The Late Debate | 30 April

Lately.

Welcome to the Late Pay.

Great to have your company.

I'm James Macpherson with Liz Storer and Joe Hildebrand coming up tonight. The campaign endorsement Anthony Albanese did not want turns out you really don't want everyone voting for you. We'll explain why a little later. Plus when we look at the papers. The Courier Mail has a front page story tomorrow with new polling showing labor surging ahead, and activist Noel Pearson reckons there's too much Indigenous cultural studies in our school curriculum and it needs to be pared back.

I've had a few people who are quite upset.

I just want to speak to about what you're speaking to them.

What about speaking about.

About late term abortions? Okay, you don't like that. It's not my opinion. It's a horrible thing, though, and that's why I want to stop it.

If I ask you, if you would like to speak to everybody that your policies, you're more than welcome to.

But just that point before now, if I can please.

Ask, can I.

Elsey every other of you?

I'm not allowed to mention abortion just for now. I've had some compaignts and I just want to run it up the cheam.

Okay, you wouldn't mind, thank you now.

That video went viral after it was posted online by Adelaide law professor doctor Joanna Howe, and then doctor Howe became a target of the Electoral Commissions penchant for censorship. They posted a message on her Instagram age, I'll read it for you. We're respectfully asking you to take the video down from this person's p for this person's privacy. They're a hard working temporary officer doing her best to fulfill her role in a complicated environment. Maybe someone needs

Liz indeed, well, this is an election interference, period, plain and simple, which is the very antithesis of the AEC's remit. They should have in fact apologized and said obviously, this

This year's a federal election issue. The other side of this debate.

Forty pro abortion organizations have lobbied the federal government and let them know that whoever wins.

Government this time round, they're.

Demanding that they fulfill all their demands.

But you get one pro.

Life voice, one person giving a voice to the voiceless, one person sticking up for the almost round about. We don't get exact numbers for obvious reasons, but approximately eighty thousand babies a.

Year in Australia who are terminated.

Just one person, and all of a sudden, you've got the AEC flying in the face of their own remit to get this woman to shut up at all costs. It's an absolute disgrace. They should have come out and simply said sorry, we do acknowledge that this is the very opposite of what AEC stands for, and our jobs on pre polling booths and polling booths on the day we apologize this person's now being retrained.

That was the only appropriate.

Response, and instead they've turned around after people have been concerned about the freedom of speech happening at pre polling booths, and then ask the pre eminent pro life voice in Australia, doctor Joanna Howe, to help cover up what they did by.

Taking down their pos. Irony is dead.

It's it's completely unforgivable, Joe, I think.

Fair enough to say, you know, I don't reveal the identity of the worker, who is obviously quite young. And obviously all the people who work on these booths, they're doing it just on a temporary basis, so they're not people who work for AAS.

But they are trained not to tell candidates not to spruit.

Their lawful you were things.

I mean, look, obviously it's very it's very concerning if that is in fact what is happening and that's been done. But she did say, look, I just need to speak to my supervisor. Would you mind just not doing it for now till I can get some direction on this. So I don't know if it's the end of the world, and we don't. I don't do we know what decision

Not talk about your policies. I mean, that's utterly that's a joke.

Again. But if the final decision of the AE.

Worker honestly thought that was appropriate, then she must have received no training whatsoever.

But she would have just received the complaint.

She wouldn't have known what the what the person had been saying, God knows what these sort of these sort of hysterical hypercarens were saying about what the.

And I reckon it must have been Hypercarens, because when you listen to the response of the family first can this seems very She seemed very polite and pretty reasonable considering she was being told to shut up about her own policies. Indeed, so I thought she treated the AEC worker with absolute politeness. So I struggle to believe that any complaints about that can that would have been because the candidate was being rude or aggressive.

Indeed, and hats off to Ray Rancy there in Victoria, in the seat of Jagga Jagger.

You are in hater heartland.

