we thought it was going to be.
That's a win for mister Charmers.
Dr Charmers, I should say before he writes in a complaint over on the odds tomorrow they say ALP's fiscal reckoning. Debt to GDP rises amid pre elections burge, decade of deficits looming Jim Charmers dead outlook has worsened a mid a pre election spending splurge of more than sixty seven billion dollars in three months, with both both sorry gross debt as a percentage of GDP and it's expected peak projected to be higher than forecast in last year's federal budget.
Analysis by The.
Australian reveals Treasury figures in Tuesday's budget are expected to show gross debt as a percentage of GDP in twenty twenty four to twenty five will be higher than predicted in the May twenty twenty four budget, and in December's mid year budget update it just gets better and better. It'll be thirty seven percent of GDP, up from thirty five point two percent that was forecast by Treasury ten
months ago. They're going to try and I think they're going to try and make this a cost of living budget as much as they can tomorrow, because it's the only thing they can do to try and get a win out of it going into an election.
Let's throw some cash around.
Ie will extend the power of subsidies and another one hundred and fifty.
Dollars off will P.
But we haven't heard a lot actually licked out of this budget yet, so it makes you think, how much are we really going to learn tomorrow?
Well, I wonder if not much has been leaked because Jim Chalmers wasn't thinking he would need to deliver this, but it was only because of cyclone Elfred. I'm pretty sure that this budget is being brought down tomorrow night. The other question is whether this is a budget for the next few years or whether this is a budget for the next five weeks, because for the government, that's really the only thing that matters is getting across.
The line at an election in May, and of.
Course Thursday night, when Peter Dutton delivers his response. So far the Coalition have just matched spend for spend. Did you say, it's seventy sixty seven billion dollars promised in the last three months, and there's been not much to separate Labor and the Liberal Party. Everything Albanezi promises, Peter Dutton says, we'll do the same, which might be smart politics, but I'm not sure it's great for our fiscal situation.
No, not at all.
And those who are fiscally minded are rightly going, oh great, it's tweet al ed and tweet all dumb.
I know we've got to rein this in.
It was Milton Friedman who said that when it comes to government spending, you and I are the problem because we incentivize governments to promise all in sundry free ice creams for roll you get a pony, all this free stuff that our children's children then.
Have to pay for. But they do it every election.
Cycle because what else gets votes not much, if any, Although I dare say a lot of fiscally minded ossies would actually love.
To hear one of these national.
Leaders talk like, all right, kids, we've got to tighten our belts. We've got to pull our socks up. This is for future generations. I'm going full Doge style. Why is the penny not yet dropped?
That?
Actually that will get you votes in today's environment.
And that did, as you say, passes on to younger people who will eventually have to pay back, and they're the ones who are having more and more of their income.
Take it away and break it creep.
Want to be a young person in Australia.
Seriously.
There is one thing though, before we go to a break that they aren't going to spend more money on.
Funnily enough, what do you think it is? Defense?
Maybe will defire the Trump administration's calls for a substantial boost to Australia's military spending, sticking to its current funding trajectory in Tuesday's federal budget while bringing forward a billion dollars for submarine.
And missile program.
So there is something that this government doesn't want to spend more money on.
We should be on.
This was to be the one thing that is the most important thing.
I mean, isn't it brilliant?
You've had a dollar for every time they said, oh, it's very uncertain geopolitical times. At the moment you'd be able to afford those nuclear stufs. We're going to go to a break where we come back that maga hat that was tried to someone trying to steal it, But karma too begins, toll will show you that it is the moment. Well, everyone knows the Teals were elected on a promise to restore integrity to politics. So how's that going, Monique?
Right from the seat of Couyong. Well, her husband Peter Jordan was filmed taking down the sign of a political opponent, which maybe suggests the Teals should be called the Steals.
So hang on, mate, what are you doing? I'm taking the sign?
Yeah, I beg your pardon. I'm taking the sign out.
What are you doing that for? It's on public land and.
I'm not saying who I am?
Who are you?
Or you're wearing a Teal t shirt.
I'll start to film you.
Are you, Monic Ryan supporter of ripping down people's people's signs? Are you?
Is that what you're doing? That belongs to me?
Hey, you can take it off the property, but it belongs to me.
If it goes back up it'll be taken down again.
There you go, Monique Ryan, There you go.
Community values.
I love the way they ask you. Are you a teal supporter? Nah nah nah No, I'm just her husband.
He put out a statement later in the day saying, I apologize for the removal of the sign. It should not have happened. All concerns around signage should be reported to count So I reckon he's learned his lesson.
They're not sorry they did it. They're sorry they got caught. But check out this case of karma on a New York subway just goes.
To show trumped arrangement syndrome.
Despite the vast majority of Americans voting for the man is still alive and well.
The Democrat.
The bigger they are, the harder they fall.
I mean, she face planted, she ate concrete.
That is the perfect example of f around and find out, isn't it. That is just so chef's kiss perfect. Let's hope that happens to a.
Few more of them. Mate.
That was pretty much a metaphor for the US election. He was Trump, she was Kamala Harris. That's all we've got time for tonight. We'll be on at eleven pm tomorrow night, look forward to your company. Then right now, here's rid of Penny.