July 15, 2025 • 49 mins
The PM fails to raise the Port of Darwin lease during his meeting with Xi Jinping, unions push for a Gillard-stye carbon tax. Plus, a Spanish energy giant pulls the plug on a Victorian offshore wind farm.
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 (00:07):
Good evening, welcome to the program. Here is what's coming
up tonight on Credline. Well, a lot of high but
Anthony Albanezi imagjinping today lot smiling faces. A glowing review
too from the Communist Party media mouthpiece. But anything of
substance out of today. More on that in a moment.
The nation's upcoming productivity review, Well that's what it was about.
(00:29):
Now it's new taxes under the table, on the table
under the guy's so called reform the actull they want
a carbon tax. Business says, you've got to actually bring
down some of these emissions targets. They're just unachievable. So
there's a clash coming the latest with the economist Adam
Crichton coming up speaking of emissions too massive blow to
(00:49):
Chris Bowen, a Spanish energy giants pulled out of a
massive offshore wind project in Victoria that pushes those targets
even further away.
Speaker 3 (00:59):
So where are the liberals with the debate we've.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
Got to have on net zero Pluss, it's going to
be a worry when Orcust critic Malcolm Turnbull has the
ear of Elbridge Colby, the US Defense Under Secretary Tarts
with reviewing the agreement. Turnbull was once a big fan
of the French submarine, So is that what this is about?
And of all the things you could think the Prime
Minister would have raised with Jijing Hing, well, the Port
(01:25):
of Darwin would have been right up on the batting order,
But apparently not.
Speaker 4 (01:30):
Did the President express any objection to your plans about
bringing the Port of Darwin back into Australian hands or
any potential response that China might take to that.
Speaker 5 (01:40):
No, it wasn't right.
Speaker 3 (01:43):
We'll get to that in a moment. It is unbelievable.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
It's hard to overstate, though, the significance the Prime Minister's
pilgrimage to communist China and this gulf that's opening up
between Australia and the United States under his government. Today,
the official and very staged meeting between the Prime Minister
and Chinese communist leader Xijingping occurred in a lengthy and
somewhat syncophantic opening statement that was all the media had
(02:10):
access to before they were ushered out of the room
by Chinese officials.
Speaker 3 (02:14):
The Prime Minister stressed that this was his.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
Eighth visit to China and dwelt on how much time
he was spending in China six days as we know,
and of all the areas of quote common ground, he
talked about free and fair trade. He talked about quote
calm and consistent leadership. Calm and consistent leadership in an
obvious rebuke to the current American administration.
Speaker 6 (02:40):
With joint efforts from both states, the Channel Australia relationship
has rules from the setback and turned around.
Speaker 5 (02:48):
I note your comments and your opening remarks about seeking
common ground while sharing differences. That approach has indeed produced
very positive benefits for both Australia and for China. Australia
is our relationship with China and will continue to approach
(03:09):
it in a calm and consistent manner, guided by our
national interest, but which we regard very much as a
relationship being positive.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
Now, I've been there when a Prime minister's met the
Chinese president in that very room. It's designed to intimidate,
highly choreographed and in those openly grabs which our Prime
minister knew would play out here at home with a
whole of interest and a lot of scrutiny, he deliberately
made no mention of the detained Australian academic, nor his
(03:44):
government's promised take back of the Chinese own port of Darwin.
No mention either of the Australian divers deliberately harmed by
the Chinese navy, nor the Chinese navy's recent drive by
shooting of the coast of New South Wales, and no
mention either of the fact that is such a trusted friend.
Speaker 3 (04:02):
So trusted are they that I know the Prime.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
Minister and his team will have left their phones and
their laptops behind on their military aircraft because that standard
security advice when you enter China. And that at the
top of all of this, we've got the world's largest
biennial military exercises taking place in Australia, Operation Talisman Saber,
(04:26):
some thirty thousand troops from some nineteen nations, all exercising
in northern Australia, together with ships such as the USS
America and the h MAS Prince of Wales, and all
in Australia and training in preparation for potential Chinese aggression.