Strength to your arm to Spain now where Spanish news broadcasts are going to be police to ensure that men and women on news programs get the same amount.

Of talking time.

Yes, this is an actual law that has been passed we read today. According to the law, new casts must newscasts rather must convey an equal and non discriminatory image of men and women. They are not permitted to promote

Michael Sooker, you say you're going to do it. We know how many houses you've built while you were in government in that area. It was a few thousand, but now it wasn't a.

Few thou Sorry, Sarah, I'll get my chance. You will correct the record on that.

Let me just get I'm going to ask you one more time, and everyone is listening to me, ask this question, how many social and affordable houses will you build?

Well, we will fund social and for right.

That's it.

You're not I'm not getting an answer. You'll get an answer out of me.

A minute.

We've done a hute shortage of housing around our country. I'm pretty sure this is going to mean women in Spain on news programs have to talk less and won't get to talk more.

I find it incredibly funny.

What I find incredible is that you took over a minute thirty for that introduction. I took only just over two minutes to introduce the entire show plus a topic.

So I don't know. Maybe these laws could work the other way.

Listen, that's what I mean. I think that's going to be the outcome.

I'm very excited.

I can't wait for them to be introduced in Australia so that Brodman Bishop will finally.

Let me speak.

The Spanish government are regarding this, if you allow men to speak more than women on a news program as quote, a very serious offense, and networks face fines of up to two point six million Australian dollars if they violate the laws. What's amazing to me is that you don't need government to do this. We've got broadcasters in the UK and then Australia who want to do it to themselves.

From a memory that would have wiped out about half the SBS.

Board because.

They got a little bit of trouble for being white of at a polar bear and a snowstorm. But he's pretty I just I just find it very weird that we are just sort of ticking boxes based on gender or sex or digging into people's ethnic makeup. You know, we're going to get the DNA background next or whatever. I remember recently someone came to me and wanted to into me as part of a sort of panel show whatever you want to call it, at the south By Southwest Festival that was coming to Sydney, and they have

And and you actually have to fill it.

Now, this is the sort of thing that used to be done in a part of South Africa.

You know, are you a colored? Are you a black? Are you a white? Are you an Indian?

I mean, I just I just found I mean maybe it was like a sort of you know, a re education for me so I could under understand what it liked to be right Anyway, I knew as soon as I finished, as I filled it out, there was absolutely no way in hell that's going anywhere near that fest of all. I just fill out. You know, aryan superman and you've.

Got a changeo.

You could easily make something up about you.

I did know. I did something.

I think I said something like, you know, self hating Irish Catholic who everybody thinks he is Jewish.

I didn't get through it.

I've talked before about a mate of mine who worked for the ABC and he wanted to go for a promotion. But as he was filling out the documents to apply for it, one of the criteria was what diversity characteristics would you bring to the role. The poor guy couldn't think of any but what a waste of taxpayer money. The Spanish government will actually use taxpayer money to pay consultants to sit and just trawl through hours and hours of news footage calculating who talks for how long and

Now, I can't wait to see the results because I think it will show that we women, as we're famous for, do talk more than the men to robots. Now, Elon Musk has said that just within a matter of years, robots are going to replace the best surgeons in the world. He tweeted just yesterday robots will surpass good human surgeons within a few years and the best human surgeons within five years.

Neuralink, that's his.

Own company, had to use a robot for the brain computer electrode insertion that's a brain.

Chip, as it was impossible for a human to.

Achieve the required speed end presition. This is on the back of Medtronic Hugo. They've called it robotic assisted surgery, which is now all the rage.

They're sprooking their new robotics.

This picture of the mockup of what they're actually doing with the robot isn't very reassuring, but they do tell us it is now performed over one hundred and thirty seven lie on real people surgeries without a hitch. And when you look at this next video and the precision in which these robots can make incisions and make stitches and do all the fine finicky things surgeons do, you wonder if they're right.

