Welcome the Late Bait.
Great to have your company on the Late Debate. I'm James Macpherson with Liz Storer and Caleb Bond coming up. Woolworths are selling shopping bags for twenty dollars a piece and people are buying them. What cost of living crisis. We'll talk about what's going on there.
You don't have one, James. I saw you carting your stuff in with it tonight.
I get resentful every time I have to pay twenty five cents for a paper shopping bag that then breaks as I walk across the road, scattering my groceries, and that's happened.
Bored and don't buy them. I will carry an insane amount of groceries.
I don't want to be to the car. What about you know you have you open someone's boot or you get in an uber and they've got just a boot full of like shopping bags that.
They everyone's got that cupboard at home.
I buy the paper bags that I get angry about it every time. Anyway, we'll talk about that a little later. Clearly we're stirred up on that subject. Plus when we look at tomorrow's papers. Peter Dutton and now since he will cut the fuel excise good news for motorists and a local council are ex signs at a city garden advising people, in fact, pleading with people, please don't spread
human remains here. We'll get to that a little later, but first you would have seen on television those advertisements offering the chance to learn about your ancestry through genetic testing, and like me, you've probably been tempted. I mean, who wouldn't want to find out their backstory and maybe discover if they've got some sort of, you know, exotic history. One of the pioneers of this technology is a company
called twenty three and Me. It started in San Francisco back in two thousand and six, and over the past twenty years they've collected saliva samples from more than fifteen million people whose DNA they've stored on company databases. Now here's where it gets interesting. Twenty three and Me the company are now facing bankruptcy, so to avoid that, they're looking at selling the company, which then raises the question does the buyer get access to millions of people's DNA?
And who is this buyer? And what will they use the information for the chairperson of twenty three and Me is trying to assure clients that it's not going to be a problem no matter who buys the company. He released a statement saying we are committed to continuing to safeguard customer data and being transparent about the management of user data going forward, and data privacy will be an
important consideration in any potential transaction. Which doesn't exactly fill you with confidence, It certainly didn't fill the Attorney General of California with confidence. He released a statement urging Californians who have given their DNA to this company to take action.
In a statement, he said, given twenty three and Me's reported financial distress, I remind Californians to consider invoking their rights and directing twenty three and ME to delete their data and destroy any sample of genetic material held by the company. Of course, it may already be too late, because in an undercover interview, Nate Johnson, the policy advisor for the US Treasury, said that this company's major shareholders are all pharmaceutical companies who've already had access to people's
DNA data. Here he is, then.
Figure out what you were I actually did that.
I should do that, though, do not give your information they.
Saw it, do they sell it to pressure something? Study meet Nathaniel Johnson, a policy advisor for the United States Department of the Treasury.
There's a clause in the country says like.
The information sure there is.
So set all their share a like pharmaceuticals. We're still with this pharmacipical and is for company's based in the country, And pharma recipal means in other countries they plant the property of like Administry of Defense and rush or like by change.
So obviously this story raises all kinds of ethical questions. Liz, you ever been tempted to spit into a tube, send it to some company and find out if maybe your part Spanish or German law.
Never and it genuinely boggles my brain that anyone is up for this. There is nothing more private than your personal DNA data. And this company actually just a few years ago had a five month security breach that met millions of their customers. Nobody knows where the data's even gone, but millions of them had their personal data. Almost seven million customers had their data just out there flapping around, and that resulted in twenty three and me paying out
a thirty million dollar settlement. So that quote there from the CEO just laughter. You can't laugh any harder. I was like, oh, but we're going to keep it secure, mate, you haven't historically Anyway. This is a story that should make everyone sit up and take note, because what this means is the fate of millions of Americans. DNA is now subject to a court supervised sale. I don't know about you, but who's buying it? Who is that interested
in your DNA? Indeed, you would notice that bloke, they're referred to the shareholders of twenty three and me And guess who the top shareholders are? Black Rock and Vanguard the world the's largest investment companies. And if you're sitting at home going well, I used Ancestry, so that's different. No, that was brought out in twenty twenty by Blackstone, another very large investment company, was bought for four foero point
seven billion dollars. Again, the question remains, why are these guys so interested in getting their hands on your DNA data. It's a very very pertinent question to be asking. Someone's profiting off it and it's not you. And only a brief look at Blackrock and Vanguard's many, many, many entanglements and their clients. Shows that they have a lot of these pharmaceutical companies, that's what he's referring to there within their paddock. So it stands to reason, where is this
DNA now? Has it already been sold off? That is what this report from James O'Keeffe is alluding to. So you've got this state supervised sale pending, but the suggestion here is that a lot of it has already been sold off. And if what Johnson said is even remotely true in that clip there, this is that is DNA being sold to private companies. This is a massive issue
of national security type importance. And how you ask, Well, a man by the name of Jason Crow, he's a member of the House Committee on Armed Services and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. This was some years ago, but he was raising this issue, perhaps quite prophetically. He said, quote, that's what this is, where you can actually take someone's DNA, you know their medical profile, and you can target a biological weapon that will kill that person or take them
off the battlefield, or make them inoperable. The bottom line is, why why would anyone just be like, oh, yeah, it's just about genealogy, It's just about finding out my family history. I cannot understand how millions of people are that naive.