When Alvineazy put this date in his diary after the
(04:48):
May election win, and it would not have been there
before this, It would have been programmed with the department
after he won. You can only conclude did it deliberately
knowing he would be in Beijing? By talam Talisman's saber
was happening at home? A signal perhaps to Gi that
we are not to be seen as the American ally
(05:11):
we once were. Be that as it may, clearly the
Chinese are very happy to use this visit and their
relationship with Albanesi to try and leave Australia away from
the United States, and it would seem that Beijing's handsome
boy is only too happy to play along. Today, the
regime's mouthpiece, The China Daily, literally gushed over Anthony Albanesi
(05:34):
and an editorial headlined common ground prevails over differences. The
propaganda outlet so that Albanesi's visit was quote sends a
message amid the changing global landscape. It went on against
a backdrop of rising tensions between the United States and
many countries because of the US administration's recent threat to
(05:55):
levy higher tariffs on them. Albanesi's visit shows the Australian
side has the clearer judgment and understanding of China than
it had under the previous Scott Morrison government. The paper
stress that Albertes's visit was and I quote, a friendly
gesture to ensure the positive development of bilateral relationships. The
(06:15):
quote serves the common interest of the world. Okay, that's
not right, is it. I mean, if the Prime Minister
really does understand the reality that a world dominated by
China would be much darker and more dangerous than the
worll we enjoy today, well he's showing zero strategic awareness
of it. In today He's Daily telegraphed The China Expert,
(06:38):
doctor John Lee warned that the People's Republic of China
has spent enormous efforts weaponizing some sections of the Australian
Chinese diaspora to advocate for the PRC's interests and values.
People's Republic of China, that's what PRC is, and that's
to say, it's trying to turn the local Chinese community
(06:58):
in Australia into a potential fifth column. Lee went on
and said this might have been politically beneficial for the
Labor government, but it creates structural problems for social cohesion
in Australian society and politics. He says that it's quite
a radical departure to have a PM more interested in
(07:20):
narrowing the differences with China than with the United States.
You can say that again. Now look, we know the
Almaneza governments are addicted to spending, and what we are
now learning too is they're addicted to taxing.
Speaker 3 (07:39):
Here's the treasurer.
Speaker 7 (07:41):
The substantial progress that we've made in repairing the budget
comes from all different categories of effort. For example, I
increased taxes in the PRRTS.
Speaker 3 (07:55):
Now it's not only wealth taxes.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
Is thinking of like the covering new tax on earned
income of big super accounts, because now it seems labours
toying with the reintroduction of a carbon tax. That's right,
the tax, the very tax of Julia Gillard said would
never ever happen. There will be no carbon tax under
the government high lead.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
Well, that was the election campaign. She won't.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
Of course she introduced one, didn't she, And more than
anything else it cost to her government. And whilst she
might be gone, not so the left's obsession. Confirmation today
that a revamped carbon tax is a key policy priority
for the ACTU in its submission to the government's upcoming
productivity sub it all, let's call it a tax summit.
(08:43):
The ACTU is calling for the introduction of an economy
wide carbon price, and it goes as far as to
claim that the Gillard government's economy wide carbon price was
a success. In its submission, the ACTU said that Guillard's
carbon tax or emissions for the economy grow and that
adversely impacted Australians will compensated. And the act U cited
(09:07):
a survey supposedly showing that some eighty six percent of
economists identified a carbon price as the most efficient way
to reach it zero. Well, never let the facts get
in the way of a good bit.
Speaker 3 (09:18):
Of spin here. I'll tell you that to the ACTU, because.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
The truth is the Gainland's carbon tax put up power
prices by about ten percent and that cost impost cascaded
through the entire economy. And as for being popular, well
Tony Avid whon a landslide campaigning against Labor's great big
tax on everything, and then he repealed it. But the
(09:42):
Left can't help themselves, can they. They never change, They
rarely listen, they rarely learn, and they always think they
know better than you. All right, let's go to camon
out for the headlines. Skye used the political reporter ribbon Spark.
Speaker 8 (10:01):
The prime Minister has held a high level meeting with
President Jijingping in Beijing inside the Great Hall of the People.