This is Sony's surgical robot which can perform microsurgery with great precision. To demonstrate its procedure, a small cut was made on a corn grain which the robot stitched with great precision. This robot has been specially designed for performing super microsurgery, which allows surgeons to operate on extremely small vessels of less than one millimeter. For this, a specialist with experience and steady hands is usually required.

Imagine being a surgeon in training at the moment, that's eleven to thirteen years of training here in Australia that you've undergone to finally work on live and do whatever they need done, and you've just learned within five years Mate, you're going to be redundant.

Joe, how would you take it?

Well, look, I've got a lot of concerns with this. Thank you very much for raising it, Liz, because this is the sort of brave new world we're facing, and other mainstream media outlets simply do not give it the attention it deserves.

Firstly, if we could go back to.

Elon Musk's original tweet, the graphic that we showed you right up the top of the show, Elon Musk says, robots will surpass good human surgeons within a few years, and the best human surgeons within five years.

Shouldn't we be replacing the worst human surgeons?

What are we doing replacing the best ones?

They're the best, which will be starting with the bad ones.

And you know what happens.

When you start replacing the good ones, is that the bad ones you get to The next video that we saw, which was a robot that's so bad at surgery it thinks to the human is a cop of corn.

They're very different.

One's a human being and the other's corn, and the Roman can't even tell the.

Difference, and sity there trying to stitch up the corn. The cord's fine anyway.

Thankfully, we also caught a glimpse of just how this technology could be applied. In fact, as you know, I always do my research, and I've actually found video evidence of this surgery being applied not to a cob of corn, but to a real, live human being. This is the facts, people,

Is this really replacing surgeons or is this just robot assisted surgery?

We have that already.

We have that already, and the doctors using it love it because they can do incredible things in tandem with the technology that is available to still need just talking about the robots themselves being the surgeon, but you would.

Still need a human being surgeon on hand if things go wrong. Surely robots couldn't anticipate every complication, as so often happens in an operating theater. My concern would be less about surgeons being replaced, because I'm not sure that would ever happen. But robots operating don't have a sense of compassion, don't have the same judgment or ethics that a human being has I'm not sure I want to be operated on by someone who is only cognizant of algorithms.

Rather than you know, my this is human welfare.

This is the theory that always just blows my mind because what happens is not so much the robots who are doing the actual surgery, but what happens if AI gets to the point. So you know, Isaac Asimov has got his first law of robotics, which is that you can do no harm to humans or whatever. But what if you had an AI that was told, right, your number one priority, no matter what, is to save human life, it's to save the human race.

How long would it be.

Before that robot says, right, we are so overpopulated that the planet is going to use up all its resources and it turns into Thanos from the Marvel movies. Or indeed, you know what happens if a robot surgeon has someone and decides that actually, it's quality of life after the surgery would be so poor that would be better off dead, and the robot just and again, this is not a decision that the robot surgeon would make in the operating theater. And by the way, do you know they can stitch

There's something really.

Terrifying rational in operating theater, especially if it's an emergency operation, that you want a human being making those decisions, not a pre programmed computer.

Well, what you're saying, Joe, is that ultimately there'll be far more utilitarian. That's right, Yes, Ultimately, this person's a burden, and therefore, or.

The robot will say, I know how many people I have, you know, I am like deep thought or like hol In two thousand and one or whatever. I know how many people are waiting for X number of surgeries, And if we expend this amount of time and resources on this person here, we could actually better divert those resources to save ten lives over here instead of this one life here. And therefore it is a perfectly rational decision that.

This organ transplant should go to a better recipient.

I'm not performed, so that's exactly right, or something I'm operat on a seventy year old.

And they're hard.

And I've just become aware that there is a twelve year old who suddenly needs a heart transplant, and they would have seventy more years than the years I'm giving this person. Therefore, I am saving more life if I cease operating, pick up the heart and bug it in the new kid.

