April 15, 2025 • 49 mins
Labor’s $10 billion dollar housing lie exposed, and the rise of influencers in this election campaign. Plus, Chris Merritt on the impact of a landmark ruling on children's gender medicine.
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 (00:02):
Peter Krandland live on Sky News Australia.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Good evening, Great to have your company. Here's what's coming
up in the program tonight, Preferences. Now for many seats,
this selection will come down to preference flows, but how
many people really understand how the system works? A lesson
in Preferences one oh one coming up as a bit
of a refresher. A landmark court ruling two that will
likely impact children and transgender medicine. Will speak to legal
(00:31):
expert Chris Merit on that. More evidence tonight too on
the operation behind the tears, as I reveal an influencer
approach to spruit for a leg respender and proof to
the Climate two. One hundred of the so called independence
are working hand in glove. Labour's big ten billion dollar
housing lie exposed. The PM might be trying to buy
(00:53):
votes with this one, but almost none of the money
is actually in the budget at best. Two it's only
a twenty thousand dollars grant per home and just twelve
hundred homes that's all to be built over the next
four years. It's a long long way off that one
hundred thousand dollars new homes promise from the PM on Sunday.
Speaker 3 (01:15):
Labor willing there's ten billion dollars to build one hundred
thousand new homes reserved for first home buyers only.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
And look, we're going to stay with that big policy
announcement from the weekend because housing is dominating this campaign.
So it's worth asking a few hard questions about how
the party's policies might actually work, especially Labors, given all
the housing policies it's an out so far that have
been epic fails. The first of these Labors housing Australia Fund,
(01:50):
that was part of Labour's overall plan to deliver some
one point two million new homes over five years, that
so far failed to build a single new home, not one.
But doubling down on failure, Anthony Albineasy made housing a
feature of Sunday's launch, announcing ten billion dollars in new
(02:11):
funding that would supposedly deliver he said, one hundred thousand
new homes. Okay, Well take him on face value. Let's
do the maths on that ten billion and one hundred
thousand new homes. That's one hundred thousand dollars per home. Now,
how's that work given the average cost of a dwelling
(02:32):
in Australia is four hundred and forty seven thousand dollars.
What's more, of the one hundred thousand dollars per dwelling
the Labor's offering, only twenty thousand dollars of that is
grant funding, so cash, with the rest supposedly in concessional
loans from an unspecified source. Now, so far there's not
(02:54):
actually been any policy documents released, meaning it's clear that
they don't want the journalists to do those sums. All
we got is some commentary from the Treasurer that of
the ten billion dollar promised, just a fraction of that,
some six hundred million would be spent over the forward estimates.
Speaker 4 (03:15):
So that's a.
Speaker 2 (03:15):
Shortfall of nine point four billion dollars. Mean he'd have
to vote for Labor again at the next election to
see most of that funding eventual weight. But here's the
real con with only six hundred million actually on the table,
forget that promise of one hundred thousand new homes, all
(03:36):
we're going to get if they are elected is just
twelve hundred new homes over the next four years. That
works out to be three hundred homes a year, or
just two new homes per electorate just two. And we
need the media in this campaign to do their homework
(03:56):
on this stuff. I mean, where are the tough questions
on this in those daily press conferences? Do the numbers? Media,
It's not hard. Seriously, how stupid does Labour think we
are to be conned by this stuff? And it's precisely
(04:19):
because so much of this government's policy falls apart upon
examination that it's too far. So far, it's too early
to say that Peter Dutton can't win. At the halfway
point two thousand and four election, newsfol had Labor under
Mark Latham ahead fifty two point seven against the Coalition
(04:40):
John Howard on forty seven point five. Now that's where
Albanezy was yesterday. We know what happened to Latham. He
didn't just lose the House of Reps in two thousand
and four. Labor was wiped out in the Senator as well,
giving John Howard his famous majority. I've said this before too,
(05:01):
in relation to Tony Abbott, he was behind throughout the
twenty ten campaign before he ended up winning more seats
than Labor. Scott Morrison too well, he was behind all
year in twenty nineteen, including the campaign race, and then
he had his miracle win. The fundamental question for every
voter this selection must be are you better off now
(05:23):
than you were three years ago, to which the clear,
resounding answer has got to be no. And given that
the fundamental job of government is to make people's lives better,
that should be enough to rule out a second term
for a government that's clearly failed.
Speaker 3 (05:39):
Reducing power prices by two hundred and seventy five dollars,
reducing power prices by two hundred and seventy five dollars.
Speaker 5 (05:45):
By twenty twenty five two hundred and seventy five dollars
a year one.
Speaker 3 (05:49):
Hundred and seventy five dollars a year will.
Speaker 6 (05:52):
Get power prices down by two hundred and seventy five dollars.
Speaker 3 (05:55):
A year, two hundred and seventy five dollars for the
average house lower twenty five than today.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
Anthony Albertezi's refusal to even acknowledge and learnt apologize for
that lie should disqualify him from a second term. That said,
my mailbag from News full of good advice that I'm
being asked to pass on to Peter Dutton, such as
dumping net zero, cutting immigration harder, and coming out with
a few punchy three word slogans. Now I get it.
(06:26):
I understand it. There's a lot of people out there
that desperately want the coalition to win and fear that
it might not, even though our country desperately needs a
better government. Having worked on campaigns for over a decade,
I'm not going to give Team Dutton free advice through
the television because last thing they need halfway through a
campaign is to respond to panic. To be honest, if
(06:48):
you look at the facts and the Albanezer government's first
term performance, I can't fathom how this election race is
even close. They've racked up a trillion dollars worth of debt,
They've settled us with deficits for the next decade. They've
turned our one comparative advantage, cheap energy, on its head,
whether it's reckless renewables obsession, that's just making Chinese factory
(07:10):
owners making wind turbines and solar panels richer, while our
pensions here can't even afford their power bills, not to
mention lining the pockets of all those foreign wind farm
owners with all those subsidies. We need a government that's
not keeping mortgage rates higher for longer, rather than one
that's lifted the size of government spending to a peacetime
(07:32):
record of twenty seven percent of GDP. A government that's
not flooding the country with low skilled migrants, some of
them at least like the three thousand from Gaza, unlikely
to share Australia's values. And we need a PM that's
not making excuses for comingist China, even when they deliberately
injure Australian sailors and conduct unannounced and unsafe live fire
(07:56):
exercises off the Australian coast. Your politicians always say you've
got to trust the voters. That's right. We have to
trust the voters, even those exposed to constant leftist brainwashing
in our schools and universities in a democracy. And sometimes
it's sad to admit this. We the people get the
(08:17):
government we deserve. Please Australia. We do not deserve another
three years of this. All right, let's go out to
the two campaigns. We'll start, of course, with the PM
his camps in the air, so political reporter can redder
(08:38):
and far this report a little earlier.
Speaker 7 (08:41):
Well, Peter, the Prime Minister is attempting to focus on
two core components of his campaign, those being health and housing.
But again foreign politics is inserting itself in this election.
Reports emerging today that Russia has requested Indonesia allow it
to host long range military aircraft less than four fourteen hundred.
Speaker 8 (09:00):
Kilometers from Australia's coastline.
Speaker 3 (09:03):
We are ascertaining having a look at those reports as so.
Foreign Minister and Defense Minister have said, we have a
good relationship with our friend in Indonesia and we're seeking
further clarification.
Speaker 6 (09:15):
Obviously do not want to.
Speaker 3 (09:17):
See Russian influence in our regions.
Speaker 5 (09:22):
We would want to hear from the Prime Minister about
what if it's have been undertaken. Obviously, surely they must
have known about this before it's been made public, and
if not, then that is a catastrophic failure of Penny
Wong and Anthony Obnesian.
Speaker 7 (09:35):
Sky Neese understands there have already been questions asked of
Indonesia to explain the nature of this request and exactly
whether it will be accepted. My understanding, Peter, is that
there is no engagement between Australia and Russia at this stage.
The ambassador from Moscow recently left Canberra when his post
ended those questions. That dialogue just beginning today, We're yet
(09:59):
to see more of what the government's response might be.
Speaker 4 (10:02):
We are here in Melbourne where.
Speaker 7 (10:04):
The Prime Minister looks to focus on domestic matters, but
after a Chinese boat and American tariffs, it's now Vladimir
Putin's Russian regime poking its head at the halfway mark
of this campaign.
Speaker 2 (10:18):
And it was a bit of a where's Wally two
in Victoria again? Just into Allen that one picture we've seen,
We've not seen her again. We'll see what happens in
the next few weeks. Now to the opposition leader's campaign.
Joining me from the Dutton team bus political reporter Ruben Spargo, Ruben,
welcome to the program. You're leader there. Peter Dutton using
today to sell his housing message. What can you tell us?
Speaker 9 (10:41):
Yea the coalition today. Peter spent today attempting to capitalize
on vulnerable Victorian seats. Mister Darton started the day in
the seat of Hawk, which is held by a margin
of seven point six percent. Labour holds the power there.
Mister Darton was spooking his first home Buyers policy, which
would allow first home buyers to deduct Morgan for repayments
(11:05):
on from their taxable income.
Speaker 4 (11:07):
He was flanked by his son Harry.
Speaker 9 (11:09):
Mister Dutton while he was there was also facing questions
on whether Australia was living beyond its means when we
look at a decade of deficits and the debt which
is set to hit one point two trillion dollars.
Speaker 4 (11:22):
In twenty twenty eight twenty twenty nine. It was from
there that.
Speaker 9 (11:25):
Mister Dutton visited the seat of Gorton, held by a
margin of ten percent.
Speaker 4 (11:30):
Was there he went for round ten of filling.
Speaker 9 (11:33):
Up at a fuel station, sprooking his halving of the
fuel excise. He also got to chat with punters there.
I spoke to one truck driver who was speaking to
mister Dutton. He thought the harving of the fuel excise
was a good idea.
Speaker 4 (11:46):
Did show a little bit.
Speaker 9 (11:47):
Of skepticism about whether the fuel companies would try and
drive the prices up once that price came down by
the government's actions.
Speaker 4 (11:54):
It was then mister Dutton went.
Speaker 9 (11:57):
To the seat of Gorton, excuse me, McEwen held.
Speaker 4 (12:03):
By a margin of three point eight percent. He visited
an earth moving company.
Speaker 9 (12:07):
This was a two and one where he was talking
about the fuel and the housing policy.
Speaker 2 (12:13):
Fredlin, that's it. I think they're Reuben, Thanks, Reuben, will
leave it. There a lot of labor seats they're visited too.
I might add lots of discussion in this campaign about
the role of influencers and social media players and whether
(12:34):
or not there skewing voters. I want to show you something.
This is exclusive that was sent to a prominent lifestyle
commentator from a PR agency seeking her interests to work
with the Allegal Spender campaign and climb at two hundred. Now.