The two leaders open discussions by describing the state of
the relationship. Cameras were then switched off.
Speaker 5 (10:16):
We have strategic competition in the region, but we continue
to engage in order to support peace and security.
Speaker 8 (10:26):
Shortly before the meeting, there was an incident between Chinese
security guards and Australian journalists.
Speaker 9 (10:32):
Reporters were ordered to.
Speaker 8 (10:33):
Stop filming and remain until police arrived. The group was
eventually able to board a bus and depart. The Reserve
Bank is calling for an end to debit and credit
card surcharges. A review has found the system is outdated
and no longer nudges people toward cheaper payment methods. Restaurants
and cafes worry they'll end up footing the bill, warning
(10:56):
prices may need to be raised.
Speaker 10 (10:58):
I know how incredibly frustrating the search charges are for consumers,
and it is absolutely clear I hear it all the time.
We've also got to balance that with the need for
small businesses in particular to be able to survive.
Speaker 8 (11:11):
The changes will fall within the RBA's powers, so no
legislation is needed, but the government could act if surcharges remain.
In a statement, Treasurer Jim Chalmers says the government will
weigh up the RBA's advice alongside industry feedback. A six
week consultation is underway, with a final decision due by
the year's end. Independent Nicolett Buller is vowing to defend
(11:33):
a legal challenge. The Liberals are launching a last minute
bid to reclaim the seat of Bradfield. It's the most
marginal electorate in Australia. Gazelle Captarian lost by twenty six votes.
It marked the first time in seventy four years the
seat has not been in Liberal hands.
Speaker 2 (11:50):
We want to make sure that we have absolute confidence
that the final result is as accurate as we can
make it given our system.
Speaker 8 (11:56):
If the Court of Disputed Returns cannot make a determination,
it could force a by election.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
All right, plenty to get across tonight will also get
into all the entrails of what we saw today in Beijing,
but domestic issues will start there first. Joining me now,
Senior Fellow and Chief Economist at the Listory of Public Affairs,
Adam Crichton, and author and radio extraordinary at the spectator
Tarry Barnes. Look, following on from that leaked Treasure advice yesterday,
(12:24):
we've got the Treasure today saying that he's open to
raising or creating new taxes. And he says, I don't
believe this one cutting spending. I don't see labor cutting
spending anywhere, state or federal. But let's take him at
his word. It all comes ahead of course. So what
was a productivity roundtable coming up? But now it's very
much an event that's all about taxes. In their submission,
(12:46):
the Commonwealth Bank wants income taxes slashed and they want
the GST overhauled. AKI, which is the Business Chamber of Commerce,
says that emissions targets are hurting, and the ACTUS just explained, well,
they want to reinstated Gillard era carbon price. Well, Adam
as I said, it's now tax reform, which is code
(13:07):
for tax increases unless the Treasury changes the habit of
a lifetime and labor cup spending.
Speaker 3 (13:12):
Yeah.
Speaker 9 (13:13):
Look, we've just had the fastest growth in government spending
since the Whitlam years. I think it's about twenty seven
percent of GDP. So I'm also someone sins the Whitler
mirror that's actually true.
Speaker 3 (13:20):
That's not my capation. That's wow.
Speaker 9 (13:23):
I think Chris Richardson's calculations actually so it is quite striking. So,
you know, a fairly pessimistic backdrop. Just on the tax front,
I mean, yes, it is basically shaping up to be
a series of tax grabs. We always we already have
the tax on unrealized games in super and you know
there could be more. They really need to get spending
under control. I mean, the NDIS is completely out of control.
I mean, I just I just checked today. The number
(13:44):
of participants is doubled in five years to seven hundred thousand.
That is completely unsustainable and forty eight billion.
Speaker 2 (13:49):
I explained that forty eight billion perannum and rising on
a massive trajectory.
Speaker 9 (13:55):
And basically will be more than our total defense spending
in just a few years. Basically on the current level,
it's growing to twelve percent every single year. Just on
the Comal Bank sumission, I mean, I think it's good
that they stressed that we need to cut personal tax
and not company tax.