So the question fix.

The question becomes, is AI the beginning of the apocalypse or is it the answer to things like low birth rates in western countries and the need for immigration. KPMG's digital boss John Money seems to think that AI is going to solve a whole lot of problems, especially for Western nations. As I said, with falling birth rates, he said, ultimately the sort of work that we would have traditionally offshore to India will no longer need to offshore as much.

He says to me, this has to be it.

This has to be the opportunity for us to drive productivity without having to drive immigration. So, for instance, if you've got a warehouse that requires two thousand workers. What if most of it was automated and you only required two hundred workers, Well, then you could have a shrinking birth rate. You wouldn't have to import a workforce from overseas. You just get robots to do the jobs that otherwise would have had to have been done by human beings.

Have a listen, We'll be able to elevate the standard of living in countries and the standard of living of individuals even with shrinking populations. And so the paradigm of negative population growth is going to be changing, and the social problems that one will have in substituting humans from machines is going to be far easier in those countries that have declining populations.

Now, I know you don't like Larry Fink, Liz, but what's wrong with what he's.

Saying, Well, it is terrify fine, because what we're saying is we're going to need less humans. Which you'll notice in the backdrop there's speaking at the World Economic Forum, which believes that we're so overpopulated, there's too many humans. They're all about population control. So this would be music to their ears. But he said in another part of that speech, this will go very well for what he called xenophobic countries simply because they haven't thrown their borders

There's always been the case, though, hasn't it technology, the superseds the last technology. People have to be retrained, they find new jobs that progress.

That's right, and it has always had, I suppose the question is what happens when you hit the sort of event horizon or the tipping point at which robots can effectively replace almost They're better at everything, almost all human activity. And again what Larry Fingers saying is absolutely terrifying and dystopian, because what he is saying is that in the so the countries with the shrinking populations that are failing to

I do you think that's xenophobic, But well, this is this robots.

The point, the point being is that that happens, what about for everyone else in the world, for the vast majority of the world's population, this will be unaffordable. They still have no population deficit, and so they will probably be cheaper and easier to use humans instead of robots for manual labor. In the case of China, obviously forced labor.

And although they're leagues ahead of us in Ai, absolutely leaks ahead of.

Us in they're also leagues ahead of us in slave labor. But the point being that China has because China has has all this stuff that it's doing, but still it has a much bigger and much poorer population that it has to that it has to deal with, and it does nothing to serve with anything. There's nothing to you know, to deal with poverty in Africa or India.

Of course, the KPMG Digital Bosses point was, if we've got robots doing jobs, we don't have to import immigrants, and then demand for housing becomes less and housing thus becomes more affordable. That is a major problem in our country. South Australian Council has a solution to the housing crisis. They're going to hike rates on privately owned vacant lots of land in a bid to force land owners to either develop homes on those lots or give them off to others who will.

Vacant lots already.

Attract a rate of twenty percent higher than develop lots of land. This is in the council area of Onka Peringa in Adelaide. Say it with confidence, one of their council has said, and I quote, this just doesn't bring on more homes in the market. It activates neighborhoods, stimulates construction and ultimately contributes to the local economy and activity.

This is about a bit of fairness.

It's about asking whether those who are sitting on undeveloped land are contributing equally to the infrastructure and services to benefit the land. I get the point. But in terms of fairness, is it really fair that the council hike up your rates to achieve their goals. If it's your vacant block of land and you want to let it

They fly all over the world.

They give money to stupid social causes that have nothing to do with benefiting rate payers. I get that this might help produce some more homes, but I just think it's bad policy when you're violating people's property ownership rights.

Yeah, property rights have just gone out the window. I mean, they're in a bad state in this country if you ask me to begin with. But no matter how high you hike the rates, dear counsel, it's still going to be a hell of a lot cheaper than developing the land. Do you have any idea how much that costs. Why don't you just to start demanding what nature of development you want to see on the land. At this point, Oh, we want more houses, you have to build housing. What

For it to sit.