On the first point, the email reads, we are looking
to partner with creators and voices in the community that
(12:54):
we believe aligned with her vision and values. Allegra was
running on policy platforms that focus on climate action, political integrity,
economic reform, and social inclusion, and with regards Climbate two hundred,
they were seeking interest in quote exploring the possibility of
collaborating with you on some content for use in social
(13:15):
media ads. All this for coin joining me now to
discuss this. The more journalists The Daily Telegraph, James Willis
and senior fellow at the Menzies Research Center, Nick Kata,
will welcome James two things in this email that was
sent to me from one of these big influences, one
that shows their rise in the campaign not to be underestimated.
(13:38):
And the fact that the independent Legal spenders media strategy
is to work hand in glove with Climate two hundred.
This pr firm in the one email admits they're working
for both. They're not even trying now to maintain any
semblance of separation.
Speaker 10 (13:56):
Well, Peter, that's right, and good evening to you and
to Nique. And look these individual posts, young people will
tell you an influencer can often be paid tens of
thousands of dollars even more to post something on a
very popular Instagram or TikTok account to spook another product.
Speaker 8 (14:15):
But the problem with this, as we know, is.
Speaker 10 (14:17):
That it is a political ad, a political push being
dressed up as getting to know someone, and we've seen
a few examples of this already throughout the campaign. It's
a couple of things that are really really important about
this one. The first one is the link between Climate
two hundred and the independence is just so obvious.
Speaker 8 (14:36):
And on the northern beaches there's a big sign with.
Speaker 10 (14:39):
Zalie Stegel and doctor Sophie Scomps, who are the two
independent MPs, but they've managed to get the same billboard
together to spook.
Speaker 8 (14:47):
How independent they are.
Speaker 10 (14:48):
We know that a lot of the funding comes directly
from Climate two hundred. We know that a lot of
the donations from Climate two hundred have come from people
that have links to the.
Speaker 8 (14:58):
Fossil fuel indus.
Speaker 10 (15:00):
That's been reported by the Daily Telegraph in recent days.
And so when you talk about integrity from MPs that
should be leading from the front and calling this stuff down.
And we saw the appalling interview, the train wreck interview
Monique Ryan gave on the AVC the other day where
she didn't really have an opinion on social media influences
getting involved. I mean, come on, these people are proving
(15:22):
that they are likely just to be a blip on
the history of elections in this country rather than long
term because they haven't been able to keep their nose
clean on some of this stuff. This is really really
dirty and the problem for the major parties is that
they now have to invest a lot more time and
money and resources into convincing young voters that what they're
seeing on social media is not what it seems. So
(15:45):
it's a messy one. But in regards to the tials,
I mean it's hypocrisy.
Speaker 8 (15:48):
Ritt large.
Speaker 4 (15:52):
Nick.
Speaker 2 (15:52):
I think the AEC, the Electric Commission's got it seriously
wrong here. If you were yourself to do an ad
for the Liberal Party, let's say a TV ad, you'd
have to have a written and authorized at the end
of that would have to disclose your relationship with the party.
But if you were to post something about the Liberal
Party to your social media, nothing's require there in terms
of disclosures. They could use then probagate even further what
(16:15):
you've put out. You can be paid on MATSA. We'd
never know any of that. I think it's cash for comment.
I said that yesterday and I maintain that position.
Speaker 11 (16:24):
I absolutely agree with you, Peter. I mean, this is
just one of the ways. What are the many ways
in which Climate two hundred of being caught out trying
to skirt around the electoral laws and given kick glove treatment,
as it seems by the Australian Electoral Commission. I mean,
I high lanted last week the case of all these
fake five fake local newspapers that have been set up
(16:45):
looking to all the world to be independent community newspapers.
The North shore LORI keep being one of them, just
running puff pieces, absolute puff pieces for the climate two
hundred candidates, an absolute terrible piece about the Liberal candidates,
and running really terrible scare stories about nuclear power, absolutely
(17:07):
ridiculous scare stories about how nuclear fallout is going to
hit the north shore of Sydney. They are ludicrous. But
they're doing all this outside the electoral laws, and so
on top of the two million or more they'll be
spending on each of these campaigns, they're spending millions more,
tens of millions of more propagating this cause. And they're
the ones that have bought big money politics, big money
(17:30):
into Australian politics that wasn't there before.
Speaker 2 (17:35):
James Willis I mentioned this last night. It's got more
legs today the Prime Minister's interview where he says if
elected this time, he's going to run a third term,
he's going to be there at the next election. And
I could absolutely Betty, you'll be decking out the lawns
of Kurabilly House for his upcoming upcoming wedding. I met
he's already planted out the garden. He's decided. I know
(17:56):
they've been doing renovations there that's interesting in itself, but
I bet you he's got it all all right down
to the menu organized on the presumption he's just going
to walk in on the third of May.
Speaker 10 (18:12):
What we know by now that Peter, when it comes
to daily briefings and performances, the Prime Minister.
Speaker 8 (18:18):
Leaves a lot to be desired.
Speaker 10 (18:20):
Is rarely across his brief He's picking fights with journalists
every day. And he's been doing this weird thing at
press conferences now where he's not allowing other people at
the press conference to answer questions. He wants to take
center stage, pushes to the front. I've seen that on
a few clips on social media today. I mean, most
people would hear these comments Peter and think that the
Prime Minister is honestly going to be lucky to survive
(18:44):
from his own party through another term. It was only
a few months ago, off the back of the quantit
saga when he bought the house on the Central Coast.
Remember the Voice referendum as well, that the PM's polling
numbers were dreadful.
Speaker 8 (18:57):
Now they might have improved slightly, but.
Speaker 10 (18:59):
Still certainly people inside the Labor Party in the next
six to twelve months if they do survive May three
would be looking at the PM and whether he is
the right man to get them through another term. I
can't see it happening, And I think the big problem
for Anthony Alberanezi Peter, as you know, he's part of
the old system. He's sitting on a small fortune in
(19:19):
terms of super and entitlements. When he does finally leave,
I don't know what he's going to do after he
leaves Federal Parliament. I think he'd be really concerned and
confused about finding another job and maybe hopes that it
lasts forever. The problem is, as I say, I don't
think the labor caucus will allow that to continue. If
the next six to twelve months plays out after the election,
(19:40):
as it may well do.
Speaker 2 (19:44):
I guarantee you'll end up on an industry super fun board.
That's where all the labor guys go in their retirement
to get looked after by the unions and sit on
their big pensions. Hey, let's go to the coalition's defense policy.
This staggers me, Nick, I have to say, and I
made the point, I'm not going to give them free
advice through the but I'll tell you I have been
on the phone a few times. Why on earth would
(20:04):
you launch the campaign on Sunday and not have your
defense policy front and center. We say all the time,
these are dangerous times, these are uncertain times. The talk
I'm hearing is they want to align it with ANZAC Day.
But I mean, we'll start voting in pre polls next Tuesday.
ANZAC Day is at the end of so Friday week,
at the end of that week. I mean, come on,
(20:26):
this is a huge equity for the coalition. It should
be out there front and center, So too should be Andrew.
Speaker 11 (20:33):
Hasty absolutely, Peter that this is a huge, huge issue
in the community. I know we say it's cost of living,
cost of living, cost of living, but the issue of
national security is really bearing down on people. There was
that discussion in one of the papers this morning about
the Trump effect. I think the big part of the
Trump effect is people fear not just the tariff, but
(20:54):
more so whether America will buy its agreement with US
under an and come to our aid, you know, if
we're invading, because that Bingers crossed is not on the cards.
But we have seen that Chinese warship do a victory
lap around Australia and do live fire exercises off the
(21:15):
coast of Sydney that is really scaring people in the community.
It really really is. And this is where the Coalition
should be playing to their strengths to be talking about
defense big time, to be talking about spending big on defense,
because that's the only thing I want them to spend
big on, quite frankly, and I want them to spend
very big on it. We should be really making this
(21:36):
our strength at the moment. And absolutely let's see Andrew
Haysey out the beut.
Speaker 2 (21:43):
Yeah, I'll come back to the issue of Vans Day.
There's something there with the Greens. I'll give you an
update to my deviewers a bit later on the show.
But let's go back to the War Memorial. We saw
that story that you've broke in the Telegraph yesterday, James.
The Australian War Memorials made an official complaint against the ABC,
alleging that four Corners used footage to make it look
like that the construction going on at the War Memorial
(22:06):
was done in a very disrespectful way during the last post.
Have a listen, We're gonna have a serious look at
(22:29):
the ABC here, James, because this is not the first time,
they've been leveled a very serious allegation of doctoring audio
and footage.
Speaker 10 (22:40):
Well, that's right, Peter, and having exhausted their avenues of
going after veterans and the SAS and the military with
dozens of stories over a five to six year period,
they turned their attention to the War Memorial a month
ago and basically, as a quick summary, the War Memorial
is undergoing a five hundred million dollar redevelopment and expansion
(23:02):
so we can tell the stories of Iraq and Afghanistan
and all the brave people that served in those wars.
Speaker 8 (23:08):
And as part of that there is construction going on.
Speaker 10 (23:12):
The ABC put this footage to air, and the War
Memorial's concern is that it made it look like the
last post was being drowned out by construction, when they
have very very clearly had no construction stop work orders
during any commemorative service since twenty twenty.
Speaker 8 (23:31):
Now they've made a formal complaint.
Speaker 10 (23:32):
The complaint involves a number of points, including that vision
that you've just played. Veterans groups are outraged by this.
Today the ABC is refusing to apologize and saying we
stand by the story, but ultimately the words from the
War Memorial director Matt Anderson are At best, this was insensitive.
At worst, it was deliberate and designed to mislead as
(23:54):
the ABC did a one hour hit job that was
critical of.
Speaker 8 (23:58):
The five hundred million dollar Exis Benson. So it's a
big story.
Speaker 10 (24:01):
And as you say, not for the first time the
ABC under fire for their coverage of veterans.
Speaker 8 (24:07):
And our defense force. And I think it should be condemned.
Speaker 10 (24:10):
I think it's been terrible and it's been very, very
one sided in my view.
Speaker 2 (24:16):
Yeah, I will make the point for all the ABC
carping about the cost of this multi million As you say,
five hundred million dollar redevelopment's not just a renovation, it's
a huge endeavor. It's the biggest expansion of the Warman
Worial in its history. Five hundred million. Well, that's only
half of what the ABC spends every single year, so
(24:36):
they were to be careful of budget comparisons. Hey, Nick,
just quickly. The Herald's Sun today, multiple sources from the
left of the Liberal Party are quoted saying they want
to challenge Moira Deemings number one spot on the Western
Metro Upper House ticket. So this is the lower House,
so the upper House of the State Parliament in Victoria.
She's number one on the ticket. She obviously took on
(24:59):
a job Perzzuto after he defamed her. We can say
he defined her because that's what the court found. And
I know she's got the support of the rank and far.