And that's I've always said that I wouldn't do it because who knows where my DNA is getting en up? I mean twenty three and meters until this point has already done fifteen deals with pharmaceutical companies to share the DNA data that they had. Glaxosmith Klein paid three hundred million US dollars in twenty eighteen to get access to five million people's DNA, So they're already profiting off this DNA, which is.
A sacred thing.
It's like your fingerprint, right, it is your unique identify Now, in some ways that identifier isn't totally unique, because we know people have been linked to crimes that they didn't actually commit because perhaps the coppers had your brother's DNA and all of a sudden, they think you've committed a crime,
but it was actually someone else. And that's the other thing I've always wondered, Well, what's to stop a government anywhere in the world trying to get hold of this data, whether they do it through the courts or they buy it or whatever. So here I am, and I'm not saying I'm planning to commit any crimes that would require
the police to gain access to my DNA. But in twenty fifty, when Comrade General Albow is still running the country and he's finally decided it's my time to go to the Gulag and you're going to put me up on some Trump DAP charges, and he gets my DNA from ancestry dot com or twenty three and me, what am I going to do about it? I mean, why would you voluntarily give that over to anyone else when you don't have to. I get that people want to trace their family trees, et cetera, But like.
Could you make it any easier.
For you to become a target of private companies or governments or whoever it might be with nefarious intent?
It is so dumb that there's an interesting story Becker from twenty eighteen where police have been searching for decades for he was called the night Stalker or the Golden State Killer, someone who had raped and murdered dozens of women in the seventies and eighties, and they've been completely unable to find this guy. So police got DNA and they went into eed match and they looked at they
found twenty possible great great grandparents. They narrowed it down to two suspects and eventually found the person using one of these ancestry websites to track down the killer so governments can access it.
They do.
Sometimes it's good. Sometimes it's a nefarious.
Purpose, and they're happy for that to make it into the media because it's like, oh, look, this is a positive thing. Never mind that we compromise the DNA data of millions of people in order to just be like, hi, excuse me, ancestry dot com, excuse me twenty three and meter well where the government, where the law enforces. So it's in safe hands with us. Just hand it over, won't you that that's fine? No, it's not fine. Like I said, nothing is more private than your personal genetic info.
And you have no idea how someone can webonize.
That you'd wanted insurance companies well, exactly, I want it.
Well, there's lots of I mean, the.
Track your driving if they get DNA.
Exactly, And that's the next thing.
They'll be refusing health industans on the basis of your DNA because they'll do the genomic testing and they'll work out that you've got a family history of breast cancer or whatever it is, and then they'll start denying you insurance. That's where this is going. That's why this stuff is so valuable. I mean, you know, I worry about giving my bloody idea if I go into a nightclub or a registered club or something. No, I don't get but
I have been to nightclubs. We're in order to get in the door, they scan your ID before you go in. Presumably you know, if you cause a raucus or something, it then means they've got your stuff on record. But I'm like, what's the rules here? Are you going to destroy that at any point? Do you just now have my photograph and my address on record forever?
And what do you like? Seriously, I worry about that.
And some people are willing to hand their DNA over to a private company.
I don't get it.
I'll tell you one thing else I don't get. Well, I do actually get it. I know why the federal government is doing it, but gee, it makes me uncomfortable is that they have started getting influences involved in their election and budget coverage. There were influences, thirteen of them to be specific, who were allowed into the federal budget lock up yesterday. Some of them had their flights and
accommodation paid for by the ALP. The Labor Party wanted the social media influences there, ranging from people who do money podcasts to people who get maker living in notoriety out of modeling swimwear and activewear. I mean, they're the sort of people that you want to be taking your budget advice from, of course, but they want them in the room and will pay for their flights and accommodation to get them there, presumably because they want positive coverage.
I mean, why else would you be paying for them to be there. Take a look at some of the content that these excellent influencers produced yesterday.
Ultimately, it's not about me. It's about the audience that I have cultivated, who are engaged progressive Australians who give a talk about the future of this country. And he wants to use me to speak to them. What gives you hope? You no better than anyone in Australia right now? What gives you hope for the next generation? Not just as a politician but.