There is just shameless revenue raising if you ask me. Sure, they're creating an incentive for the land to.

Be developed, but is it right. No, I really don't think it is.

Councilors tell people what they can do in their land all the time. They zone lands for different purposes.

In the zoning is a different issue. The former counselor, I can tell you that.

Say, but you're saying, I own this bit of land, I should be able to build a house here if I want to say, well, no, you can't because you're in an industrial zone. So but if I bought a bit of land, or this is my bit of plan, I want to build a ten story house, well no you can't. They change the rules on me to achieve outcomes that they want.

The story.

This isn't a matter of them refusing a development application because they don't like the manner of the development. This is a case of there's a vacant block of land, the owner's not doing anything with it.

We don't like that. We're going to try and force you to do.

It's called use or use it or lose it provisions, and that they exist already in Australia. Everywhere there's there's laws that. In fact, in the last last year's budget there were a whole bunch of extra but the penalties were already there, but they were double, they increased many

I have no problem with that either. But that's because it's owned by Australia.

I own my house and it is very very full.

Any vacant locks.

I don't have any vacant punished for owning No, I have none whatsoever, and I'm more than happy, more than happy to keep it that way. I think we should be using every single bit of land that we have and in feeling it as much as we have to make sure that people are using it as not just being sat there left vacant so that the owner can then sell it.

For your mind, you have any vacant bedrooms in your home.

I don't. Actually they are also all full.

It's just a matter of degrees as to how far you go once you violate the principle of this is my property. I can do what I want on my property.

I think that at the point, I think they've already been suggestions and again whether or not people should you know, there should be an extra penalty pay if you have an investment property that's just sitting empty. I don't know if they yet apply to Australian owners, but certainly certainly to foreign owners they do so surely they have property rights too, or do they not?

I believe they should.

I think it's different with.

Foreign I believe if you owned a bit of land in say Bali, A lot of Australians have a lot of a ballet, which is actually impossible because the Indonesians.

Just make it such a basket case.

Land in China this is no problem.

But I think either you know you have rights or you don't. I think you use it or lose it. Can I get in there or.

Agree to disagree? Well?

Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has come out swinging against net zero policies.

Today.

I quote votes feel like they're being asked to make financial sacrifices and changes in lifestyle when they know the impact on global emissions is minimal.

Preach brother.

He says any strategy based on either phasing out fossil fuels in the short term or limiting consumption is a strategy.

Doomed to fail.

Now he's not actually calling for labor to halt its push to decarbonize the UK economy. He's simply saying, you guys need to rethink the way you're going about this, because it is not working except for impoverishing the everyday person who's just trying to heat their homes in the UK, where it's possible to freeze to death and have some quality of life over there, if you're running a small business, if you've got a factory, et cetera, and so on.

A while, he's slow, but he gets there in the end. I was going to start, I can't believe I'm agreeing with Tony Blair, but then I realized, no, no, he's agreeing with the rest of us, because most of us have thought this for a long long time. He's actually recommending some interesting things. He's recommending that money be spent not on trying to achieve net zero, but rather on climate adaptation.

It's not a bad idea.

He's also recommending get this investment in small scale nuclear reactors. Remember this is a labor Prime Minister sounds for me, and he said, and here's an idea. What if we got India and China to reduce their emissions, we start destroying our own economies.

So much to take that guy, Prime Minister.

The other was he said, you know, the benefits of net zero are continually exaggerated, and the debate is said, is riven with irrationality.

Not that we've seen any of that in Australia.

No, mate, you can shut your mouth.

You can shut you American people your social paths like you.

Death, disease, displacement, starvation, people dying of first arable farming lands turning into desert, and most likely billions of people dead.

