April 16, 2025 • 15 mins
Last night, Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton went head-to-head in the second leaders’ debate of the campaign.
The difference between the two leaders’ visions for the country was stark. Albanese talked about his “optimism” for the future, while Dutton asked voters to reflect on whether they are better off now than they were three years ago, suggesting that most people are not.
But Albanese and Dutton were united on one thing: neither leader really landed a blow – and neither leader won the night.
Today, 7am co-host Daniel James on the biggest moments from the debate – from energy, to housing, to diplomacy and defence – and why Dutton has had to admit another mistake.
If you enjoy 7am, the best way you can support us is by making a contribution at 7ampodcast.com.au/support.
Socials: Stay in touch with us on Instagram
Guest: Writer and co-host of 7am, Daniel James
Photo: AAP Image/Dan Himbrechts, Mick Tsikas
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You two have known each other a very long time.
I've witnessed you both over the dispatch box in Parliament.
You're able to have a chat. You seem to get on.
I just want to ask.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
I don't want you to ever state it so for
the kiss of death for both.
Speaker 1 (00:12):
What I wanted to ask is it would really be
a disaster for the country or is this just a
bit of political hype if the other guy won.
Speaker 3 (00:19):
Mister Albanzi, I think there are very different values that
we have.
Speaker 4 (00:25):
In the second leader's debate last night, those different values
and the two leaders opposing visions for Australia were stark.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
I'm really optimistic about Australia's future if we seize the
opportunities that are right in front of us.
Speaker 4 (00:39):
Anthony Albanesi continued his pitch to voters that they should
trust him with another term.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
Well.
Speaker 4 (00:45):
Peter Dutton continued to press the line that Australians have
gone backwards.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
As we approach the third of my many Australians will
be asking themselves are you better off today than you
were three years ago?
Speaker 4 (00:57):
And around, But Albanie and Dutton were united on one thing.
Neither leader really landed a blow or won the night
from Schwartz Media. I'm Ruby Jones. This is seven AM today.
(01:17):
My co host Daniel James on the biggest moments from
the debate, from energy to housing, to diplomacy and defense,
and why Dutton has had to admit another mistake. It's Thursday,
April seventeen. Daniel, the debate itself. It started with this
(01:43):
question about housing and the new housing plans that both
major parties have released in the last week, and there
has been widespread criticism from analysts that both plans run
the risk of driving up house prices. What did you
make of the way that both men defended what their
plans are.
Speaker 5 (02:03):
I thought Albanzi was able to speak to his plan
a little bit more clearly. He was able to mention
things directly, like building one hundred thousand year homes.
Speaker 3 (02:11):
What we have is a reservation of one hundred thousand
homes just for first home buyers. That will give them
an opportunity because they won't be competing with investors.
Speaker 5 (02:24):
And we see that the five percent deposit.
Speaker 3 (02:27):
Now a five percent deposit rather than twenty will mean
that instead of paying off someone else's mortgage, they can
pay off their own mortgage.
Speaker 5 (02:37):
Whereas Dutton's planned around being able to claim tax rebates
on interest rates paid for mortgages is a little bit
more convoluted and difficult to cut through.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
For the first six hundred and fifty thousand dollars of
your mortgage that will be interested, you could claim against
your income. So for an average couple that will be
about eleven or twelve thousand dollars a year over five years.
Speaker 5 (03:02):
It'll be a lot more for high income. But they
were both also not willing to go near things like
negative gearing.
Speaker 1 (03:09):
Neither of you seem willing to touch the negative gearing
or capital gains tax breaks at this election. You've both
been property investors over the years. Can you understand younger
Australians locked out of the market feeling that it is
people like you who are to blame for the fact
that systems rigged against them. Mister Albinezi, Well, could I
(03:29):
make this point David.
Speaker 5 (03:30):
And both lives not willing to go near it with
a barge pole.