As a person?
Can I get a signature? They keep Jim away from it?
I mean, how pathetic is that?
Or excuse me for our next minister. Can I have your autograph please?
I mean you're supposedly there to cover the budget, not to be a sicker fan. You heard the first woman, of course, saying, the Prime Minister is using me to talk to you.
I mean, the.
Jiggy is up.
She's just said it. The Prime Minister is using her as a mouthpiece to run the ALP line to people and they will pay your flights and accommodation if you will do it.
And ab had that softball.
Question that the second woman, Oh, what gives you hope for the future. I mean, what gives elbow hope for the future is that he just bought a four million dollar cliff top mansion at Copa Cabata, and if it all goes sour, he'll be able to go there and enjoy the rest of his life outside of politics. This makes me really uncomfortable because we all know there are media outlets that are friendlier to the government and others that are unfriendlier to the It's always been thus we know that.
But any media outlet that wants to.
Go and cover the budget pays its own expenses.
The Labor Party, the Liberal Party, whoever.
Does not pay for journalists to come along and cover the budget. And that's for a very good reason, because if the politicians aren't paying you to do your job, you can at least do your job with a sceric of integrity and independence. Surely, the moment a political party literally starts paying in kind, as it is in this case, I'm not saying he's five grand to come to the budget, but will pay for your flights and accommodation. Surely they then expect in return some positive coverage that, as far
as I'm concerned, is cash for comment. I try to do that on this network or on radio. I'm up before Akma for not declaring that because it's an advertising deal. Essentially, are these people not doing advertising deals with the government.
Of a question? Where did they get this idea from? Caleb? Wasn't this a Trump administration idea?
Well, he certainly spoke to a lot of podcasters.
Famously allow influencers into the White House press briefing rooms. Now this is interesting because don't the Albanezi government continually criticize Peter Dutton for copying from Trump's playbook and accusing him of Trumpian politics. And here's the Labor Party lifting an idea straight from Donald Trump. I should point out we've got to be careful not to be hypocritical, because I think when Trump did this, we all said, oh, this is great. He's opening it up to the new media.
Now Albanese is doing this and we're like, oh, this is dodgy. I had no issue.
I have no issue letting them come in. If they want to do coverage, that's fine. But it's when they start being paid by the government or a political party problem.
Some of these people have got clear biases. Sarah Ferguson, who's famous on Instagram, was one of the thirteen influencers invited by government ministers handpicked. She on her Instagram talks about things like how to convince your grandparents not to vote for Peter Dutton. I can't imagine why albany'ze has invited her to cover the budget.
She's already on board, she's already peddling the message. But look, this is incredibly smart. The difference with what Trump's team did, obviously was to go on these podcasts that are millions of followers in the States. Both he and jd Vancey, his VP, did this, and it was incredibly effective because much like Australia. In America, the younger generations are completely disengaged from politics, but they watch these influences, they watch
the podcasters. So what the Albanezy government is doing here is incredibly smart. None of these young people are reading the paper, none of these young people are following any pollies on any of the socials, but they're following these influences.
So it's very likely that whatever these influencers say is going to be the only exposure that those young people get to Australian politics and the state of the nation in the lead up to the election, in the lead up to the day that they'll go to the ballot box.
You know what Anthiobenes is going to do next, He's going to get contestants from Maps to go with him on the.
That really can it does?
It worries me about where politics is going though, and the greater body politic because you know, of course, as I said before, it's always been us. There are elements of the media that are friendly to the left and not so friendly to the right, and people will tend to gravitate towards sources of media that they think confirms their biases. We all know that, and it's always been that way. That's fine, it's a free market.
But I feel like now, you know, previously it least there would be people in here.
On Sky News, we have lefties who come on and talk to what is largely a conservative audience because we feel like, you know, we've actually got to provide a bit of balance here. But that doesn't exist on social media. And of course, with algorithms the way they work on social media, they will continually feed you stuff that they think you want to see. So it just reinforces and reinforces and reinforces whatever your existing.
Biases are and doesn't challenge you in any way.
So if it becomes influences that people get all their information from, and social media is feeding them what the algorithm thinks they want to see, they're never going to be exposed to anything the side. And so you don't actually know why you think what you think. You just think it because that's all you've ever seen. And I think that's a really dangerous place to be.