I can't imagine why support for action on climate change is dwindling. Tony Blair said that the public are starting to lose their support for this stuff. I'm not sure that politicians ever had the public support for this stuff. But good that Tony Blair has finally woken up and is now saying what most of us have been saying for a long long time.

Joe, Yeah, I don't.

Well, it's one of those things that there is public support for it, but that's port very very quickly declines as soon as there's a cost attached to it. So people say, yes, we should do more on climate change, yes we sud this is this, but as soon as they have to pay more, so as there's a risk of them losing their job, soon as any of these things come into play, suddenly it becomes a second edition.

So that's what happened. So Tony Blair is absolutely right.

Yes we have to address climate change, but you can't do it in a way that just says, sorry, you pour luddite, knuckle dragon, coal miner. You have to sacrifice your job and your livelihood so that you know the rest of us. Can you sip our arm and lattes in peace and not have to worry about the planet we go to a break?

Could the Labor Party be any more contemptuous of voters? Senator Penny Wong said today that the Indigenous Voice to Parliament, you know, the one that sixty percent of us voted no to just a couple of years ago. She said, it is an inevitability. Doesn't matter that we've already voted no. She's sure there'll be a second vote, and if necessary, a third and a fourth vote until voters finally get it right.

Here's what she said.

He thought it was the right thing to do, and you know a lot of the First Nations leaders wanted the opportunity. So look, I think we'll look back on it in ten years time and it'll be like marriage equality. It'll become something to be like. People go, do we have an argument about that?

She's so confident a voice to Parliament will be legislated one day, we'll look back and say, I can't believe we even had a disagreement about that. Now, listen to the Prime Minister tell you that you didn't hear what you just heard?

Is Pennywong right? Is the voice sort of inevitable?

Well she didn't say that at all, So you just played it people will I think I think it was a very modest proposal, but it didn't receive the support of the Australian people. And that is what Penny Wong is saying.

Can you believe this guy?

You just heard what Penny Wong said? They played it on the radio and then he says, no, no, you didn't hear.

What you just heard.

Well, it's a very very foolish thing for Penny Wong to have said, I forget.

What Penny Wong said.

What about Anthony Albineazy there just totally gaslighting everybody.

Well, he is desperately trying to make the point that the voice, as Tony Abbott says.

Trying to make the point.

But what about what he said about Wong said.

Well, she didn't openly say explicitly we will legislate the voice.

And you know this is like a tactical obfustigation that you We're going to go to a break.

When we come back, we'll look at what's making news tomorrow, including the last Redbridge pole showing surging ahead just days before the federal election.

That's coming up in just a moment.

Well, we're talking just before we went to the break about Penny Wong bringing up the voice again and suggesting it could be tried again. That's the front page of Tomorrow's Daily Telegraph.

Yes, it certainly is.

And also I have to say the subject of a something call I wrote about just saying how incredibly smug and stupid these comments were, So I'm not defending them. But yes, Wong digs up Labour's voice nightmare, throwing campaign into chaos. Penny drops get it is the headline. Anthony Albaneze's path through election victory has been thrown into chaos by his Foreign Minister Penny Wong after she implied the dump Indigenous Voice to Parliament would in the future.

Be considered an inevitability.

Coalition Indigenous Affairs spokes women just senter Namdjibba Price said Labor simply won't take no for an answer on the voice proposal. So yeah, very very damaging, sloppy, messy, careless comments from Penny Wong. But I can certainly say I can guarantee you there is no plan whatsoever. Everyone in the government is absolutely scared of any sort of rerun

And itone, except for Penny Wong, her comparison between the same sex marriage plebacite and the voice referendum is so misplaced for a number of reasons. But I'll give you just one when she says, you know, one day the voice will be regarded as what was that about?

As same sex marriage.

The only reason same sex marriage is now regarded as Okay, we've got it is because those who voted no to it at the plebacite said, well, you know what, the majority of Australian said yes, so we won't continually oppose it and continue. I mean it's it, unlike those who lost the Voice referendum who continually bring it back up and argue that well, Australian's got it wrong. They didn't understand they were tricked and insists that will repeat the referendum until we get it right.