Speaker 4 (03:35):
Yeah, And there was this question that was put to
both men around what they'd want to be remembered for
if you know, they were the Prime minister for the
next three years and Dutton's answer was basically, energy policy.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
Energy use, the economy. David, everything we use, everything around
us is either running or has been created because of
the use of energy farming.
Speaker 4 (03:57):
So what's your read on which leader had the most
realistic and best version of our energy future.
Speaker 5 (04:07):
I'd have to say that neither leader was particularly convincing
when talking about their own energy policies. Dutton really struggled
with being able to explain the detail about how much
water would be used for modular reactors compared to the
larger scale nuclear reactors.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
I mean, we could spend all night on what I
think it's really improve. Yes, but but there are different
depending on the small modular reactor as well, and obviously
the size of the as to the amount of water
that's required of the.
Speaker 1 (04:35):
Large reactors you're talking about, and you've got one plan.
Speaker 5 (04:38):
When David Spears pressed to Alban Easy on when he's
planned for renewables would bring down the cost of energy
prices for consumers, he couldn't nentwer.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
That Peter Ray's gas is now thirteen dollars. It was
thirty dollars, and when we came off, thirteen is cheaper
than thirty.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
When do we see the bill come down.
Speaker 3 (05:01):
Well, what we need to do is to roll out renewable,
to make sure there's energy security, make.
Speaker 5 (05:06):
Sure which is pretty symptomatic of the way that this
entire sort of election is being run. Both leaders, when
it comes to the cost of living in particular, really
seem to struggle around the edges as to what their
policies would mean for people in everyday life.
Speaker 4 (05:28):
Coming up after the break, Peter Dutton is not a scientist.
Let's turn to foreign policy. That is where Albanize started
to make this case that Dutton was being reckless or
(05:49):
immature in his responses to world events.
Speaker 3 (05:53):
Diplomacy means engaging seriously in a calibrated, serious way Indonesia
with respect as we do other nations that we deal with.
Speaker 4 (06:05):
Do you think that he landed that idea.
Speaker 5 (06:08):
We've had the big funeral in the last seventy two
hours around Dunton claiming the Indonesian President I had spoken
about having Russian military resources placed in Indonesia, something that
the Indonesians have refuted and there is no actual evidence
of the president actually having said that. It plays into
(06:30):
a broader narrative around Dutton around being a ball in
a China Shop for one of a much better phrase.
When it comes to world affairs and policy affairs. He's
someone who, I think, over the last three years in particular,
and maybe over the course of his entire political career
now that I think of it, has been someone that
has been willing to shoot off at the mouth when
(06:52):
it comes to particular issues and not really think through
either the policy or political consequences.
Speaker 4 (07:00):
I think the way that Dutton spoke about his previous
comments around Russia and Indonesia was interesting. He admitted that
he had made a mistake.
Speaker 2 (07:09):
So was that a mistake? It was a mistake and
I'm happy to a bit what we've got.
Speaker 4 (07:15):
This is not the first time we've heard an apology
from Dutton. Last week it was about his position on
working from home. So what does this say to you,
this kind of walking back, this apology for things that
he said. What does that say to you about how
Dutton is handling himself at this point in the campaign.
Speaker 5 (07:33):
It shows that his campaign is not going so well
that he's actually, i would say struggling in this moment
to be able to cut through, provide a clear narrative
and made up to his own expectations of as being
seen as a strong man in a time when we
here in Australia are looking abroad to see what other
strong men are doing around the globe. His traditional strongman
(07:57):
approach is now a double edged sword for him.
Speaker 4 (08:01):
Yeah, and there was no whether that was more evident
in the way that he spoke about Donald Trump. So
he wouldn't really answer the question as to whether or
not he trusted Donald Trump, which was interesting. But at
the same time he was also trying to make this
case that he could have gotten Australia out of the
tariffs that Trump is imposing. So he's walking this very
(08:22):
very tricky line. There isn't he you know? Is he
or is he not close to Trump? What is the
message that was supposed to take.