Speaking of danger. In today's episode of are the Left just a dangerously violent bunch of whack jobs? The Dems with their twenty seven percent approval rating in the states. At the moment, I've decided the way they're going to dig themselves out of this hole is to launch a speaking tour featuring the most radical elements in their party,
namely Rep. AOC and Bernie Sanders. They're going on a speaking tour speaking against oligarchs, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out who those oligarchs are, namely Musk and Co. They're doing this, of course, in conjunction with the domestic terrorists currently running rife on elon Musk's biggest company, Tesla, in which sixty percent of his wealth is wrapped up. So his AOC speaking at her own rally and check out what someone in the crowd yells out.
That his campaigns big his how nice there and all of us are allowed to behind.
Because a French Revolution reference with that sign on the stage is a okay if you're the Democrats. Notice the distinct absence of any like oh whoa whoa, no mate where we're not about that though. She just continues on like nothing happened. Let's check in with another Democratic Rep. Shelby. She's Jasmine Crockett and not a violent person at all. You'd think to watch this interview.
I think that you punch.
I think you punch.
I think you're okay, you you okay, we're punching, you know, I think and I love Colin, and I think towards the end he started to punch a little harder.
But like it's sare rules.
I mean, like this dude has to be nuts over the head, like hard, right, Like there is no niceties with him, like at all, Like you go clean off on him, right.
Oh, it's perfectly okay to threaten physical violence against the Secretary of State because we don't like him. He's on Trunk's team. So yeah, just whack him in the head as hard as you can. And before you think this is just limited to the radicals in the Democratic Party, some of the most popular talk show hosts in the United States of America are also featuring these stories regarding the takedown of Elon Musk to massive applause in their audiences.
They're taking to the streets or the parking lots.
Could I be FBI and ATF now investigating multiple cases of possible arts and targeting tesla's and cyber trucks.
This dramatic video shows multiple cars and flames.
Police say the attacker used molotov cocktails. It's the latest and more than a dozen instances of our sin.
Cyber trucks were set on fire in Kansas City, and earlier this month, shots fired at a Tesla dealership in Oregon. Cyber trucks on fire in Seattle. Wow, you guys like pettiacts of domestic terrorism.
Hardly call that a petty act. But you could tell that even the host was a little taken aback by the enthusiastic enthusiasm of the crowd there as they watched people's cars just go up in flames. Check out Jimmy Kimmel, he is one of the head honchos of late night TV in the States, trying to make it funny and suggesting that well, Elon Musk should have thought about this before.
He lined with Trump, when you pull out a chainsaw to celebrate firing thousands of people diget mad.
It's just you know, my.
God, I mean, they are mad. They might start burning your businesses to the ground with Molotov cock downs. You know what were you expecting, Elon mask, Ladies and gentlemen, the Party of Joy and Tolerance just supporting the physical takedown of not only Elon Musk as a person references to guillotining is fine, and whacking people in the head is perfectly fine as hard as you can, mind you, because well they deserve it. We hate these people.
Two words January sixth. I mean, we never heard the end.
Of January sixth. They stormed the capital. It was an insurrection. How dare they this was violence. They're trying to overthrow democracy. This is what the right does.
They can't accept the results of a democratic election, and now we have this. We have them going around setting cars on fire, bombing car dealerships, saying that people should face the guillotine, going around some of the attendees at these rallies, going around saying that, you know, Donald Trump should swing like Mussolini, on and on. It goes, oh, yeah, that's fine. I mean, January sixth was so bad that Donald Trump should be not allowed anywhere near the White
House ever. Again they get a result they don't like, they want to start killing people and destroying property. I mean, they thought they had the moral high ground. They don't have the moral high ground. They have told on themselves so hard it's not funny. They are demented in the way they are carrying on about this.
It was a democratic election. You lost it. Get over it.
He gave us two words. I'll give you three. Trump assassination attempt. The Left have learned absolutely nothing from that. Remember, in the wake of that, there was a general agreement everybody needs to just tone it down, wind back the language. And here the Democrats have ramped it right back up. But aren't these the people who say words are violence. Don't they get all upset about a Trump tweet. That's the end of the world if Trump tweets something nasty
or mean. And here they are calling for people to be slapped in the head, for people to be guillotined, and cheering for the destruction of a great American business. There, democracy is just ranked.
Indeed, you speak of an assassination attempt. Someone did a pop fox with people who are lining up to go to this Bernie Sanders AOC rally, and three people in this same pop Fox were all like, yeah, off with his head. Literally, these guys said, oh, dead fascist is the only good fascist. These people are hell bent just saying off with their heads basically.
And we saw an interview where a lady is asked at one of these rallies. Do you support violence? She's just no, I don't support violence. But we've done everything we can and they just don't listen to us. So it's all we've got left, which is violence.