Well, there's actually irony upon irony because obviously referring to it'll be about marriage equalities, So what was.

All the fuss about.

She's obviously not referred to the fact that marriage equality failed. She's referred to the fact that it got up. So clearly she's answering on the assumption that something like the Voice or whatever gets up.

But the biggest irony, of.

Course, is that the rud Gillard government refused to do anything on marriage equality and Penny Wong, and I don't blame her at all for she was just towing the party line very nobly and it was obviously through gritted teeth. But Penny Wong would not come out against the government and held the party line.

And it was the Liberal Party that actually put it to a vote.

And I believe that people who actually said, you know, instead of having a referendum, we could have a postal pleba site and that might just be a way to solve the issue the postal survey. And I believe it was Tony Abbott and one Peter Dutton who actually put forward this is a way to sort of break the impass and get marriage equality up. So Peter Dutton, freedom fighter for Australia's Lgbtaiqi plus.

Community, speaking to put that out in a business card to the front.

Page of the Courier Mail.

Global Uncertainty Strikes reads the splash Dutton slumps on poll eve. Global uncertainty caused by the actions of US President Donald Trump appears set to deny the Coalition to hear of any chance of returning to government. According to new polling, the red Bridge Accent polling reveals Labor has pulled clearly ahead with fifty three forty seven support. It also finds global uncertainty is the biggest driver for people deciding.

How to vote.

Almost half of those polls.

Said it would be among the top reasons for them in deciding who to oppose at the ballot box on Saturday. I do find it so curious that so much media that I've read throughout this campaign keeps making it out like it's a legitimate race. I've sort of the very beginning of this campaign that I didn't think the Liberals had a chance for the simple reason of electoral map. It would take an act of God to flip twenty

So this poll to me, is not shocking in the least.

Well, the Libs were very competitive, or much more competitive, but the truth is they've just pissed away their lead.

Indeed, so very this is a national pole.

We've also got Redbridge doing a massive tracking pole in the twenty marginal seats. And again the Libs were ahead, you know, fifty two forty eight in February when the campaign began in earnest and ever since that rate cut, Labor came out of the blocks strongly. The Libs have been paying catch up. Ever since there's been slopping this over policy. Trump has really, really hurt them and another thing, and sadly they seem to keep making the same mistakes.

The things that are driving the vote, according to this article in the Career Mail, and the polling are just rubbish. I mean the number one issue for people voting labor is the promise of free GP visits, which doctors have come out and said if Anthony Albanez he thinks everyone's going to start bolt billing, I mean he's living in fantasy. The second most popular thing was the promise to end

It's not a major thing.

And the thing that was driving the vote away from Peter Dutton, aside from a fear that he was a minnie Donald Trump. Was the cost of new clear which Labour keeps saying will be what six hundred billion dollars, which has been two used as a lie. So that's what's driving.

Because there's two sets of figures.

Always speaking of figures, let's go to the front page of the Canberra Times. A bid to cut forty billion dollars from debt is the headline. But here's the interesting part. The coalition will publish its costings two days out from the election, with the figures expected to show it will shave off forty billion dollars of total.

Two days too soon, I'll ask me Jane.

Now.

Jane Hume was on Sky News earlier tonight and she was saying the coalition's costings would be released imminently. She promised it would not be Friday afternoon, so she was on with Laura Jay's this morning actually and pretty much said it will be tomorrow, Thursday, just two days out from the election. I guess it's it's very smart politicking, Liz, No, it's not.

You don't have time to sell anything in two days.

The average punter who's just working their nine to five and trying to get through their lives with some semblance of peace. Won't be remotely aware of your plan to cut forty billion. They simply will not know when they go to vote. Millions have already voted, by the way, we've set new.