Speaker 5 (08:29):
I don't think there's anyone in the country that thinks
that Peter Dutton isn't more closely aligned to the politics
of Trump than he has led on during this campaign.
He was asked on a couple of occasions by David
Spears whether he trusted Donald Trump, and his line was, well,
I haven't met him.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
I'm not going to say you trust I don't know.
I don't know Donald Trump is my point. My point
is that who I trust is the Australian people in
my job.
Speaker 5 (08:55):
He has asked the same question about the Chinese president,
gig Ping.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
Again, I don't know the president of China, but I
believe very strongly in the relationship.
Speaker 5 (09:04):
Alberanzi was using the office of the Prime Minister to say, well,
I've dealt with both men and I have no reason
not to trust either.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
We have different political systems and that means different values,
and we have very different values with China. But what
I've said is we'll cooperate where we can, we'll disagree
where we must.
Speaker 5 (09:23):
Pointing out, of course, that the Morrison government had no
diplomatic contact with the Chinese regime throughout their three years
of government.
Speaker 3 (09:33):
There was no contact, no funatraals, no meetings, no trade well.
Speaker 1 (09:36):
There wasn't diplomatic for its well in terms of the
trade relationships.
Speaker 5 (09:39):
So there was a point that Alberanzi was able to score.
But for Dutton, it's a particularly tricky line in that
he doesn't want to be seen to be too close
to Trump, but he also wants to highlight the fact
that he is better placed than Albanzi to be able
to deal with the Trump presidency, which is a very
very very fine line to work.
Speaker 4 (10:01):
Yeah, And there was this other really interesting moment, Daniel,
where Peter Dutton he said that he does believe in
climate change, but he sort of refused to link it
to more regular extreme weather events, saying, you know, I'm
not a scientist.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
We need to it is getting worse.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
Well, I'll leave others to you think, Eric, Well, I'll
let scientists and others pass that judgment, but.
Speaker 1 (10:24):
Really not willing to say this is climate change happening
right now?
Speaker 2 (10:27):
Well, as the Prime Minister refused to do the other
day to make comment in this regard as well. I
don't know, David, because I'm not a scientist and I
can't tell you.
Speaker 4 (10:35):
Whether do you think that this really ultimately tells us
anything about Peter Dutton or about Anthony Alban easy that
we didn't know about their different approaches.
Speaker 5 (10:46):
I think that was a striking moment in the campaign.
There was enough said by Dutton, enough intimated by him
to raise the question as to well, does he believe
in climate science? Does he believe that severe whether events
are occurring more commonly now because the climate is changing.
I don't want to give the Prime Minister too much
(11:08):
credit for his response either, but he said obviously that
he does believe in climate science.
Speaker 3 (11:14):
The cost to our economy as well as the cost
of our environment of not acting on climate change, not
being a part of the global solution severe.
Speaker 5 (11:23):
And if there is a large proportion of the community
and the electorate that are concerned about both major parties
climate policies, Glutton's refusal to go full in and respect
the science around climate for me was a pretty big moment.
Speaker 4 (11:44):
Yeah. Another big moment I think is when both leaders
were asked about Indigenous affairs in Australia and David Spears
he pointed out the fact that night a leader has
actually visited an Indigenous community during this campaign so far. Meanwhile,
the gap widens on many fronts.
Speaker 3 (12:01):
Neither side of politics has done well enough for First
Nations people. That's just a fact and that's something that
breaks my heart.
Speaker 4 (12:11):
What did you think as you listen to Anthony Albernesi
defend his post voice plan for Indigenous affairs.
Speaker 5 (12:19):
Well, you know with this one, I've got a bit
of skin in the game. Of course. What it speaks
to is that Labor and Anthony Alberzi, well, so much
political capital during the referendum that they do not want
to go near Indigenous affairs as a major issue. But
as things stand at the moment, the same policy settings
that have been in place now for close to twenty
(12:41):
years remain around closing the gap, and neither leader this
election has painted out a big vision post voice for
what they see the future is for Indigenous affairs and
Indigenous Australians.