But what is it with Victorian liberals the moderates in
particular the left liberals that they want to make themselves
the issue here yet again? Why would they try and
roll her?
Speaker 11 (25:20):
Hadn't they learned their lesson Peter? It was incredible And
look you make the point there the rank and file
behind Baurer. So they've got to know they're not just
taking on more redeeming. They're taking on the base of
the party. The people that come out and do how
to vote cards and give up their time to hold
raffles and raise money for the party. That's who they're
taking on. I mean, I was at a state conference
(25:43):
there in Victoria when I saw the leader booed by
the crowd, and that was over the more redeeming issue.
We don't want to go back to that. Surely we
put all this behind us with what happened now and
she's now back in the party, thank goodness. Just leave
well alone. I say the party has got enough difficulties
getting elected these days with that that sort of nonsense
(26:04):
going on.
Speaker 2 (26:07):
Yeah, Red Batten's a real healer. I mean he's tried
to move on from this. He wants to get to
you know, get all the policy work done early, take
the fight up to Allan. He's presuming, of course, that
they'll dump her and they'll move to Labour's Ben Carroll.
He knows he's in for a fight. But I'll tell
you what the moderates down in Victoria deemi which he
just wants to get on with the job and fight
for Western Melbourne. How hard is that to just let
(26:29):
her get on with it?
Speaker 4 (26:30):
All right?
Speaker 2 (26:31):
Jensa' leave it there, thank you very much. Hey, something
before we go, bit lighthearted. Master Foods they've got a
new special edition of tomato sauce out for the campaign.
They're calling it Democracy Sausage or Democracy Source in this case.
I think that's fantastic. I'll be getting a bottle of that,
all right, quick break after the break. Why preferences matter
not just at every election, but this one in particular,
(26:53):
will break down some of the key seats where it
could be the real difference between a win and a loss.
Plus why is one rule for the tears and one
rule for everyone else? Welcome back is still to come
massive legal judgment in a gender medicine case that could
have wide ranging ramifications for the family court and children.
(27:15):
The first preference flows will likely decide the majority of
seats at this election and in overall terms of course,
the limbs have beaten labor and primary vote at most
recent elections when the preferences come into play, So every
other vote, after your first vote, after the number one vote,
well for labor, that can shift the dial. It's why
(27:37):
there's often such a big move between the primary vote
and the two party preferred number. And yet despite how
critical the preferences are, lots of voters don't know any
idea how the systems work. So here for a quick refresher,
I'm joined by our Sky News chief election analyst Tom Connell. Well, Tom,
(27:57):
millions of Australians don't vote for the two major parties,
as we know, that's a trend that's likely to accelerate.
So preferences are critical.
Speaker 4 (28:08):
They absolutely are.
Speaker 12 (28:09):
They will decide the vast majority of seats, and we
saw an increase in the non major party vote last time?
Speaker 4 (28:14):
Will it happen again?
Speaker 12 (28:15):
Let's have a look at the latest news poll compared
to the past election. First of all, so the twenty
twenty result, you can see the coalition vote, the primary
vote is actually slightly down on the news bowl compared
to last time.
Speaker 8 (28:27):
Labors are slightly up.
Speaker 12 (28:28):
But has it a little bit of caution there, because
last time we had Labour's primary way over estimated in
the polling. So if that's the case, you'll see the
amount of vote overall going to the two major parties
down again and an even bigger emphasis on preferences. How
many are we talking? Then let's have a look at
the size of the vote that is affecting the election.
So nearly four point seven million votes for non major
(28:49):
parties in terms of that primary vote thirty two percent
of formal votes overall. Every vote counts, of course into
Canada preferred contests because you know a lot of people
think I'm voting one and they might take a how
to vote card. Parties don't swap preferences. You own your vote,
you can do what you like. And as a result,
we're not talking about someone voting for the Greens and
(29:10):
are automatically going for Labor or voting one nation that
goes to the Liberal Party. So how did that actually
work last time around in terms of the national preference flow.
If we look at the Greens, one point eight million votes,
fourteen percent flow to the coalition. So I'm just looking
at all these in terms of how much in other words,
eighty five percent flowed to Labor In relevant to candid
(29:30):
preferred contests, you can see how significant that was. Independent
again very low to the coalition thirty six They get
more one nation and UAP and Libdems, but that's not
as much of the vote. So you can clearly see
the big factors in seats are Greens and Independent, and
that obviously has helped Labor in plenty of seats get
over the line against the Liberal Party even when they're
(29:50):
trailing on that primary vote.
Speaker 2 (29:55):
All right, well, going on what you just outlined there,
take some of that into some of the races we're
looking at in the twenty sorry, in the twenty twenty
five elections. Some of that learning into the current race.
Speaker 12 (30:08):
Yeah, well, this is what's interesting, So we can see
what happened last time and how that will influence similar
type seats Let's start with a till seat Goldstein one
by an independent by two point nine percent. I'll point
out Zoey gold Zoey Daniel on this got thirty percent
of the vote, eight percent behind her Liberal counterpart, So
how did that switch. She got an eighty one point
five percent of Labors votes and eighty six point six
(30:30):
percent of the Greens. So, in other words, after someone
tipped labor or the Greens first, then they went Zoe
Daniel ahead. So as a result, the percentage flow to
the independent Zoe Daniel there completely changed that seat thirty
percent of the primary and yet she managed to win
the seat.
Speaker 4 (30:44):
And we look at the seat of Ryan.
Speaker 12 (30:45):
This was won by the Greens, again from the Liberal party.
So the Greens won that by only two point six percent.
Again their primary vote had a three in front of it.
But look at the preference low eighty three point five
percent of labor and that's the vast majority of the
rest of the vote. He so even though they only
got forty three percent of UAP, that's nowhere near as
many votes. So again as a result, well behind in
(31:06):
the primary, they win because of those labor votes.
Speaker 4 (31:10):
Then we go to the seat of Wills.
Speaker 12 (31:11):
This was an interesting contest because it's actually what seat
that was won by labor last time around by eight
point six percent, and why was it won by labor
with such strong vote liberal seventy three point three percent,
So liberal voters went Liberal first, then Labor ahead of
the Greens. If they'd done the other way around, if
you flip that seventy three percent, you'd actually see the
Labor hub party lose that seat.
Speaker 4 (31:32):
So this is what's interesting.
Speaker 12 (31:33):
You're getting Labor helped the Greens win seats, but it
doesn't happen the other way around, which brings us to
the seat of McNamara. Now we have heard Josh Burns
say he's going to run an open ticket this time around.
Why could that be relevant, Well, this was the primary
vote last time around, thirty one point eight percent Labor
twenty nine point six percent Greens twenty nine percent Liberal.
In other words, it was really really close. When we
(31:55):
see what happened in the exclusion as well, remembering they
slowly cancel out for the lowest vote all the way
up to the highest.
Speaker 2 (32:02):
When they canceled people out one by one last time around.
Speaker 12 (32:05):
If we bring that up, you can see how close
this was at exclusion point to this being a labor
was an in the end being a labor Liberal contest.
With those votes, those Greens votes, they got Josh Burns elected.
If that slightly changes though, you could see a Greens
Liberal contest in that case with an open ticket, theoretically
Labour could actually help the Liberal Party defeat the Greens.
(32:26):
Now will that happen from labor voters. I'm not convinced, Peter,
but at least the how to vote cards would leave
the issue more open to voters, I suppose, versus what
we've seen in the past, which is the how to
vote system from Labor and the Greens being exchanged and
helping to defeat Liberal Party.
Speaker 2 (32:44):
Excellent, Tom, I think we can't say this stuff and
now we might even get a ballot paper and go
specifically through how we even fill out a ballot paper,
because I worry sometimes people work out, walk out and
throw away their vote. Thanks for your time. I know
you're getting ready for the camp, but appreciate it. Tonight,
I'm going to go into this a little bit further,
and we're going to look into the Gucci Greens, the Teals,
(33:05):
because there's news about them today I'm joined now with
former Victorian Liberal Party president Michael Kroger. Peter, you and
I talk about preferences. We talk about how critical the
flows are and butt four Green preferences laboured hardly ever
get to government in Canberra. The specific case of mac Namara.
You've looked at this closely, haven't you.
Speaker 13 (33:26):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (33:27):
This is the old seat of Melbourne Ports, which Labor
have held for one hundred years, formerly represented by Michael Danby.
This is a fascinating seat. Right, twelve percent of the
electorate are of Jewish background, and Josh Burns, even though
he came first, as Tom Connell's just pointed out, he
came first in twenty twenty two, the Liberal Party candidate
will come first this time. Our vote dropped dramatically in
(33:49):
the twenty two election for lots of reasons. So Benson Salo,
the Liberal candidate, will get a minimum of about thirty
eight percent. Right, he could get forty forty two, hopefully
forty five, but most likely high thirties. Josh Burns is
likely to come third. Right, his vote's going to drop.
The Labor Party primary votes often Victoria by about two
to three percent, and a lot of Jewish voters won't
(34:09):
have a bar of him. He could drop to twenty six,
he would come third, the Greens come second. So it
was Josh Burns' preferences that are going to get distributed. Now,
this is where it gets interesting. Burns's Thomas said he's
issuing a fifty to fifty hatavote cards. So the only
way the Greens can get elected in McNamara is with
Josh burns preferences. The only way the Greens can win,
(34:32):
They're going to get twenty eight to thirty percent of
the vote. They get to fifty one by getting majority
of Burns's preferences. Burns has been incredibly weakened cowardly in
issuing an open ticket. If he had any sense of decency,
he'd say to vote as particularly Jewish voters in McNamara,
you've got to put Benson Salo's second, the liberal guy
after Burns, to stop the Greens. So he's trying to
(34:53):
say to people, I've vote for me, vote for me
to stop the Greens. No, No, the Greens we got
elected if they do on Josh Burns's preferences.
Speaker 2 (35:00):
Yeah. So that's the point there, isn't it that if
you are of labor persuasion, but you can't stand the
Greens in a seat like that. You vote for Labor,
you most likely will elect.
Speaker 1 (35:10):
A Green, going to elect the Green if you follow
the Burns thing, where Burns is saying to Jewish voters
there's a moral equivalence between liberals and the Greens on
the Middle East.
Speaker 4 (35:21):
That's effective.
Speaker 1 (35:22):
What Burns is saying by is shooing an open had
of our card. Now, if this guy had any decency,
any morality at all, he'd simply say to the Labor Party,
I'm sorry, I cannot be in a situation where I'm
doing a fifty to fifty Greens or Liberals are equal.
He'd say to the Labour Party, I have to put
the Liberal Bens and Salo ahead of the Greens. I
have to put the Greens last on principle. And you
(35:43):
don't like that, but my preferences might elect the liberal
because he's going to be far better for my constituents
and there was about their communities. Then there'll be a Green.