But the base bit is they don't even realize what they're doing or what they're actually advocating for. It was like we showed a video recently, didn't we of all these people going around saying, Elon Mussa, go back to where you came from. I mean, you know, for years and years they've carried on about how that's a racist slur, and all of a sudden, they're using it against people they don't like, like they are literally the thing they say they hate.
Well, while left these to kill Donald Trump. Donald Trump is resisting the urge to kill his national security advisor after a massive security leak, the Trump administration was planning and then carried out a missile strike on Hohoti rebels in Yemen, and so they got together a chat group which comprised people like the Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the Vice President JD. Vance. It was all put together by the National Security Advisor Michael Waltz. Now in putting together
this chat group on the messaging app Signal. Michael Waltz somehow invited a journalist from the Atlantic magazine into this highly secure, supposedly chat group where they're talking about this missile strike among other things. Now will show you some of the text messages in just a moment, but to have a listen to the National security advisor explain how
this all happened. How was it that on this chat group where they're discussing a missile strike against terrorists, this is highly classified material that an Atlantic journalist ends up part of the group.
These were principles and and a couple and a couple of staff that were coordinating as you saw, having a policy discussion, as as we went forward, and then just in the days before what was an incredible strike.
I don't know this guy.
I know him by his horrible reputation and he really is a bottom scum of journalists.
I take full responsibility.
I built the I built the group to my job.
Is to make sure everything's coordinated. But how that's a cute.
I mean, I don't mean to be pedantic here, but how did the number have you ever had have you ever had somebody's contact that shows their name and then you have an and then you have somebody else that mistake. Right, You've got somebody else's number on someone else's contact.
So of course I didn't see this loser in the group. It looked like someone else happens.
To me all the time, kind of bonded on my phone, like get this store, I answering, it's just the weirdest thing.
How could you think that was a genuine ecat when I.
Should, Oh, yeah, haven't you ever had it?
No? I mean normally I need someone, I'm like, what's your number? What's your name? And then I press their name and their number comes up. I mean, it's never happened to me, literally never.
Here's Donald Trump but defending his national security advisor.
I don't think he should apologize. I think he's doing his best.
It's equipment and technology that's not perfect, and probably he won't be using it again, at least not in a very refuge.
You sor, I agree with you.
Let's get everybody in the.
Room, Caleb. If this was the Biden administration, we would be going crazy on this, calling for heads to roll. I think the American public understand there are going to be mistakes. Trump's not the Messiah. He's just a very naughty boy. He's going to get some things wrong. But I think what the public want is just honesty when you stuff up, don't do what the National Security Advisor did then and just come up with these ridiculous excuses or the other thing that the administrator is doing is
they're blaming the journalist and smearing him. And admittedly this journalist doesn't have a particularly great track record, Liz, you might talk about that in a moment, but surely the Trump administration should just be honest and maybe keep the advisor on, but admit it was a massive stuff up. If it ever happens again, you are gone. But just be honest with people.
Yeah, I mean, you're right.
If it was the bad administration, we'd say this bloke should be gone. I mean, how could you possibly do this. I get that leaks happen and whatever, but.
This is a bad mistake.
Now, in this case, they'll get away with it because it was after the fact, essentially, and there was nothing in it that's terribly damaging to the Trump administration. So the dog will bark and the caravan will move on. But imagine if there had been contents in those messages that was dangerous in any way. Now, of course, a journalist has to make a call in that situation whether it is in the national interest to.
Report what is in front of them.
In this case, fine to report essentially because it didn't lead to anyone's death or put anyone in danger. I mean, as a journalist, this is the story I would wish would happen to me of all the chat groups I could ever end up in as a journal I'm like, yes, please put me in that one, because it's a great yarn. But these kind of mistakes should not happen. I know mistakes happen, but they just should not happen at all.
And anyone who does something like that and then tries to say, well, don't you have people's names with other people's phone numbers in their phones, I think that's a cop out and he needs to.