Speaker 4 (12:56):
Daniel is finally, who do you think? In this debate
ultimately made the most coherent, the most convincing, the strongest
case as to why Australians should vote for them.
Speaker 5 (13:11):
It has to be said that both leaders acquitted themselves
very well. Peter Dutton, as we got towards the end
of the debate, became stronger. He was very clear about
his vision about making Australia a more prosperous country, a
safer country.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
I want to make sure that we can invest into
defense and make sure that we can take crime seriously
and reduce the problem of crime as it exists in
our communities, in our suburbs across the country. My vision
for our country is to make us a safer.
Speaker 5 (13:40):
Crime in Victoria and in Melbourne in particular, in our
lectures that he needs to win in outer suburbs is
a state issue, but is an issue that is on
the screens of Victorians every night and day. And even
though his ability as a prime minister or a federal
leader is somewhat limited to that, to be able to
(14:04):
cast himself in a position where he can intimate he
will have an impact on crime rates was something that
I think he was able to weave in quite clearly
throughout the debate. But overall I'd have to say that
it was Albanezi that carried the day. But having said that,
neither leader landed a knockout blow.
Speaker 4 (14:24):
Well, Daniel, thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 5 (14:27):
Thank you Rerby. Good to speak to.
Speaker 4 (14:28):
You as always. Also in the news today, the UK
Supreme Court has ruled in favor of gender critical rights
campaigners and against the Scottish government over the definition of
(14:49):
a woman. Five judges ruled unanimously that the legal definition
of a woman did not include transgender women who hold
gender recognition certificates. The ruling will transgender women will not
be able to sit on public boards in places set
aside for women. The campaign group Scottish Trans urged people
not to panic as they work through the implications of
(15:11):
the court's decision, and widespread bleaching of the Great Barrier
Reef has become normalized, according to scientists. Government authorities have
recorded the six widespread coral bleaching event in less than
a decade, with back to back bleachings over the past
two summers. The Ningaloo Reef off the coast of Western
Australia has also been hit by extreme bleaching and heat
(15:33):
stress this year. I'm Ruby Jones. This is seven am.
Thanks for listening.
You two have known each other a very long time.
I've witnessed you both over the dispatch box in Parliament.
You're able to have a chat. You seem to get on.
I just want to ask.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
I don't want you to ever state it so for
the kiss of death for both.
Speaker 1 (00:12):
What I wanted to ask is it would really be
a disaster for the country or is this just a
bit of political hype if the other guy won.
Speaker 3 (00:19):
Mister Albanzi, I think there are very different values that
we have.
Speaker 4 (00:25):
In the second leader's debate last night, those different values
and the two leaders opposing visions for Australia were stark.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
I'm really optimistic about Australia's future if we seize the
opportunities that are right in front of us.
Speaker 4 (00:39):
Anthony Albanesi continued his pitch to voters that they should
trust him with another term.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
Well.
Speaker 4 (00:45):
Peter Dutton continued to press the line that Australians have
gone backwards.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
As we approach the third of my many Australians will
be asking themselves are you better off today than you
were three years ago?
Speaker 4 (00:57):
And around, But Albanie and Dutton were united on one thing.
Neither leader really landed a blow or won the night
from Schwartz Media. I'm Ruby Jones. This is seven AM today.
(01:17):
My co host Daniel James on the biggest moments from
the debate, from energy to housing, to diplomacy and defense,
and why Dutton has had to admit another mistake. It's Thursday,
April seventeen. Daniel, the debate itself. It started with this
(01:43):
question about housing and the new housing plans that both
major parties have released in the last week, and there
has been widespread criticism from analysts that both plans run
the risk of driving up house prices. What did you
make of the way that both men defended what their
plans are.