So this ball is right in his court. It comes
back to Peter what we've talked about before, which is
the Labor National Executive as we know one by Alberanizi
ten left, ten right, He's got the casting vade. This
(36:04):
is his decision when he says to people, oh, it's
a matter of the organization. No, no, no, he is the organization.
The federal executive for the LP is the organization. He's
got the swing vode. He and Burns will have had
a discussion or through their offices, where Albanizi has said,
do not preference the Liberals do a fifty to fifty,
and Burns and said, if that's what I've got to do,
that's what I do. Well, that's a disgrace. But this
(36:25):
is not Burns's decision. He's too weak to stand up
and he's being run over by Pennywog and Alberzi on
this issue.
Speaker 2 (36:32):
Talk to me about the teals broadly. There's a number
of stories around today and I don't want to miss
any of them. Michella Roman Bishop's old seat currently held
by Sophie Scamp She's a teal. She was at an
RSL recently and they were reciting the ode. It's a
moment you normally can hear a pin drop. She kept
flapping her jaws, she was talking, she was moving around.
(36:54):
She didn't stand to honor the ode when pushed about it,
rather than just say look I got it wrong, I apologize.
As is the case with most of these tears, there
was an excuse, there was an explanation, something was going on.
She didn't hear it. She's up against a soldier, former
soldier in this race this time, James Brown, I think
(37:17):
this is dangerous for her, given our proximity to Antec Day.
Speaker 1 (37:20):
You've got to remember, Peter, the Teals are superior to
ordinary folk like us. They're not ordinary working class people.
These people are intellectually superior, morally superior to all of us.
You know, they're above the ordinary working fote folk. These
people are a wealthy, privileged, selfish, arrogant and we saw
that money ground on Sunday. What a preposterous interview she
(37:43):
gave on the Insiders when she was asked about this
whole issue of paying influences to back you and then
not disclose the fact that you're paying them to support you,
and she had to think about it. She couldn't even say, oh,
that's morally wrong.
Speaker 4 (37:55):
No.
Speaker 1 (37:55):
The Greens these are people, you know, engulfed by their
own arrogance and they can't admit any wrong. I mean,
anyone who went to a ceremony like that would know
to be very sensitition to what's going on right in
that room. And when they play the Ode, when they
recite the Ode, recite the olde, that great, that extraordinary
poem that we've all many times. When they recite the Ode,
(38:16):
you know, you know that's why the Anzac Day football, right,
people say, well should it be held on an Anzact day?
There is there is such a ceremony around football. There's
a reverence and you know, you get ninety thousand, one
hundred thousand people standing and as people you know we've
been to that game. You can hear a pin drop
amongst one hundred thousand people as they play the last post.
Speaker 2 (38:40):
Yeah, I think that's seats are real smoky there with
James grauyp it is Michael Craig, thanks better all right
after the break the landmark transgender ruling that could up
and family called judgments, plus what on earth were the
Greens thinking scheduling a rave on Anzac Day? Welco Bateke's
still to come more on the rought that his labour's
(39:01):
housing policy, but first last week, one of the nation's
most prominent gender medicine experts, was ruled to have misled
the Family Court when giving evidence to support a mother
who wanted her child to be prescribed puberty blockers. Just
as Andrew Strom's judgment stripped the mother of custody, effectively
preventing the child from accessing gender change medicine. Today, a
(39:23):
former family called judge has suggested the landmark ruling could
upend precedents which allowed children to receive treatment without a
court intervention. Stuet Lindsay told The Australian he's concerned about
the impact of secrecy statutes and believes it could be
in the best interests of parents and children for identities
to be known. Joining me in now our legal affairs
(39:45):
contributor at The Australian, Chris merit Well, Chris, I think
the circumstances of this case are pretty important. Take us
through what was decided by the court and why.
Speaker 6 (39:57):
Okay, this was a tragic case. It's about a twelve
year old boy. His parents lit up. The mother has
been taking this philow to a transsexual gender clinic from
the age of six. He's now twelve. She wanted to
(40:18):
proceed on a course of puberty blocking treatment. The father objected,
and that's how we got to court, and that's what
needs to change. Had the father believed the misdiagnosis his
former wife had received that their son had suffered from
(40:42):
gender dysphoria, there would be no role for the Federal
Circuit and Family Court in running a rule array over
this and just checking the rigor of that diagnosis. There's
a precedent, and this is what the former judge was
talking about. There's a president that makes it clear that
if both parents agree and are not in dispute about
(41:07):
a course of gender blocking treatment, it will go ahead
without any further involvement of the court. But in this
particular case, because the father objected, it found its way
into court. And when the medical experts were subjected to
a bit of cross examination and their evidence was tested
(41:30):
quite rigorously over a long period, huge flaws emerged. Some
obvious treatments were obvious, Potential causes of the boy's gender
confusion were not pursued. There was no attent, for example,
to test whether he suffered from autism, which can have
(41:53):
an effect on gender confusion. But that needs to change.
That's a role for the court itself. It needs to
go back and have a look at that existing precedent
and provide a role for itself in these cases. Because
if we've got a misdiagnosis in this case based on
(42:13):
what the judge said was evidence infected with ideology rather
than facts, there could be other cases like this proceeding.
So you have confused young people proceeding on a course
of life changing treatment because their parents trusted the diagnosis
(42:37):
of clinicians who have been clearly found who have engaged
in some very sloppy practice. Once their practice was subjected
to scrutiny by the court. Now that's not the end
of things. There's a role here for the next federal
government as well. The judge made the point that it's
a criminal offense to identify any of the witnesses involved
(43:01):
in this case. It's a criminal offense for anybody to
say who these doctors are who gave evidences that was
rejected by the court. But more importantly, diagnosed a young man,
a young boy wrongly as suffering from gender dysphorior and
(43:22):
had that not been picked up, this could have started
him in a course of action that doesn't stop. With
purity blockers. It's usually followed or sometimes followed by a
course of opposite sex hormone treatment and in the final
stage surgery, all based on a misdiagnosis. Now that's incredibly
(43:47):
significant and that needs to be addressed by the federal government,
the next federal government.
Speaker 2 (43:55):
Well, we want to see both sides take a spine
on an issue like this, because, as you say, only
for the fact that the dad called into question what
was on the table in terms of treatment for his
son often you know, life changing treatment. Do we have
this outcome? Otherwise it would have just been way through.
Thanks for your time. Thanks for your time, Chris, really
important subject. All right, quick break, I'm going to tell
(44:17):
you what the long game for the Greens is over
ANZAC day and Australia Day plus plummeting testless sales in Queensland.
What's that mean? Welcome back. Well, the PMCAS is going
to build one hundred thousand new homes just for first
home buyers, but he didn't say where they'd be built,
(44:40):
who would be eligible, or even how much they would cost.
And as I showed you at the top of the show,
with only six hundred million of the ten billion actually
even in the budget. All we're talking about is three
hundred homes a year tops. That's a long way off
what's promised here to discuss this a whole lot of
other issues. Liberal MP from Adelaide James Stevens and Senator
(45:04):
for Queensland James McGrath. James Stevens, When I do the numbers,
we're talking about two houses only per year in your electorate.
But it's worse than that. We look at the numbers,
he says, it's one hundred k per home out of
the ten billion. No, it's not. It's only an actual
committed grant of twenty thousand. In that one hundred k.
(45:25):
The rest is from some sort of loan that don't
tell us who's providing the loan or how you even
apply for it. No eligibility grounds. And second point is
who the heck's going to build these homes? Says the
building industry.
Speaker 13 (45:40):
Spot on Peter. I mean, this is just another example
of Labour announcing a policy to look like they're doing
something to solve a problem they have frankly created. It's
not going to work. Like every other policy they've announced,
They've had three years to do something meaningful to address
the crisis in housing affordability. Here in Adelaide, our population
(46:01):
is about one point three million people. That's how many
migrants have come into the country since Albanezi came to power.
It's putting enormous pressure on the housing market. Young people
have lost the hope of buying a house. And this
is just a cruel hoax, this announcement. It's complete rubbish.
Like you say, the numbers don't stack up. They're trying
to look like they're doing something rather than actually helping
(46:22):
people get into the housing market.
Speaker 2 (46:26):
I'll say it again. At best it'll be twelve hundred
homes across the country over four years. That's the best
case scenario. Let's go to wa James McGrath. We all
know what happened on the twenty fifth of April, Like
the twenty sixth of January, that day is in the
gun for the Greens. They'll get Australia Day. They reckon,
(46:46):
then they're going after Ranzai Day. Well, they've already started
going after Ransack Day. So they knew bloody well that
organizing a rave on the twenty fifth of April would
be a rave a dance party on Anzac Day. So
the PM couldn't call it out today. He said, you know,
protect the day, but it couldn't call out the Greens.
Speaker 14 (47:05):
This is outrageous, It's beyond outrageous. Peter, and your viewers
should be so angry about this, about how the Greens
disrespect our historage and how they disrespect the sacrifice of
being made by men and women to make this country
(47:26):
so great, a sacrifice that the Greens just disrespect. I
can talk about that the federal seats of Ryan and Brisbane.
We've got the inaugural Army barracks, a lot of soldiers there,
but guess what, none of them, none of the community
groups in Ryan or Brisbane can get Australian flags. You've
got a Greens who refuse to condemn the vandalism on
the Australian War Memorial. The Greens hate modern Australia because
(47:50):
it was built by the men and women who did
so much to make this such a great country. And
Albanize is the guy who's going to do a preference
deal with these people to make sure he can stay
in power.
Speaker 2 (48:02):
Let's stay with the Greens. We'll go to Brisbane because
they're about to announce one eleven and a half billion
dollars eleven point six billion dollars to give every child
in every public school across the country a taxpayer funded
lunch per day. Now, James, I think this is first
of all, it displaces parents. It's saying you can't afford
(48:25):
to provide for your own children. And most parents I
know would do everything. I mean that they wouldn't eat
in order to be able to provide for their kids.
They want to look after their families. Most parents do.
But if we need to help families, we do it
on as needs basis. We shouldn't be funding an eleven
billion dollar tuck shop policy. This is outrageous.
Speaker 13 (48:47):
Again I have to say, sorry, Peter, I'm not sure
if it's this James or the other James that's you.
Speaker 2 (48:59):
James, even I couldn't do.
Speaker 13 (49:03):
I couldn't agree, couldn't agree more. It is very offensive
to parents. It's treating them like they can't be trusted
to properly care for their kids, and of course they can.
And as you say, there are definitely children in need
and we should be targeting support to them. Another big
cash splash of money that we don't have from the
Greens that just is going to drive everyone's taxes up
(49:24):
everyone's costs up. All this kind of expenditure is enormously inflationary,
and it's just a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Frankly,
it's insulting to parents who very proudly look after their
kids and don't want the heavy hand of government having
more influence over their lives.