Speaker 3 (14:08):
I mean in Australia.
Speaker 9 (14:09):
I mean it's a little bit complicated, but basically company
taxes are withholding tax, the marginal tax, rates. That really
matter are the personal income tax rates, especially that top rate,
you know, the forty nine percent rates, so forty seven
percent rate, which cuts in at a very low level internationally,
and that's you know, it's a great de terence to
starting businesses, to working more to economic growth. So I
think there needs to be a focus there. But like
I say, I'm not expecting it. And you know you
(14:31):
mentioned the emissions tax there the missions trating scene. We
actually kind of already have one through the safeguard mechanism
which is being legislated. It's not called that, but that's
what it is. And you know that is going to
be basically a massive tax, massive tariff on Australian exporters
when it ramps up.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
I'll get into that in my name Morrison. Let's go
to some shocking statistics out today. This is a relation
to the birth rates in hospitals, and they're comparing public
hospitals terry obviously to private hospitals. Let's have a look
at some of the death rates and other horrific data
that's out today. This is between twenty sixteen and twenty nineteen. Overall,
(15:09):
there were nearly eight hundred more steel births or neonatal
deaths in public hospitals as opposed to the public the
private system, and I have a ten thousand additional maternal hemorrhages.
Now you've worked in health policy for a very long time,
you can't have this sort of disparity in a first
world country like Australia.
Speaker 3 (15:30):
So what the heck's going on?
Speaker 11 (15:32):
A lot of public systems strained beyond really capacity, has
been for a long time. I think the other thing
is that the private sector is actually much better at
delivering a full range of neonatal, birthing, post natal services,
particularly in relation to access to obstetricians, whereas in the
private sector you tend to be seen by an obstric
(15:54):
In the public when it comes to your pregnancy testing,
it's more often done by a nursery midwife. There is that,
But really, I think that the private sector is so
essential and the private choice is so essential that we're
dealing with situation at the moment where private maternity service
is actually closing down. I mean, if you look at
(16:14):
the problems that the HEALTHCOA network's been having, they're closing
down them turny wards look quicker than they're closing down.
Speaker 3 (16:19):
Other operators's driving that terry.
Speaker 11 (16:22):
Well, it's basically costs, cost and access to good people
that the best people do go private because they're paid better,
the working conditions are better, and it's job satisfaction is
better too, I think. But the public sector is where
most people still tend to go for their obstetrics. They're
birthing and certainly, I think those numbers and that study
(16:44):
over a number of years it's really alarming.
Speaker 2 (16:46):
Because of what's the answer to do you just throw
more money at the system, because, I mean, we throw
so much money at health, is it landing the right places?
Speaker 11 (16:53):
I don't think it is, And I think part of
the problem it goes to what we've just been talking
about with the tax I mean, it's how we spend
the money and spend it well. And if we're not
throwing if we're throwing money at the system as opposed
to targeting it, I think you're going to get outcomes
like that. So part of the problem I think is
all around the States, the quality of service provision is
(17:16):
relatively poor, and we take a lot for granted, and
to be fair to the people in the public system,
they do a heck of a lot on a shoestring
compared to the private sector, and this is no reflection
on the competence or the enthusiasm or the professionalism of
those people.
Speaker 2 (17:34):
Let's go to some grabs we played before from Michelle
Bullock and obviously from the Intrust rather the IVA, looking
into credit card surcharges. A few things collide on this
issue with me Adam. First of all, you've got armor
Guard yesterday basically being kept afloat by a number of
businesses because we're getting out of cash even if you
can get cash. And I've gone into a couple of
(17:55):
a and said banks recently where you can't get cash
even if you can get it, you turn up to
pay and they won't take your cash, so you're forced
to use a card anyway, So I can understand why
people are getting cranky, but I really resent having to
pay a surcharge on a debit card because that's as transaction.
Speaker 3 (18:12):
Are we going to get changed here?
Speaker 9 (18:14):
Well, I mean interestingly, I actually worked in the government department.