Speaker 5 (02:03):
I thought Albanzi was able to speak to his plan
a little bit more clearly. He was able to mention
things directly, like building one hundred thousand year homes.
Speaker 3 (02:11):
What we have is a reservation of one hundred thousand
homes just for first home buyers. That will give them
an opportunity because they won't be competing with investors.
Speaker 5 (02:24):
And we see that the five percent deposit.
Speaker 3 (02:27):
Now a five percent deposit rather than twenty will mean
that instead of paying off someone else's mortgage, they can
pay off their own mortgage.
Speaker 5 (02:37):
Whereas Dutton's planned around being able to claim tax rebates
on interest rates paid for mortgages is a little bit
more convoluted and difficult to cut through.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
For the first six hundred and fifty thousand dollars of
your mortgage that will be interested, you could claim against
your income. So for an average couple that will be
about eleven or twelve thousand dollars a year over five years.
Speaker 5 (03:02):
It'll be a lot more for high income. But they
were both also not willing to go near things like
negative gearing.
Speaker 1 (03:09):
Neither of you seem willing to touch the negative gearing
or capital gains tax breaks at this election. You've both
been property investors over the years. Can you understand younger
Australians locked out of the market feeling that it is
people like you who are to blame for the fact
that systems rigged against them. Mister Albinezi, Well, could I
(03:29):
make this point David.
Speaker 5 (03:30):
And both lives not willing to go near it with
a barge pole.
Speaker 4 (03:35):
Yeah, And there was this question that was put to
both men around what they'd want to be remembered for
if you know, they were the Prime minister for the
next three years and Dutton's answer was basically, energy policy.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
Energy use, the economy. David, everything we use, everything around
us is either running or has been created because of
the use of energy farming.
Speaker 4 (03:57):
So what's your read on which leader had the most
realistic and best version of our energy future.
Speaker 5 (04:07):
I'd have to say that neither leader was particularly convincing
when talking about their own energy policies. Dutton really struggled
with being able to explain the detail about how much
water would be used for modular reactors compared to the
larger scale nuclear reactors.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
I mean, we could spend all night on what I
think it's really improve. Yes, but but there are different
depending on the small modular reactor as well, and obviously
the size of the as to the amount of water
that's required of the.
Speaker 1 (04:35):
Large reactors you're talking about, and you've got one plan.
Speaker 5 (04:38):
When David Spears pressed to Alban Easy on when he's
planned for renewables would bring down the cost of energy
prices for consumers, he couldn't nentwer.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
That Peter Ray's gas is now thirteen dollars. It was
thirty dollars, and when we came off, thirteen is cheaper
than thirty.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
When do we see the bill come down.
Speaker 3 (05:01):
Well, what we need to do is to roll out renewable,
to make sure there's energy security, make.
Speaker 5 (05:06):
Sure which is pretty symptomatic of the way that this
entire sort of election is being run. Both leaders, when
it comes to the cost of living in particular, really
seem to struggle around the edges as to what their
policies would mean for people in everyday life.
Speaker 4 (05:28):
Coming up after the break, Peter Dutton is not a scientist.
Let's turn to foreign policy. That is where Albanize started
to make this case that Dutton was being reckless or
(05:49):
immature in his responses to world events.
Speaker 3 (05:53):
Diplomacy means engaging seriously in a calibrated, serious way Indonesia
with respect as we do other nations that we deal with.
Speaker 4 (06:05):
Do you think that he landed that idea.
Speaker 5 (06:08):
We've had the big funeral in the last seventy two
hours around Dunton claiming the Indonesian President I had spoken
about having Russian military resources placed in Indonesia, something that
the Indonesians have refuted and there is no actual evidence
of the president actually having said that. It plays into
(06:30):
a broader narrative around Dutton around being a ball in
a China Shop for one of a much better phrase.