Go well, this is quite literally possibly the most insane national security story of the last fifty years. In this chat, they were talking about weapons that would be deployed, they were talking about the targets, and they were talking about attack sequencing. So this falling into the wrong hands would have been one you mentally bad. But what I want to draw people's attention to is the fact that JD Vance, who was in this chat, was very much opposed to
these strikes in Yemen. So you've got Jeffrey Goldberg, the journo who finds himself in this chat. He said, I didn't think it could be real. I literally sat in my car, thinking, well, if it's real, the bombs will start falling, and then I'll no. And then he tells the story. He's sitting in his car, checks the time, and sure enough, googled Yemen and the bombs had started falling, at which point he realized, I'm actually in a legit hack. This isn't some sort of weird people trying to hoax
me here. I'm in there with Trump's top team, privy to all the private one would hope, well, not clearly, not really, and then proceeded to share screenshots. But JD Vance I got to take my hat off to him here, he texted at eight sixteen team, I am out for the day doing an economic event in Michigan. But I think we are making a mistake. Three percent of US trade runs through the Suez, forty percent of European trade does. There is a real risk that the public doesn't understand
this or why it's necessary. The strongest reason to do this is, as Poters said, to send a message. He says he's not sure the president is aware of how inconsistent such a move would be with his current stance on Europe. He also speaks to the risk of severe spikes in oil prices. He finishes by saying, I'm willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself, but there is a strong argument for
putting this off for at least a month. So my bit two biggest concerns about this security leak was firstly, to recap the contents of that chat. They didn't think the whoties were a real threat, not in this particular strike that they were doing. They didn't think Americans would understand the strikes. For that very reason, they didn't. They did it anyway to send a message, and they did it on an unencrypted chat on signal. You can't make
this stuff up. But the part that I think everyone's missing here, Yes, the leak's a big deal, but the real scandal is waging war in a foreign country without congressional approval. You're normally supposed to let your mates know what's happening. It's supposed to go to a vote. None of that was happening. These were just a pile of warhawk neo cons being like, yeah, bomb them and then texting each other being like strong start, congratulations mate was auto like just mind blowing stuff.
And it's an interesting window as well into obviously how much control Trump has of the people around him, because you've got the vice president saying to a group of people who he presumably thinks are not going to relay this back to the President that he's not entirely sure this is the right thing to do. He obviously thought
he was in comfortable company there. But you would like to think that in that case the vice president would be going off and having those conversations with the President and saying, actually, this is my advice on this situation. It would seem that Trump basically says jump and other people say how high.
I'm not sure that's always the best way.
Student note, I'm happy to keep my concerns to myself.
Et.
Prudent bearing the lighter world.
Don't you hate it when you've got someone else's name on top of a different person's number, Hey, let's talk about air travel, right Coantus is saying, can you believe it? I mean I would had gone off contus entirely.
But the CEO of the new CEO.
Of Quantus, Vanessa Hudson, has actually seen something quite sensible. We'll see whether she actually backs this up with action, but she says that it's quite possible that air travel will become quote so expensive that it's something for the privileged if they continue to follow through with their net zero targets. Now, Quantus is aiming to buy twenty thirty have ten percent of their fuel a sustainable aviation fuel.
This is not jet fuel, which is kerosene.
It's green stuff that is currently three to five times more expensive than jet fuel. So their plan is ten percent by the end of the decade. Britain has already mandated ten percent by the end of the decade, the EU is mandated six percent by the end of the decade. And further on in Quantus's plans is that they'll be using sixty percent of this sustainable aviation.
Fuel by twenty fifty.
But because it is so expensive, someone's got to pay for it. So who's going to pay for it? It's going to be you in air fares. Airbus has come out with the same concerns as well, saying that we will very likely hit a point where traditionally, over time
airfares have been going down. And I know it might not feel like that domestically, but if you follow the trajectory, particularly for international flights, they have over recent decades on average gone down, but we will reach a point where they will start to go right back up again because
you've got to pay for the world to be decarbonized. Now, the entire aviation sector plans to be net zero by twenty fifty, and if they're going to do that with this sustainable aviation fuel, then it looks like we're going to be paying for it, just as we're paying for it through the nose with our power bills, which we were told would be two hundred and seventy five dollars cheaper but aren't because we've gone headfirst into renewable energy.
I mean, they might actually be able to achieve net zero because no one's going to fly anyway because they won't be able to afford to the only people will be flying around of those who can afford private jets. But again, this is the reality. This is what happens when you pursue net zero. Someone has to pay for it and it ends up being the average punter who go to afford.
Virgin Airlines have just announced sustainable flights out of Proserpine in Queensland where they're using thirty to forty percent of the mixture of this fuel. At what struck me, Liz was the mayor of the Wit Sunday's Rye Collins. So this is perfect Virgin flying with this sustainable fuel which is three to five times more expensive out of Proserpine because we've got the great barrier reef here and so we want sustainable tourism. I thought you are mad because
there's a great barrier reef in Cans, isn't there? So wouldn't you just howk a flight to Cans if it's going to be cheaper? So this is just meant to sand or they can fine you to within fifteen minutes of your home. We're going to go to a break when we come back with what's making news tomorrow, including Peter Dutton's plan to cut the fuel excise that's coming up in this run. Welcome back for Peter Dutton gives his budget apply speech tomorrow, but tomorrow morning's papers have
already got details of what he's proposing. Lit This is gonna be a winner.