The Reserve Bank actually came up with the rules twenty
years ago, so I know something about this, and the
original idea was to have a market signal. Some payments
are more expensive than others. And it's true the debit
cards only cost about three or four cents per transaction,
so you're regardless of the amount. But if it's a
Visa or MasterCard, it's a percentage of the transaction, so
it's much more expensive for the merchant for the business
(18:36):
they have.
Speaker 2 (18:36):
To And I'm okay with that being passed on to
me because I don't want a small business paying for it.
But I really resent if I'm trying to use cash,
which your debit card is, I cop it no.
Speaker 9 (18:46):
And certainly, and some businesses are actually charging the same
fee for the Visa and MasterCard as they are for
the debit card, which is very sneaky and that should
not be allowed. So I think the Reserve Bank would
be right to ban those fees for debit cards. But
I'm a little bit more uncertain about the credit cards
because there is a cost there, and basically that's going
to mean that people who use debit cards are basically
going to be subsidizing people who use credit cards and
also people who use cash. And the whole cash issue
(19:08):
is another interesting thing because the usage has fallen massively
and look, you know, we all tap, we all use cards.
But I'm a little bit suspicious of a world with
no cash, which I think is where the result I
would like to know would like to go. Because the
government knows absolutely everything about everything you do.
Speaker 3 (19:24):
So that's the world we're headed to.
Speaker 9 (19:26):
So we have to be worried about when we see
stories about armor guard going broke, because that's because people
aren't using cash.
Speaker 11 (19:32):
But I think the other side of it is that
when it comes to businesses that charge the surcharge because
they're supposed the search charge is supposed to be there
if there is a cash alternative. But if you go
to try to book a ticket with an airline, for instance,
the only way to pay for it is by your
credit card, they still charge your search charge because you
could technically go to their office and keep them the money.
Speaker 3 (19:52):
Out of the cap.
Speaker 11 (19:52):
That's the sort of rout that needs to be dealt
with here.
Speaker 9 (19:55):
And those charges are much greater than the actual fees
that the bank's charge. Connus say, because I think form memory,
they charge about two percent quarrise charges the customer, but
the real thing is about point six percent.
Speaker 3 (20:03):
I remember.
Speaker 2 (20:04):
Aha, Well that's what the RBA should fix. Yes, bring
up your old boss spick your mind just quickly. Mooney
Ponds are stabbing. This is happening all the time in Melbourne.
The man though, when he was held on the ground
and his citizens arrest, yelled out Allah akbar. And there
were some comments made by the police today. Let's have
(20:24):
a listen.
Speaker 12 (20:31):
We have contacted the counter Terrorism Command and we have
nothing to indicate that this is.
Speaker 13 (20:37):
Either religiously or politically motivated.
Speaker 3 (20:42):
So we really don't know.
Speaker 2 (20:43):
They're saying it's not a terror event, although that language
would make people think and worry that it is. But
whatever it is, this is daytime Melbourne, terry.
Speaker 11 (20:53):
Melbourne sort of becoming the Bronx, isn't it. And certainly
Mooney Ponds, I mean, I don't forget there were actually
two incidents, two knife incidents in many pronks today, both
involving citizens arrest, and I think full credit goes to
those two men. But certainly, you know, he shouted that,
he called it out. I think you can't just dismiss
it until you've actually done some investigating, So I think
(21:15):
the Victorian police need to actually sort of just hold
their horses and actually ask the questions. But in terms
of the fact that knives are on the streets in
terms of other dangerous repons on the streets, machetes and
so on. I think that's something that we do have
a major problem. Part of it, I hate to say
it is ethnic related, but certainly the fact that too
(21:37):
many people are resorting to violence and knives, machetes, guns,
even there's something wrong with our society. I think it's
not the society I grew up in fifty odd years ago.
Speaker 3 (21:50):
You're not wrong. We'll over it there, Thank you, gentlemen.
Speaker 2 (21:52):
Let's go back to the PM's trip to China and
the face to face today was GIP joined them in
our strategic analysis, as straighted Director Michael Shuebridge. Well, a
very interesting pause. We didn't have a press conference with
the president and our Prime minister. Our PM held one afterwards,
which is the usual protocol, and it was pushed pretty hard.