When it comes to world affairs and policy affairs. He's
someone who, I think, over the last three years in particular,
and maybe over the course of his entire political career
now that I think of it, has been someone that
has been willing to shoot off at the mouth when
(06:52):
it comes to particular issues and not really think through
either the policy or political consequences.
Speaker 4 (07:00):
I think the way that Dutton spoke about his previous
comments around Russia and Indonesia was interesting. He admitted that
he had made a mistake.
Speaker 2 (07:09):
So was that a mistake? It was a mistake and
I'm happy to a bit what we've got.
Speaker 4 (07:15):
This is not the first time we've heard an apology
from Dutton. Last week it was about his position on
working from home. So what does this say to you,
this kind of walking back, this apology for things that
he said. What does that say to you about how
Dutton is handling himself at this point in the campaign.
Speaker 5 (07:33):
It shows that his campaign is not going so well
that he's actually, i would say struggling in this moment
to be able to cut through, provide a clear narrative
and made up to his own expectations of as being
seen as a strong man in a time when we
here in Australia are looking abroad to see what other
strong men are doing around the globe. His traditional strongman
(07:57):
approach is now a double edged sword for him.
Speaker 4 (08:01):
Yeah, and there was no whether that was more evident
in the way that he spoke about Donald Trump. So
he wouldn't really answer the question as to whether or
not he trusted Donald Trump, which was interesting. But at
the same time he was also trying to make this
case that he could have gotten Australia out of the
tariffs that Trump is imposing. So he's walking this very
(08:22):
very tricky line. There isn't he you know? Is he
or is he not close to Trump? What is the
message that was supposed to take.
Speaker 5 (08:29):
I don't think there's anyone in the country that thinks
that Peter Dutton isn't more closely aligned to the politics
of Trump than he has led on during this campaign.
He was asked on a couple of occasions by David
Spears whether he trusted Donald Trump, and his line was, well,
I haven't met him.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
I'm not going to say you trust I don't know.
I don't know Donald Trump is my point. My point
is that who I trust is the Australian people in
my job.
Speaker 5 (08:55):
He has asked the same question about the Chinese president,
gig Ping.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
Again, I don't know the president of China, but I
believe very strongly in the relationship.
Speaker 5 (09:04):
Alberanzi was using the office of the Prime Minister to say, well,
I've dealt with both men and I have no reason
not to trust either.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
We have different political systems and that means different values,
and we have very different values with China. But what
I've said is we'll cooperate where we can, we'll disagree
where we must.
Speaker 5 (09:23):
Pointing out, of course, that the Morrison government had no
diplomatic contact with the Chinese regime throughout their three years
of government.
Speaker 3 (09:33):
There was no contact, no funatraals, no meetings, no trade well.
Speaker 1 (09:36):
There wasn't diplomatic for its well in terms of the
trade relationships.
Speaker 5 (09:39):
So there was a point that Alberanzi was able to score.
But for Dutton, it's a particularly tricky line in that
he doesn't want to be seen to be too close
to Trump, but he also wants to highlight the fact
that he is better placed than Albanzi to be able
to deal with the Trump presidency, which is a very
very very fine line to work.
Speaker 4 (10:01):
Yeah, And there was this other really interesting moment, Daniel,
where Peter Dutton he said that he does believe in
climate change, but he sort of refused to link it
to more regular extreme weather events, saying, you know, I'm
not a scientist.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
We need to it is getting worse.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
Well, I'll leave others to you think, Eric, Well, I'll
let scientists and others pass that judgment, but.
Speaker 1 (10:24):
Really not willing to say this is climate change happening
right now?
Speaker 2 (10:27):
Well, as the Prime Minister refused to do the other
day to make comment in this regard as well. I
don't know, David, because I'm not a scientist and I
can't tell you.
Speaker 4 (10:35):
Whether do you think that this really ultimately tells us
anything about Peter Dutton or about Anthony Alban easy that
we didn't know about their different approaches.