Speaker 2 (49:45):
You're not wrong. I'll leave. They're gents, Thanks for your time,
see you next week. That's it for me. Andrew's up next.
Peter Krandland live on Sky News Australia.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Good evening, Great to have your company. Here's what's coming
up in the program tonight, Preferences. Now for many seats,
this selection will come down to preference flows, but how
many people really understand how the system works? A lesson
in Preferences one oh one coming up as a bit
of a refresher. A landmark court ruling two that will
likely impact children and transgender medicine. Will speak to legal
(00:31):
expert Chris Merit on that. More evidence tonight too on
the operation behind the tears, as I reveal an influencer
approach to spruit for a leg respender and proof to
the Climate two. One hundred of the so called independence
are working hand in glove. Labour's big ten billion dollar
housing lie exposed. The PM might be trying to buy
(00:53):
votes with this one, but almost none of the money
is actually in the budget at best. Two it's only
a twenty thousand dollars grant per home and just twelve
hundred homes that's all to be built over the next
four years. It's a long long way off that one
hundred thousand dollars new homes promise from the PM on Sunday.
Speaker 3 (01:15):
Labor willing there's ten billion dollars to build one hundred
thousand new homes reserved for first home buyers only.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
And look, we're going to stay with that big policy
announcement from the weekend because housing is dominating this campaign.
So it's worth asking a few hard questions about how
the party's policies might actually work, especially Labors, given all
the housing policies it's an out so far that have
been epic fails. The first of these Labors housing Australia Fund,
(01:50):
that was part of Labour's overall plan to deliver some
one point two million new homes over five years, that
so far failed to build a single new home, not one.
But doubling down on failure, Anthony Albineasy made housing a
feature of Sunday's launch, announcing ten billion dollars in new
(02:11):
funding that would supposedly deliver he said, one hundred thousand
new homes. Okay, Well take him on face value. Let's
do the maths on that ten billion and one hundred
thousand new homes. That's one hundred thousand dollars per home. Now,
how's that work given the average cost of a dwelling
(02:32):
in Australia is four hundred and forty seven thousand dollars.
What's more, of the one hundred thousand dollars per dwelling
the Labor's offering, only twenty thousand dollars of that is
grant funding, so cash, with the rest supposedly in concessional
loans from an unspecified source. Now, so far there's not
(02:54):
actually been any policy documents released, meaning it's clear that
they don't want the journalists to do those sums. All
we got is some commentary from the Treasurer that of
the ten billion dollar promised, just a fraction of that,
some six hundred million would be spent over the forward estimates.
Speaker 4 (03:15):
So that's a.
Speaker 2 (03:15):
Shortfall of nine point four billion dollars. Mean he'd have
to vote for Labor again at the next election to
see most of that funding eventual weight. But here's the
real con with only six hundred million actually on the table,
forget that promise of one hundred thousand new homes, all
(03:36):
we're going to get if they are elected is just
twelve hundred new homes over the next four years. That
works out to be three hundred homes a year, or
just two new homes per electorate just two. And we
need the media in this campaign to do their homework
(03:56):
on this stuff. I mean, where are the tough questions
on this in those daily press conferences? Do the numbers? Media,
It's not hard. Seriously, how stupid does Labour think we
are to be conned by this stuff? And it's precisely
(04:19):
because so much of this government's policy falls apart upon
examination that it's too far. So far, it's too early
to say that Peter Dutton can't win. At the halfway
point two thousand and four election, newsfol had Labor under
Mark Latham ahead fifty two point seven against the Coalition
(04:40):
John Howard on forty seven point five. Now that's where
Albanezy was yesterday. We know what happened to Latham. He
didn't just lose the House of Reps in two thousand
and four. Labor was wiped out in the Senator as well,
giving John Howard his famous majority. I've said this before too,
(05:01):
in relation to Tony Abbott, he was behind throughout the
twenty ten campaign before he ended up winning more seats
than Labor. Scott Morrison too well, he was behind all
year in twenty nineteen, including the campaign race, and then
he had his miracle win. The fundamental question for every
voter this selection must be are you better off now
(05:23):
than you were three years ago, to which the clear,
resounding answer has got to be no. And given that
the fundamental job of government is to make people's lives better,
that should be enough to rule out a second term
for a government that's clearly failed.
Speaker 3 (05:39):
Reducing power prices by two hundred and seventy five dollars,
reducing power prices by two hundred and seventy five dollars.
Speaker 5 (05:45):
By twenty twenty five two hundred and seventy five dollars
a year one.
Speaker 3 (05:49):
Hundred and seventy five dollars a year will.
Speaker 6 (05:52):
Get power prices down by two hundred and seventy five dollars.
Speaker 3 (05:55):
A year, two hundred and seventy five dollars for the
average house lower twenty five than today.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
Anthony Albertezi's refusal to even acknowledge and learnt apologize for
that lie should disqualify him from a second term. That said,
my mailbag from News full of good advice that I'm
being asked to pass on to Peter Dutton, such as
dumping net zero, cutting immigration harder, and coming out with
a few punchy three word slogans. Now I get it.
(06:26):
I understand it. There's a lot of people out there
that desperately want the coalition to win and fear that
it might not, even though our country desperately needs a
better government. Having worked on campaigns for over a decade,
I'm not going to give Team Dutton free advice through
the television because last thing they need halfway through a
campaign is to respond to panic. To be honest, if
(06:48):
you look at the facts and the Albanezer government's first
term performance, I can't fathom how this election race is
even close. They've racked up a trillion dollars worth of debt,
They've settled us with deficits for the next decade. They've
turned our one comparative advantage, cheap energy, on its head,
whether it's reckless renewables obsession, that's just making Chinese factory
(07:10):
owners making wind turbines and solar panels richer, while our
pensions here can't even afford their power bills, not to
mention lining the pockets of all those foreign wind farm
owners with all those subsidies. We need a government that's
not keeping mortgage rates higher for longer, rather than one
that's lifted the size of government spending to a peacetime
(07:32):
record of twenty seven percent of GDP. A government that's
not flooding the country with low skilled migrants, some of
them at least like the three thousand from Gaza, unlikely
to share Australia's values. And we need a PM that's
not making excuses for comingist China, even when they deliberately
injure Australian sailors and conduct unannounced and unsafe live fire
(07:56):
exercises off the Australian coast. Your politicians always say you've
got to trust the voters. That's right. We have to
trust the voters, even those exposed to constant leftist brainwashing
in our schools and universities in a democracy. And sometimes
it's sad to admit this. We the people get the
(08:17):
government we deserve. Please Australia. We do not deserve another
three years of this. All right, let's go out to
the two campaigns. We'll start, of course, with the PM
his camps in the air, so political reporter can redder
(08:38):
and far this report a little earlier.
Speaker 7 (08:41):
Well, Peter, the Prime Minister is attempting to focus on
two core components of his campaign, those being health and housing.
But again foreign politics is inserting itself in this election.
Reports emerging today that Russia has requested Indonesia allow it
to host long range military aircraft less than four fourteen hundred.
Speaker 8 (09:00):
Kilometers from Australia's coastline.
Speaker 3 (09:03):
We are ascertaining having a look at those reports as so.
Foreign Minister and Defense Minister have said, we have a
good relationship with our friend in Indonesia and we're seeking
further clarification.
Speaker 6 (09:15):
Obviously do not want to.
Speaker 3 (09:17):
See Russian influence in our regions.
Speaker 5 (09:22):
We would want to hear from the Prime Minister about
what if it's have been undertaken. Obviously, surely they must
have known about this before it's been made public, and
if not, then that is a catastrophic failure of Penny
Wong and Anthony Obnesian.
Speaker 7 (09:35):
Sky Neese understands there have already been questions asked of
Indonesia to explain the nature of this request and exactly
whether it will be accepted. My understanding, Peter, is that
there is no engagement between Australia and Russia at this stage.
The ambassador from Moscow recently left Canberra when his post
ended those questions. That dialogue just beginning today, We're yet
(09:59):
to see more of what the government's response might be.
Speaker 4 (10:02):
We are here in Melbourne where.
Speaker 7 (10:04):
The Prime Minister looks to focus on domestic matters, but
after a Chinese boat and American tariffs, it's now Vladimir
Putin's Russian regime poking its head at the halfway mark
of this campaign.
Speaker 2 (10:18):
And it was a bit of a where's Wally two
in Victoria again? Just into Allen that one picture we've seen,
We've not seen her again. We'll see what happens in
the next few weeks. Now to the opposition leader's campaign.
Joining me from the Dutton team bus political reporter Ruben Spargo, Ruben,
welcome to the program. You're leader there. Peter Dutton using
today to sell his housing message. What can you tell us?
Speaker 9 (10:41):
Yea the coalition today. Peter spent today attempting to capitalize
on vulnerable Victorian seats. Mister Darton started the day in
the seat of Hawk, which is held by a margin
of seven point six percent. Labour holds the power there.
Mister Darton was spooking his first home Buyers policy, which
would allow first home buyers to deduct Morgan for repayments
(11:05):
on from their taxable income.
Speaker 4 (11:07):
He was flanked by his son Harry.
Speaker 9 (11:09):
Mister Dutton while he was there was also facing questions
on whether Australia was living beyond its means when we
look at a decade of deficits and the debt which
is set to hit one point two trillion dollars.
Speaker 4 (11:22):
In twenty twenty eight twenty twenty nine. It was from
there that.
Speaker 9 (11:25):
Mister Dutton visited the seat of Gorton, held by a
margin of ten percent.
Speaker 4 (11:30):
Was there he went for round ten of filling.
Speaker 9 (11:33):
Up at a fuel station, sprooking his halving of the
fuel excise. He also got to chat with punters there.
I spoke to one truck driver who was speaking to
mister Dutton. He thought the harving of the fuel excise
was a good idea.
Speaker 4 (11:46):
Did show a little bit.
Speaker 9 (11:47):
Of skepticism about whether the fuel companies would try and
drive the prices up once that price came down by
the government's actions.
Speaker 4 (11:54):
It was then mister Dutton went.
Speaker 9 (11:57):
To the seat of Gorton, excuse me, McEwen held.
Speaker 4 (12:03):
By a margin of three point eight percent. He visited
an earth moving company.
Speaker 9 (12:07):
This was a two and one where he was talking
about the fuel and the housing policy.
Speaker 2 (12:13):
Fredlin, that's it. I think they're Reuben, Thanks, Reuben, will
leave it. There a lot of labor seats they're visited too.
I might add lots of discussion in this campaign about
the role of influencers and social media players and whether
(12:34):
or not there skewing voters. I want to show you something.
This is exclusive that was sent to a prominent lifestyle
commentator from a PR agency seeking her interests to work
with the Allegal Spender campaign and climb at two hundred. Now.