With all and Sundry on the front page of the Daily Telly Pump it Up reads the splash drivers will save about seven hundred and fifty dollars on petrol if the Coalition wins government, with Peter Dutton pledging to have the fuel excise for twelve months, setting up an election
contest on cost of living measures. Mister Dutton will use his budget reply today being tomorrow to announce a twelve month halving of the fuel excise at a cost of six billion, after Labor gave Australians a five dollars per week tax card in Tuesday night's budget. How do you like them apples, Labor? I mean, do you want five bucks a week or do you want seven hundred and fifty bucks of what you're currently forking out for fuel?
Well, well it is better on a weekly scale that comes at to forteen dollars and forty three cents yessage, three times as much as we were going to get, and you would hope it would come in to being straight away as opposed to having to wait a year for it, so it wins on all of those counts. And I said last night, it's all good and well for the coalition to say they're not going to follow through with the promise that the alb and Easy government made in terms of tax cuts, but they've got to
come through with something else better. I think this gets there, but again, you know, it's all sort of fiddling around the edges. Okay, so we'll have the fuel excise for twelve months, Well.
What about beyond that?
I mean, why does the fuel excise need to be as high as it currently is? And why can we not start talking about some real tax reform, not about all.
You know, change things for five minutes.
Why can we not actually talk about some real tax reform that means the government takes less of your money.
Just on the last night's budget announcements, I had to laugh at Anthony alban Easy today he was asked about you know this five dollars a week tax cut that starts middle of next year, and he was asked, why are you rushing it through now, you know when it doesn't apply to the middle of next year, And he said, because I wanted to provide Australians with certainty, which I thought, Man, five dollars, you just want to be sure when that five bucks a week is going to be in your pocket.
So I'm certain of something. What do you think?
So certainly?
All of the light, that's a good idea.
Let's go to the front of the odds. We're more on this tax theme. Bracket creep wipes tax cuts.
This is the problem.
The average taxpayer stands to lose almost five thousand dollars due to inflation fueled bracket creep by twenty twenty nine.
Despite Labour's latest round of tax cuts, with the federal budget increasing reliance on the so called stealth tax disproportionately affecting low income owners, Jim Charmers unveiled a fresh round of income tax cuts and Tuesday's federal budget, which of course we know will reduce the existing six percent tax rate on income between eight thousand, eighteen two hundred bucks and forty five grand to fifteen percent from mid next year.
But this is the problem.
Bracket creep eliminates all of this tomorrow. It's these are not real tax cuts we're talking about here, And that's what I mean when when I talk about genuine tax reform. Can we talk about a way that Okay, the tax regime may be completely different to the way it looks right now, but can we have one that involves the government not just taking more and more and more and more and more of your money and pretending they're giving you a tax.
Cut because they're not giving you a tax cut, they're just.
Recouping it later on while saying they're giving you a tax cut. And he was asked today, the treasurer, all this extra money, about four hundred billion dollars worth in increased tax receipts over what was estimated that you got in your term of government, Why did you not do something to change the debt? You know, why are we in the same position we were before when you've made four hundred billion dollars extra out of us.
He doesn't have an answer to that. They've they've you know, done, you know what against the.
Wall with And if the bracket creep doesn't destroy your five dollars a week tax cut, then inflation will by the time we get to the middle of next year. I'm not sure what five bucks is going to buy. The right things are going half a coffee, half a coffee, half coffee, probably decaf.
Anyway, I didn't know we're going to do another story on the front of the oars, but let us do it.
I'm going to find.
Treasure, a blue lotto windfall. See, I will run with it here. Jim Chalmers has stridently rejected claims he squandered almost three hundred and fifty billion dollars of windfall revenue games despite the budget forecasting a decade of defericits as labor moved to which Peter Dadden by trying to ram legislation through Parliament to set up an election fight over a five dollars a.
Week text cut that issue.
It is The issue I was just talking about is that he was asked about, you know, how are we in a situation where you can make that much money and just essentially go Will it went puff?
I don't know where it went.
I mean he was saying in the budget speech last night that they banked seventy percent of this increased tax review.
Well, why what have they done with it?
I mean, if you're not paying down debt, what's the point in banking all this extra money you've taken from us, except to say, well, you know, we had two surpluses in my term of government. So how we only because they took all the money from us in our commodities, et cetera.