Speaker 5 (10:46):
I think that was a striking moment in the campaign.
There was enough said by Dutton, enough intimated by him
to raise the question as to well, does he believe
in climate science? Does he believe that severe whether events
are occurring more commonly now because the climate is changing.
I don't want to give the Prime Minister too much
(11:08):
credit for his response either, but he said obviously that
he does believe in climate science.
Speaker 3 (11:14):
The cost to our economy as well as the cost
of our environment of not acting on climate change, not
being a part of the global solution severe.
Speaker 5 (11:23):
And if there is a large proportion of the community
and the electorate that are concerned about both major parties
climate policies, Glutton's refusal to go full in and respect
the science around climate for me was a pretty big moment.
Speaker 4 (11:44):
Yeah. Another big moment I think is when both leaders
were asked about Indigenous affairs in Australia and David Spears
he pointed out the fact that night a leader has
actually visited an Indigenous community during this campaign so far. Meanwhile,
the gap widens on many fronts.
Speaker 3 (12:01):
Neither side of politics has done well enough for First
Nations people. That's just a fact and that's something that
breaks my heart.
Speaker 4 (12:11):
What did you think as you listen to Anthony Albernesi
defend his post voice plan for Indigenous affairs.
Speaker 5 (12:19):
Well, you know with this one, I've got a bit
of skin in the game. Of course. What it speaks
to is that Labor and Anthony Alberzi, well, so much
political capital during the referendum that they do not want
to go near Indigenous affairs as a major issue. But
as things stand at the moment, the same policy settings
that have been in place now for close to twenty
(12:41):
years remain around closing the gap, and neither leader this
election has painted out a big vision post voice for
what they see the future is for Indigenous affairs and
Indigenous Australians.
Speaker 4 (12:56):
Daniel is finally, who do you think? In this debate
ultimately made the most coherent, the most convincing, the strongest
case as to why Australians should vote for them.
Speaker 5 (13:11):
It has to be said that both leaders acquitted themselves
very well. Peter Dutton, as we got towards the end
of the debate, became stronger. He was very clear about
his vision about making Australia a more prosperous country, a
safer country.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
I want to make sure that we can invest into
defense and make sure that we can take crime seriously
and reduce the problem of crime as it exists in
our communities, in our suburbs across the country. My vision
for our country is to make us a safer.
Speaker 5 (13:40):
Crime in Victoria and in Melbourne in particular, in our
lectures that he needs to win in outer suburbs is
a state issue, but is an issue that is on
the screens of Victorians every night and day. And even
though his ability as a prime minister or a federal
leader is somewhat limited to that, to be able to
(14:04):
cast himself in a position where he can intimate he
will have an impact on crime rates was something that
I think he was able to weave in quite clearly
throughout the debate. But overall I'd have to say that
it was Albanezi that carried the day. But having said that,
neither leader landed a knockout blow.
Speaker 4 (14:24):
Well, Daniel, thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 5 (14:27):
Thank you Rerby. Good to speak to.
Speaker 4 (14:28):
You as always. Also in the news today, the UK
Supreme Court has ruled in favor of gender critical rights
campaigners and against the Scottish government over the definition of
(14:49):
a woman. Five judges ruled unanimously that the legal definition
of a woman did not include transgender women who hold
gender recognition certificates. The ruling will transgender women will not
be able to sit on public boards in places set
aside for women. The campaign group Scottish Trans urged people
not to panic as they work through the implications of
(15:11):
the court's decision, and widespread bleaching of the Great Barrier
Reef has become normalized, according to scientists. Government authorities have
recorded the six widespread coral bleaching event in less than
a decade, with back to back bleachings over the past
two summers. The Ningaloo Reef off the coast of Western
Australia has also been hit by extreme bleaching and heat
(15:33):
stress this year. I'm Ruby Jones. This is seven am.
Thanks for listening.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.