On the first point, the email reads, we are looking
to partner with creators and voices in the community that
(12:54):
we believe aligned with her vision and values. Allegra was
running on policy platforms that focus on climate action, political integrity,
economic reform, and social inclusion, and with regards Climbate two hundred,
they were seeking interest in quote exploring the possibility of
collaborating with you on some content for use in social
(13:15):
media ads. All this for coin joining me now to
discuss this. The more journalists The Daily Telegraph, James Willis
and senior fellow at the Menzies Research Center, Nick Kata,
will welcome James two things in this email that was
sent to me from one of these big influences, one
that shows their rise in the campaign not to be underestimated.
(13:38):
And the fact that the independent Legal spenders media strategy
is to work hand in glove with Climate two hundred.
This pr firm in the one email admits they're working
for both. They're not even trying now to maintain any
semblance of separation.
Speaker 10 (13:56):
Well, Peter, that's right, and good evening to you and
to Nique. And look these individual posts, young people will
tell you an influencer can often be paid tens of
thousands of dollars even more to post something on a
very popular Instagram or TikTok account to spook another product.
Speaker 8 (14:15):
But the problem with this, as we know, is.
Speaker 10 (14:17):
That it is a political ad, a political push being
dressed up as getting to know someone, and we've seen
a few examples of this already throughout the campaign. It's
a couple of things that are really really important about
this one. The first one is the link between Climate
two hundred and the independence is just so obvious.
Speaker 8 (14:36):
And on the northern beaches there's a big sign with.
Speaker 10 (14:39):
Zalie Stegel and doctor Sophie Scomps, who are the two
independent MPs, but they've managed to get the same billboard
together to spook.
Speaker 8 (14:47):
How independent they are.
Speaker 10 (14:48):
We know that a lot of the funding comes directly
from Climate two hundred. We know that a lot of
the donations from Climate two hundred have come from people
that have links to the.
Speaker 8 (14:58):
Fossil fuel indus.
Speaker 10 (15:00):
That's been reported by the Daily Telegraph in recent days.
And so when you talk about integrity from MPs that
should be leading from the front and calling this stuff down.
And we saw the appalling interview, the train wreck interview
Monique Ryan gave on the AVC the other day where
she didn't really have an opinion on social media influences
getting involved. I mean, come on, these people are proving
(15:22):
that they are likely just to be a blip on
the history of elections in this country rather than long
term because they haven't been able to keep their nose
clean on some of this stuff. This is really really
dirty and the problem for the major parties is that
they now have to invest a lot more time and
money and resources into convincing young voters that what they're
seeing on social media is not what it seems. So
(15:45):
it's a messy one. But in regards to the tials,
I mean it's hypocrisy.
Speaker 8 (15:48):
Ritt large.
Speaker 4 (15:52):
Nick.
Speaker 2 (15:52):
I think the AEC, the Electric Commission's got it seriously
wrong here. If you were yourself to do an ad
for the Liberal Party, let's say a TV ad, you'd
have to have a written and authorized at the end
of that would have to disclose your relationship with the party.
But if you were to post something about the Liberal
Party to your social media, nothing's require there in terms
of disclosures. They could use then probagate even further what
(16:15):
you've put out. You can be paid on MATSA. We'd
never know any of that. I think it's cash for comment.
I said that yesterday and I maintain that position.
Speaker 11 (16:24):
I absolutely agree with you, Peter. I mean, this is
just one of the ways. What are the many ways
in which Climate two hundred of being caught out trying
to skirt around the electoral laws and given kick glove treatment,
as it seems by the Australian Electoral Commission. I mean,
I high lanted last week the case of all these
fake five fake local newspapers that have been set up
(16:45):
looking to all the world to be independent community newspapers.
The North shore LORI keep being one of them, just
running puff pieces, absolute puff pieces for the climate two
hundred candidates, an absolute terrible piece about the Liberal candidates,
and running really terrible scare stories about nuclear power, absolutely
(17:07):
ridiculous scare stories about how nuclear fallout is going to
hit the north shore of Sydney. They are ludicrous. But
they're doing all this outside the electoral laws, and so
on top of the two million or more they'll be
spending on each of these campaigns, they're spending millions more,
tens of millions of more propagating this cause. And they're
the ones that have bought big money politics, big money
(17:30):
into Australian politics that wasn't there before.
Speaker 2 (17:35):
James Willis I mentioned this last night. It's got more
legs today the Prime Minister's interview where he says if
elected this time, he's going to run a third term,
he's going to be there at the next election. And
I could absolutely Betty, you'll be decking out the lawns
of Kurabilly House for his upcoming upcoming wedding. I met
he's already planted out the garden. He's decided. I know
(17:56):
they've been doing renovations there that's interesting in itself, but
I bet you he's got it all all right down
to the menu organized on the presumption he's just going
to walk in on the third of May.
Speaker 10 (18:12):
What we know by now that Peter, when it comes
to daily briefings and performances, the Prime Minister.
Speaker 8 (18:18):
Leaves a lot to be desired.
Speaker 10 (18:20):
Is rarely across his brief He's picking fights with journalists
every day. And he's been doing this weird thing at
press conferences now where he's not allowing other people at
the press conference to answer questions. He wants to take
center stage, pushes to the front. I've seen that on
a few clips on social media today. I mean, most
people would hear these comments Peter and think that the
Prime Minister is honestly going to be lucky to survive
(18:44):
from his own party through another term. It was only
a few months ago, off the back of the quantit
saga when he bought the house on the Central Coast.
Remember the Voice referendum as well, that the PM's polling
numbers were dreadful.
Speaker 8 (18:57):
Now they might have improved slightly, but.
Speaker 10 (18:59):
Still certainly people inside the Labor Party in the next
six to twelve months if they do survive May three
would be looking at the PM and whether he is
the right man to get them through another term. I
can't see it happening, And I think the big problem
for Anthony Alberanezi Peter, as you know, he's part of
the old system. He's sitting on a small fortune in
(19:19):
terms of super and entitlements. When he does finally leave,
I don't know what he's going to do after he
leaves Federal Parliament. I think he'd be really concerned and
confused about finding another job and maybe hopes that it
lasts forever. The problem is, as I say, I don't
think the labor caucus will allow that to continue. If
the next six to twelve months plays out after the election,
(19:40):
as it may well do.
Speaker 2 (19:44):
I guarantee you'll end up on an industry super fun board.
That's where all the labor guys go in their retirement
to get looked after by the unions and sit on
their big pensions. Hey, let's go to the coalition's defense policy.
This staggers me, Nick, I have to say, and I
made the point, I'm not going to give them free
advice through the but I'll tell you I have been
on the phone a few times. Why on earth would
(20:04):
you launch the campaign on Sunday and not have your
defense policy front and center. We say all the time,
these are dangerous times, these are uncertain times. The talk
I'm hearing is they want to align it with ANZAC Day.
But I mean, we'll start voting in pre polls next Tuesday.
ANZAC Day is at the end of so Friday week,
at the end of that week. I mean, come on,
(20:26):
this is a huge equity for the coalition. It should
be out there front and center, So too should be Andrew.
Speaker 11 (20:33):
Hasty absolutely, Peter that this is a huge, huge issue
in the community. I know we say it's cost of living,
cost of living, cost of living, but the issue of
national security is really bearing down on people. There was
that discussion in one of the papers this morning about
the Trump effect. I think the big part of the
Trump effect is people fear not just the tariff, but
(20:54):
more so whether America will buy its agreement with US
under an and come to our aid, you know, if
we're invading, because that Bingers crossed is not on the cards.
But we have seen that Chinese warship do a victory
lap around Australia and do live fire exercises off the
(21:15):
coast of Sydney that is really scaring people in the community.
It really really is. And this is where the Coalition
should be playing to their strengths to be talking about
defense big time, to be talking about spending big on defense,
because that's the only thing I want them to spend
big on, quite frankly, and I want them to spend
very big on it. We should be really making this
(21:36):
our strength at the moment. And absolutely let's see Andrew
Haysey out the beut.
Speaker 2 (21:43):
Yeah, I'll come back to the issue of Vans Day.
There's something there with the Greens. I'll give you an
update to my deviewers a bit later on the show.
But let's go back to the War Memorial. We saw
that story that you've broke in the Telegraph yesterday, James.
The Australian War Memorials made an official complaint against the ABC,
alleging that four Corners used footage to make it look
like that the construction going on at the War Memorial
(22:06):
was done in a very disrespectful way during the last post.
Have a listen, We're gonna have a serious look at
(22:29):
the ABC here, James, because this is not the first time,
they've been leveled a very serious allegation of doctoring audio
and footage.
Speaker 10 (22:40):
Well, that's right, Peter, and having exhausted their avenues of
going after veterans and the SAS and the military with
dozens of stories over a five to six year period,
they turned their attention to the War Memorial a month
ago and basically, as a quick summary, the War Memorial
is undergoing a five hundred million dollar redevelopment and expansion
(23:02):
so we can tell the stories of Iraq and Afghanistan
and all the brave people that served in those wars.
Speaker 8 (23:08):
And as part of that there is construction going on.
Speaker 10 (23:12):
The ABC put this footage to air, and the War
Memorial's concern is that it made it look like the
last post was being drowned out by construction, when they
have very very clearly had no construction stop work orders
during any commemorative service since twenty twenty.
Speaker 8 (23:31):
Now they've made a formal complaint.
Speaker 10 (23:32):
The complaint involves a number of points, including that vision
that you've just played. Veterans groups are outraged by this.
Today the ABC is refusing to apologize and saying we
stand by the story, but ultimately the words from the
War Memorial director Matt Anderson are At best, this was insensitive.
At worst, it was deliberate and designed to mislead as
(23:54):
the ABC did a one hour hit job that was
critical of.
Speaker 8 (23:58):
The five hundred million dollar Exis Benson. So it's a
big story.
Speaker 10 (24:01):
And as you say, not for the first time the
ABC under fire for their coverage of veterans.
Speaker 8 (24:07):
And our defense force. And I think it should be condemned.
Speaker 10 (24:10):
I think it's been terrible and it's been very, very
one sided in my view.
Speaker 2 (24:16):
Yeah, I will make the point for all the ABC
carping about the cost of this multi million As you say,
five hundred million dollar redevelopment's not just a renovation, it's
a huge endeavor. It's the biggest expansion of the Warman
Worial in its history. Five hundred million. Well, that's only
half of what the ABC spends every single year, so
(24:36):
they were to be careful of budget comparisons. Hey, Nick,
just quickly. The Herald's Sun today, multiple sources from the
left of the Liberal Party are quoted saying they want
to challenge Moira Deemings number one spot on the Western
Metro Upper House ticket. So this is the lower House,
so the upper House of the State Parliament in Victoria.
She's number one on the ticket. She obviously took on
(24:59):
a job Perzzuto after he defamed her. We can say
he defined her because that's what the court found. And
I know she's got the support of the rank and far.
But what is it with Victorian liberals the moderates in
particular the left liberals that they want to make themselves
the issue here yet again? Why would they try and
roll her?