Records in pre polling. I do not understand why any parties wait.

This long to unveil something, this big, something this great, forty.

Billion off the debt.

Yeah, take my vote please, Except people don't know.

And what are you going to do in the next two days to make.

Them all abundantly aware of your amazing plan that you revealed forty eight hours prior.

Are you kidding me? I give up?

Are they just limiting opportunity for I give up? I'm done.

You always release your costings at the last possible minute.

This is ridiculous. No one will be aware.

This is their own tactical obfuscation. It's not about that.

All the policies are out there. All the good stuff that they're doing is out there. They've told everyone about that, they'd get that out.

How they're going to pay for it?

They're going to pay for it.

Obviously, the million dollar question they' say, oh, we're going to do it by getting forty billion dollars from debt, just like that, and of course labor and everyone else is going to be all over that like a cheap suit.

No what, it's time to fact check it in forty eight hours.

That's the whole point.

Yes, that's right, it's really quick, Joe. Before we go to a break, Yeah, advertise a little one that I love.

The Green's labor boost has Donet on edge in blue ribbon seat Liberals. Stertled there is growing concern within Liberal Party that Green's preferences could hand Labor victory in Stert with PM Anthony Albernezi, Opposition leader Peter dunn't dashing to Adelaide campaign today to campaign there, So Stert and Booth via the two swing steats suit two marginal seats in Adelaide, I say swing steats Labor has never actually won stirt. They've been trying for decades, they've never actually done it.

All right, we're going to go to a break.

We'll continue with our political discussions. Because Anthony Albanesi has been endorsed by someone he'd rather didn't vote for him at all.

Will explain what happened in just a moment.

Well, you think, if you're running for public office, you want as many endorsements as you can get, But Liz, it turns out there's at least one endorsement. Anthony Albanesi would prefer not.

To have no.

Indeed.

American Joe Exotic, who is the star of Tiger King.

You may have seen it on Netflix. He's currently a prison.

Inmate serving twenty two years for a raft of felonies.

He's taken to his social media to say keep Australia safe and awesome. All my friends in Australia vote.

For Anthony Albanesi Well today with a photoshopped image by the way, that isn't actually them together rubbing shoulders. Well today, Anthony Albanize, he was asked did he pay for this star spangled endorsement?

Joe Exotic from the hit series Tiger King is on a more serious note is he's serving a prison sentence for a murder and has been convicted of animal abuse. He's also just endorsed you on Instagram. How do you feel about that? Have you ever met him? And has anyone in labor paid for his endorsement.

Goodnessationm Levity.

I have a very passionate support for one particular animal, Tito, and I'm looking forward to voting with her on Saturday.

All good laugh from Anthony Albanezy there. I think Toto is his dog.

Tto is his dog, and I just.

You know what, I just we should stop talking about the dog. But I love he loves he really. I can tell you that is not an act. He really, he really really loves that dog, and that's very sweet.

The Prime Minister went on to say in his answer to that question, which quite amused me.

He said, I think the.

Point of that question was to ask the question rather than to get an answer. And I remember watching that Press Club interview this afternoon thinking, oh, the state of journalism, Like, what a stupid question. But of course I think the reporter got exactly what she wanted. It's been all over the papers today and here we are talking about it. I think it's what they call clickbait.

Yes it is.

But I'm going to have to fact check the reporter because she said that Joe was serving a prison sentence for murder. In fact, it was just attempted murder. There were two counts of it was convicted. Joe Exotic was convicted. This is Wikipedia, so I must be right. Was convicted and sends to twenty two years of in prison on seventeen federal charges of animal abuse and two counts of attempted murder for hire for the plot to kill Carl Baskin.

How would you feel if you're cald Baskin.

Well, Joe Exotic will not be voting on Saturday, so we don't ever worry about him.

That's all from us stick Around. Coming up in just a moment is the Reader Penney Show.

Good Night,