Please all right, let's go to the front page of the Townshill bulletin a curious story, not over our dead Bodies, reads the headline Thornty issue over scattering ashes in park. Townsville City Council has been forced to put up signs in Queen's Gardens after staff were confronted by multiple instances of human remains being scattered or discarded in the gardens. The council spokesman said Townsholl's much loved Rose Garden had
become a popular spot for people to scatter ashes. Now, we haven't been able to access the rest of this story to find out the detail as to why the council is so upset about this, because in Queensland it is legal to scatter your ashes in public places, including council owned parks. Queen's Park in Townsville is very beautiful. I can only imagine maybe the council have read about Mount Panorama where an indigenous groups scattered some ashes and
automatically declared that the sacred site. Maybe they're worried they'll lose the Queen's garden. Now someone's going to scatter Grandma's ashes their enclaimate.
Well, if there's anywhere that they try to, you know, sort of decolonize it to be Queen's guardens, wouldn't.
It be exactly?
But I mean, seriously, if.
You can't go and scatter your loved ones ashes somewhere that they loved being, I'm.
Just going to check out of this world.
What's the point anymore? We cannot have nice things anymore. It's such a basic thing. Is there anything that the council won't interfere with if they get the opposite?
Are right? Most people would be doing this at the request of the decease, like that where I'd like to have my remain scattered, No, says the count.
Sorry, Granny, The council says no.
To the front page of The Herald's son teals fall off support slides for Monique Ryan and Zoe Daniel tell us more. Peter Dutton and the Liberal Party are within striking distance of recapturing Victoria's two till seats, according to new polling, with the cost of living the biggest issue driving voters. Polling of almost eight hundred people in cou Yong shows Monique Ryan's vote has dived and she is just hanging on, while a similar sample in Goldstein reveals
Zoe Daniel is way behind Liberal rival Tim Wilson. Well, well, well, we've been saying at nauseum, this is going to be a very interesting election when it comes to how the Teals do last election, of course, there were an unknown entity. They were the new kids on the block, and everyone was keen to give them a go. How are people feeling just a few years later.
I hope this is true.
I just really hope this is true because I've been people have been asking me privately, are the Teal's going to fall over? And I've been saying no. I don't think this election will be the end of the Teals. I think that's another election away. They've still got some wind in them. For the first time in my life. I hope I'm wrong about that.
I hope this pollings are right.
I thought Nick Ryan's husband was removing Liberal signs because they were in illegal places, But it turns out they're just doing really bad in the polling. Who knew were to go to a break when we come back well Worth shopping bags. They're selling them for twenty bucks and people are buying them. That's in a moment, welcome back, well calib The funny thing happened in the Senate today.
I know, you know, sometimes they say that Parliament seems like a zoo. Today it seemed like an aquarium. There was certainly some fishy behavior from Green Senator Sarah Hanson Young. I'm sorry to say. She comes from my home state of South Australia. We hadn't really heard much from her recently. She just sort of seemed to be flitting around in the world. I don't know, but today she decided to do something very strange and well, take.
A look on the eve of the election, had you sold out your environment credentials throwing often stinking and attention salmon hats in salmon Senate Shair Hats Young removed the prop from the chamber.
And they say fish rots from the head.
I noticed that one had its head removed, probably to signify the brains missing from most Green senators and supporters.
But I mean, seriously, we've got.
A bloody salmon in the Senate. Surely you can do better than that. I remember what was it I'm trying to remember if it was Wilson, Tucky or who it was. Someone once took a pipe bomb or a fake pipe bomb into the Senate, fronting up to estimates, complaining about the state of security in Parliament House and he's like, well, look what I brought in today, and.
Now comes his pipe bomb to prove his point.
I mean, yes, it's amusing, but I thought we were a bit better than that.
At least the salmon didn't smell as bad as the Green's policy. So there's that. Well, shopping centers like Woolies and Coals, they've got revenue in the bag. Quite literally, they're selling bags. We used to get plastic bags for free, then they sold us paper bags. Now Woolworths are selling tote bags to fashion conscious shoppers for twenty dollars just so you can carry your milk home in that. People are so loving them. They're selling out and reselling on
email BA baby, ba bail the dollars. They're designed by Anya Hindmarch, who's designed these bags for supermarkets all over the world. What I loved is Woolworth's a really upset about them being resold. They put out a statement saying the resale of these items is clearly unacceptable and does not meet our expectations and those of the wider community.
Liz, they're just sad they're missing how They're like, wait, you're reselling them for six See, we've got to up our prices.
Why don't they just do it?
I mean, why are they complaining about someone else being able to make a buck? I mean, if you fancy a supermarket complaining that someone else's profit was too high.
I mean, here we are struggling to pay for our groceries.
They want twenty bucks for a bag, but it's those nasty people on Ebays.
Someone should find out how much money they're making from selling all these bags. That's it from us to stick around. Coming up is the readA Penney Show. Good Night,