Speaker 11 (25:20):
Hadn't they learned their lesson Peter? It was incredible And
look you make the point there the rank and file
behind Baurer. So they've got to know they're not just
taking on more redeeming. They're taking on the base of
the party. The people that come out and do how
to vote cards and give up their time to hold
raffles and raise money for the party. That's who they're
taking on. I mean, I was at a state conference
(25:43):
there in Victoria when I saw the leader booed by
the crowd, and that was over the more redeeming issue.
We don't want to go back to that. Surely we
put all this behind us with what happened now and
she's now back in the party, thank goodness. Just leave
well alone. I say the party has got enough difficulties
getting elected these days with that that sort of nonsense
(26:04):
going on.
Speaker 2 (26:07):
Yeah, Red Batten's a real healer. I mean he's tried
to move on from this. He wants to get to
you know, get all the policy work done early, take
the fight up to Allan. He's presuming, of course, that
they'll dump her and they'll move to Labour's Ben Carroll.
He knows he's in for a fight. But I'll tell
you what the moderates down in Victoria deemi which he
just wants to get on with the job and fight
for Western Melbourne. How hard is that to just let
(26:29):
her get on with it?
Speaker 4 (26:30):
All right?
Speaker 2 (26:31):
Jensa' leave it there, thank you very much. Hey, something
before we go, bit lighthearted. Master Foods they've got a
new special edition of tomato sauce out for the campaign.
They're calling it Democracy Sausage or Democracy Source in this case.
I think that's fantastic. I'll be getting a bottle of that,
all right, quick break after the break. Why preferences matter
not just at every election, but this one in particular,
(26:53):
will break down some of the key seats where it
could be the real difference between a win and a loss.
Plus why is one rule for the tears and one
rule for everyone else? Welcome back is still to come
massive legal judgment in a gender medicine case that could
have wide ranging ramifications for the family court and children.
(27:15):
The first preference flows will likely decide the majority of
seats at this election and in overall terms of course,
the limbs have beaten labor and primary vote at most
recent elections when the preferences come into play, So every
other vote, after your first vote, after the number one vote,
well for labor, that can shift the dial. It's why
(27:37):
there's often such a big move between the primary vote
and the two party preferred number. And yet despite how
critical the preferences are, lots of voters don't know any
idea how the systems work. So here for a quick refresher,
I'm joined by our Sky News chief election analyst Tom Connell. Well, Tom,
(27:57):
millions of Australians don't vote for the two major parties,
as we know, that's a trend that's likely to accelerate.
So preferences are critical.
Speaker 4 (28:08):
They absolutely are.
Speaker 12 (28:09):
They will decide the vast majority of seats, and we
saw an increase in the non major party vote last time?
Speaker 4 (28:14):
Will it happen again?
Speaker 12 (28:15):
Let's have a look at the latest news poll compared
to the past election. First of all, so the twenty
twenty result, you can see the coalition vote, the primary
vote is actually slightly down on the news bowl compared
to last time.
Speaker 8 (28:27):
Labors are slightly up.
Speaker 12 (28:28):
But has it a little bit of caution there, because
last time we had Labour's primary way over estimated in
the polling. So if that's the case, you'll see the
amount of vote overall going to the two major parties
down again and an even bigger emphasis on preferences. How
many are we talking? Then let's have a look at
the size of the vote that is affecting the election.
So nearly four point seven million votes for non major
(28:49):
parties in terms of that primary vote thirty two percent
of formal votes overall. Every vote counts, of course into
Canada preferred contests because you know a lot of people
think I'm voting one and they might take a how
to vote card. Parties don't swap preferences. You own your vote,
you can do what you like. And as a result,
we're not talking about someone voting for the Greens and
(29:10):
are automatically going for Labor or voting one nation that
goes to the Liberal Party. So how did that actually
work last time around in terms of the national preference flow.
If we look at the Greens, one point eight million votes,
fourteen percent flow to the coalition. So I'm just looking
at all these in terms of how much in other words,
eighty five percent flowed to Labor In relevant to candid
(29:30):
preferred contests, you can see how significant that was. Independent
again very low to the coalition thirty six They get
more one nation and UAP and Libdems, but that's not
as much of the vote. So you can clearly see
the big factors in seats are Greens and Independent, and
that obviously has helped Labor in plenty of seats get
over the line against the Liberal Party even when they're
(29:50):
trailing on that primary vote.
Speaker 2 (29:55):
All right, well, going on what you just outlined there,
take some of that into some of the races we're
looking at in the twenty sorry, in the twenty twenty
five elections. Some of that learning into the current race.
Speaker 12 (30:08):
Yeah, well, this is what's interesting, So we can see
what happened last time and how that will influence similar
type seats Let's start with a till seat Goldstein one
by an independent by two point nine percent. I'll point
out Zoey gold Zoey Daniel on this got thirty percent
of the vote, eight percent behind her Liberal counterpart, So
how did that switch. She got an eighty one point
five percent of Labors votes and eighty six point six
(30:30):
percent of the Greens. So, in other words, after someone
tipped labor or the Greens first, then they went Zoe
Daniel ahead. So as a result, the percentage flow to
the independent Zoe Daniel there completely changed that seat thirty
percent of the primary and yet she managed to win
the seat.
Speaker 4 (30:44):
And we look at the seat of Ryan.
Speaker 12 (30:45):
This was won by the Greens, again from the Liberal party.
So the Greens won that by only two point six percent.
Again their primary vote had a three in front of it.
But look at the preference low eighty three point five
percent of labor and that's the vast majority of the
rest of the vote. He so even though they only
got forty three percent of UAP, that's nowhere near as
many votes. So again as a result, well behind in
(31:06):
the primary, they win because of those labor votes.
Speaker 4 (31:10):
Then we go to the seat of Wills.
Speaker 12 (31:11):
This was an interesting contest because it's actually what seat
that was won by labor last time around by eight
point six percent, and why was it won by labor
with such strong vote liberal seventy three point three percent,
So liberal voters went Liberal first, then Labor ahead of
the Greens. If they'd done the other way around, if
you flip that seventy three percent, you'd actually see the
Labor hub party lose that seat.
Speaker 4 (31:32):
So this is what's interesting.
Speaker 12 (31:33):
You're getting Labor helped the Greens win seats, but it
doesn't happen the other way around, which brings us to
the seat of McNamara. Now we have heard Josh Burns
say he's going to run an open ticket this time around.
Why could that be relevant, Well, this was the primary
vote last time around, thirty one point eight percent Labor
twenty nine point six percent Greens twenty nine percent Liberal.
In other words, it was really really close. When we
(31:55):
see what happened in the exclusion as well, remembering they
slowly cancel out for the lowest vote all the way
up to the highest.
Speaker 2 (32:02):
When they canceled people out one by one last time around.
Speaker 12 (32:05):
If we bring that up, you can see how close
this was at exclusion point to this being a labor
was an in the end being a labor Liberal contest.
With those votes, those Greens votes, they got Josh Burns elected.
If that slightly changes though, you could see a Greens
Liberal contest in that case with an open ticket, theoretically
Labour could actually help the Liberal Party defeat the Greens.
(32:26):
Now will that happen from labor voters. I'm not convinced, Peter,
but at least the how to vote cards would leave
the issue more open to voters, I suppose, versus what
we've seen in the past, which is the how to
vote system from Labor and the Greens being exchanged and
helping to defeat Liberal Party.
Speaker 2 (32:44):
Excellent, Tom, I think we can't say this stuff and
now we might even get a ballot paper and go
specifically through how we even fill out a ballot paper,
because I worry sometimes people work out, walk out and
throw away their vote. Thanks for your time. I know
you're getting ready for the camp, but appreciate it. Tonight,
I'm going to go into this a little bit further,
and we're going to look into the Gucci Greens, the Teals,
(33:05):
because there's news about them today I'm joined now with
former Victorian Liberal Party president Michael Kroger. Peter, you and
I talk about preferences. We talk about how critical the
flows are and butt four Green preferences laboured hardly ever
get to government in Canberra. The specific case of mac Namara.
You've looked at this closely, haven't you.
Speaker 13 (33:26):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (33:27):
This is the old seat of Melbourne Ports, which Labor
have held for one hundred years, formerly represented by Michael Danby.
This is a fascinating seat. Right, twelve percent of the
electorate are of Jewish background, and Josh Burns, even though
he came first, as Tom Connell's just pointed out, he
came first in twenty twenty two, the Liberal Party candidate
will come first this time. Our vote dropped dramatically in
(33:49):
the twenty two election for lots of reasons. So Benson Salo,
the Liberal candidate, will get a minimum of about thirty
eight percent. Right, he could get forty forty two, hopefully
forty five, but most likely high thirties. Josh Burns is
likely to come third. Right, his vote's going to drop.
The Labor Party primary votes often Victoria by about two
to three percent, and a lot of Jewish voters won't
(34:09):
have a bar of him. He could drop to twenty six,
he would come third, the Greens come second. So it
was Josh Burns' preferences that are going to get distributed. Now,
this is where it gets interesting. Burns's Thomas said he's
issuing a fifty to fifty hatavote cards. So the only
way the Greens can get elected in McNamara is with
Josh burns preferences. The only way the Greens can win,
(34:32):
They're going to get twenty eight to thirty percent of
the vote. They get to fifty one by getting majority
of Burns's preferences. Burns has been incredibly weakened cowardly in
issuing an open ticket. If he had any sense of decency,
he'd say to vote as particularly Jewish voters in McNamara,
you've got to put Benson Salo's second, the liberal guy
after Burns, to stop the Greens. So he's trying to
(34:53):
say to people, I've vote for me, vote for me
to stop the Greens. No, No, the Greens we got
elected if they do on Josh Burns's preferences.
Speaker 2 (35:00):
Yeah. So that's the point there, isn't it that if
you are of labor persuasion, but you can't stand the
Greens in a seat like that. You vote for Labor,
you most likely will elect.
Speaker 1 (35:10):
A Green, going to elect the Green if you follow
the Burns thing, where Burns is saying to Jewish voters
there's a moral equivalence between liberals and the Greens on
the Middle East.
Speaker 4 (35:21):
That's effective.
Speaker 1 (35:22):
What Burns is saying by is shooing an open had
of our card. Now, if this guy had any decency,
any morality at all, he'd simply say to the Labor Party,
I'm sorry, I cannot be in a situation where I'm
doing a fifty to fifty Greens or Liberals are equal.
He'd say to the Labour Party, I have to put
the Liberal Bens and Salo ahead of the Greens. I
have to put the Greens last on principle. And you
(35:43):
don't like that, but my preferences might elect the liberal
because he's going to be far better for my constituents
and there was about their communities. Then there'll be a Green.
So this ball is right in his court. It comes
back to Peter what we've talked about before, which is
the Labor National Executive as we know one by Alberanizi
ten left, ten right, He's got the casting vade. This
(36:04):
is his decision when he says to people, oh, it's
a matter of the organization. No, no, no, he is the organization.
The federal executive for the LP is the organization. He's
got the swing vode. He and Burns will have had
a discussion or through their offices, where Albanizi has said,
do not preference the Liberals do a fifty to fifty,
and Burns and said, if that's what I've got to do,
that's what I do. Well, that's a disgrace. But this
(36:25):
is not Burns's decision. He's too weak to stand up
and he's being run over by Pennywog and Alberzi on
this issue.
Speaker 2 (36:32):
Talk to me about the teals broadly. There's a number
of stories around today and I don't want to miss
any of them. Michella Roman Bishop's old seat currently held
by Sophie Scamp She's a teal. She was at an
RSL recently and they were reciting the ode. It's a
moment you normally can hear a pin drop. She kept
flapping her jaws, she was talking, she was moving around.
(36:54):
She didn't stand to honor the ode when pushed about it,
rather than just say look I got it wrong, I apologize.
As is the case with most of these tears, there
was an excuse, there was an explanation, something was going on.
She didn't hear it. She's up against a soldier, former
soldier in this race this time, James Brown, I think
(37:17):
this is dangerous for her, given our proximity to Antec Day.
Speaker 1 (37:20):
You've got to remember, Peter, the Teals are superior to
ordinary folk like us. They're not ordinary working class people.
These people are intellectually superior, morally superior to all of us.
You know, they're above the ordinary working fote folk. These
people are a wealthy, privileged, selfish, arrogant and we saw
that money ground on Sunday. What a preposterous interview she
(37:43):
gave on the Insiders when she was asked about this
whole issue of paying influences to back you and then
not disclose the fact that you're paying them to support you,
and she had to think about it. She couldn't even say, oh,
that's morally wrong.
Speaker 4 (37:55):
No.
Speaker 1 (37:55):
The Greens these are people, you know, engulfed by their
own arrogance and they can't admit any wrong. I mean,
anyone who went to a ceremony like that would know
to be very sensitition to what's going on right in
that room. And when they play the Ode, when they
recite the Ode, recite the olde, that great, that extraordinary
poem that we've all many times. When they recite the Ode,
(38:16):
you know, you know that's why the Anzac Day football, right,
people say, well should it be held on an Anzact day?
There is there is such a ceremony around football. There's
a reverence and you know, you get ninety thousand, one
hundred thousand people standing and as people you know we've
been to that game. You can hear a pin drop
amongst one hundred thousand people as they play the last post.
Speaker 2 (38:40):
Yeah, I think that's seats are real smoky there with
James grauyp it is Michael Craig, thanks better all right
after the break the landmark transgender ruling that could up
and family called judgments, plus what on earth were the
Greens thinking scheduling a rave on Anzac Day? Welco Bateke's
still to come more on the rought that his labour's
(39:01):
housing policy, but first last week, one of the nation's
most prominent gender medicine experts, was ruled to have misled
the Family Court when giving evidence to support a mother
who wanted her child to be prescribed puberty blockers. Just
as Andrew Strom's judgment stripped the mother of custody, effectively
preventing the child from accessing gender change medicine. Today, a
(39:23):
former family called judge has suggested the landmark ruling could
upend precedents which allowed children to receive treatment without a
court intervention. Stuet Lindsay told The Australian he's concerned about
the impact of secrecy statutes and believes it could be
in the best interests of parents and children for identities
to be known. Joining me in now our legal affairs
(39:45):
contributor at The Australian, Chris merit Well, Chris, I think
the circumstances of this case are pretty important. Take us
through what was decided by the court and why.
Speaker 6 (39:57):
Okay, this was a tragic case. It's about a twelve
year old boy. His parents lit up. The mother has
been taking this philow to a transsexual gender clinic from
the age of six. He's now twelve. She wanted to
(40:18):
proceed on a course of puberty blocking treatment. The father objected,
and that's how we got to court, and that's what
needs to change. Had the father believed the misdiagnosis his
former wife had received that their son had suffered from
(40:42):
gender dysphoria, there would be no role for the Federal
Circuit and Family Court in running a rule array over
this and just checking the rigor of that diagnosis. There's
a precedent, and this is what the former judge was
talking about. There's a president that makes it clear that
if both parents agree and are not in dispute about
(41:07):
a course of gender blocking treatment, it will go ahead
without any further involvement of the court. But in this
particular case, because the father objected, it found its way
into court. And when the medical experts were subjected to
a bit of cross examination and their evidence was tested
(41:30):
quite rigorously over a long period, huge flaws emerged. Some
obvious treatments were obvious, Potential causes of the boy's gender
confusion were not pursued. There was no attent, for example,
to test whether he suffered from autism, which can have
(41:53):
an effect on gender confusion. But that needs to change.
That's a role for the court itself. It needs to
go back and have a look at that existing precedent
and provide a role for itself in these cases. Because
if we've got a misdiagnosis in this case based on
(42:13):
what the judge said was evidence infected with ideology rather
than facts, there could be other cases like this proceeding.
So you have confused young people proceeding on a course
of life changing treatment because their parents trusted the diagnosis
(42:37):
of clinicians who have been clearly found who have engaged
in some very sloppy practice. Once their practice was subjected
to scrutiny by the court. Now that's not the end
of things. There's a role here for the next federal
government as well. The judge made the point that it's
a criminal offense to identify any of the witnesses involved
(43:01):
in this case. It's a criminal offense for anybody to
say who these doctors are who gave evidences that was
rejected by the court. But more importantly, diagnosed a young man,
a young boy wrongly as suffering from gender dysphorior and
(43:22):
had that not been picked up, this could have started
him in a course of action that doesn't stop. With
purity blockers. It's usually followed or sometimes followed by a
course of opposite sex hormone treatment and in the final
stage surgery, all based on a misdiagnosis. Now that's incredibly
(43:47):
significant and that needs to be addressed by the federal government,
the next federal government.
Speaker 2 (43:55):
Well, we want to see both sides take a spine
on an issue like this, because, as you say, only
for the fact that the dad called into question what
was on the table in terms of treatment for his
son often you know, life changing treatment. Do we have
this outcome? Otherwise it would have just been way through.
Thanks for your time. Thanks for your time, Chris, really
important subject. All right, quick break, I'm going to tell
(44:17):
you what the long game for the Greens is over
ANZAC day and Australia Day plus plummeting testless sales in Queensland.
What's that mean? Welcome back. Well, the PMCAS is going
to build one hundred thousand new homes just for first
home buyers, but he didn't say where they'd be built,
(44:40):
who would be eligible, or even how much they would cost.
And as I showed you at the top of the show,
with only six hundred million of the ten billion actually
even in the budget. All we're talking about is three
hundred homes a year tops. That's a long way off
what's promised here to discuss this a whole lot of
other issues. Liberal MP from Adelaide James Stevens and Senator
(45:04):
for Queensland James McGrath. James Stevens, When I do the numbers,
we're talking about two houses only per year in your electorate.
But it's worse than that. We look at the numbers,
he says, it's one hundred k per home out of
the ten billion. No, it's not. It's only an actual
committed grant of twenty thousand. In that one hundred k.
(45:25):
The rest is from some sort of loan that don't
tell us who's providing the loan or how you even
apply for it. No eligibility grounds. And second point is
who the heck's going to build these homes? Says the
building industry.
Speaker 13 (45:40):
Spot on Peter. I mean, this is just another example
of Labour announcing a policy to look like they're doing
something to solve a problem they have frankly created. It's
not going to work. Like every other policy they've announced,
They've had three years to do something meaningful to address
the crisis in housing affordability. Here in Adelaide, our population
(46:01):
is about one point three million people. That's how many
migrants have come into the country since Albanezi came to power.
It's putting enormous pressure on the housing market. Young people
have lost the hope of buying a house. And this
is just a cruel hoax, this announcement. It's complete rubbish.
Like you say, the numbers don't stack up. They're trying
to look like they're doing something rather than actually helping
(46:22):
people get into the housing market.
Speaker 2 (46:26):
I'll say it again. At best it'll be twelve hundred
homes across the country over four years. That's the best
case scenario. Let's go to wa James McGrath. We all
know what happened on the twenty fifth of April, Like
the twenty sixth of January, that day is in the
gun for the Greens. They'll get Australia Day. They reckon,
(46:46):
then they're going after Ranzai Day. Well, they've already started
going after Ransack Day. So they knew bloody well that
organizing a rave on the twenty fifth of April would
be a rave a dance party on Anzac Day. So
the PM couldn't call it out today. He said, you know,
protect the day, but it couldn't call out the Greens.
Speaker 14 (47:05):
This is outrageous, It's beyond outrageous. Peter, and your viewers
should be so angry about this, about how the Greens
disrespect our historage and how they disrespect the sacrifice of
being made by men and women to make this country
(47:26):
so great, a sacrifice that the Greens just disrespect. I
can talk about that the federal seats of Ryan and Brisbane.
We've got the inaugural Army barracks, a lot of soldiers there,
but guess what, none of them, none of the community
groups in Ryan or Brisbane can get Australian flags. You've
got a Greens who refuse to condemn the vandalism on
the Australian War Memorial. The Greens hate modern Australia because
(47:50):
it was built by the men and women who did
so much to make this such a great country. And
Albanize is the guy who's going to do a preference
deal with these people to make sure he can stay
in power.
Speaker 2 (48:02):
Let's stay with the Greens. We'll go to Brisbane because
they're about to announce one eleven and a half billion
dollars eleven point six billion dollars to give every child
in every public school across the country a taxpayer funded
lunch per day. Now, James, I think this is first
of all, it displaces parents. It's saying you can't afford
(48:25):
to provide for your own children. And most parents I
know would do everything. I mean that they wouldn't eat
in order to be able to provide for their kids.
They want to look after their families. Most parents do.
But if we need to help families, we do it
on as needs basis. We shouldn't be funding an eleven
billion dollar tuck shop policy. This is outrageous.
Speaker 13 (48:47):
Again I have to say, sorry, Peter, I'm not sure
if it's this James or the other James that's you.
Speaker 2 (48:59):
James, even I couldn't do.
Speaker 13 (49:03):
I couldn't agree, couldn't agree more. It is very offensive
to parents. It's treating them like they can't be trusted
to properly care for their kids, and of course they can.
And as you say, there are definitely children in need
and we should be targeting support to them. Another big
cash splash of money that we don't have from the
Greens that just is going to drive everyone's taxes up
(49:24):
everyone's costs up. All this kind of expenditure is enormously inflationary,
and it's just a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Frankly,
it's insulting to parents who very proudly look after their
kids and don't want the heavy hand of government having
more influence over their lives.
Speaker 2 (49:45):
You're not wrong. I'll leave. They're gents, Thanks for your time,
see you next week. That's it for me. Andrew's up next.
Popular Podcasts
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
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!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com