Michael and those live fire exercises earlier this year. Here's
(22:14):
what he said.
Speaker 5 (22:15):
I said what I said at the time, which was
that it was within international law. There was no breach
of international law by China, but that we were concerned
about the notice and the way that it happened, including
the live fire exercises, is.
Speaker 3 (22:37):
This really good enough, Michael.
Speaker 14 (22:40):
Boy if that's as strong as he is in a
press conference with critical Australian journalists, how watery was he
face to face with shijingping this line that he trotted
out at the time, if you remember was the problem
was there just wasn't enough notice. The Chinese gave no notice.
They're dangerous live firing under civilian airline flight paths. It
(23:04):
was a virgin pilot that found out about it, and
airliners had to divert for the safety of their passengers,
and it was deliberate military provocation and intimidation by China.
The Prime Minister at the time said this is all
lawful and perfectly normal, and he's done the same and
he's face to face with she it is. It's an
(23:26):
embarrassment and it shows the Prime Minister values his stabilization
fiction more than the safety of airline passengers.
Speaker 2 (23:36):
And correct me if I'm wrong with At the time,
of course, we had to deploy the New Zealand Navy.
God help us if all we've got is in New
Zealand Navy in the event of a conflict, because we
had no available ships anywhere in the vicinity. I mean,
this goes to the point you made there about this
sort of facade of the relationship that everything is put
(23:56):
into this fiction of stabilization, no stabilization with China. They'll
play the game as long as they want to, They'll
trade with us as long as they want to, until
they don't. The issue of the Port of Darwen that
also came up.
Speaker 3 (24:12):
Let's have a listen.
Speaker 4 (24:14):
Did the President express any objection to your plans about
bringing the Port of Darwin back into Australian hands or
any potential response that China might take to that.
Speaker 5 (24:23):
No, it wasn't raise.
Speaker 13 (24:24):
You didn't use the opportunity meeting him to explain your
policy on that. I don't need to.
Speaker 5 (24:30):
I've had the same position for a decade since the
Liberal government chose to provide an incentive to the liberal
federal government chose to give an incentive to the Northern
Territory Liberal government to flog off an asset.
Speaker 2 (24:46):
Well, first of all, those comments are pretty political there,
you know liberal this liberal that that's not the protocol.
But we might as well sent a wind up doll
to that meeting. If he hasn't raised human rights issues,
if he hasn't raised how our military has been treated
if he hasn't raised international incursions by warships and li
fire rounds and the port of Darwin, I mean, need.
Speaker 5 (25:06):
I go on?
Speaker 14 (25:08):
Well, I saw that he raised the case of the
illegally detained yanghen Jun, the Australian citizens still in Chinese custody.
But he was quick to say and of course I
don't expect any results, any quick results. So even when
he raises something, he gives she an exit door and
a free pass. This is not the kind of direct
(25:30):
leader to leader conversations that are advancing our interests. This
is mister Albanezi seeing the political value here of his
contrast of saying I'm the guy that's stabilized the relationship
with China in contrast with my domestic political foes. This
is not the act of a national leader dealing with
national security issues.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
Now, you and I and Peter Jennings and people that
have worked in this space before and intersected with government
defense and intelligence, we know where this is headed.
Speaker 3 (26:04):
She has made it.
Speaker 2 (26:05):
Absolutely crystal clear what's on his medium to short term agenda.
And I listened to a very interesting interview today with
our own Chong Lay and a Chinese writer Wu On
shen Wen. He was on sky and he warned, he
warned very clearly where this is headed.
Speaker 3 (26:27):
Have a listen.
Speaker 1 (26:29):
Since Sinpin came to power, he has said at least
fifty times that we must prepare for war.
Speaker 3 (26:40):
And it's not a lie.
Speaker 1 (26:41):
I think the war probably will belong sooner than we think,
than we thought, and I think we have to act now,
to act now, to prepare for this for the coming war,
and it will be much bigger than the Yukin war
and much dangerous than that.
Speaker 2 (27:05):
Not just the government here, Michael, but do you think
ordinary Australians really understand how dangerous things.
Speaker 3 (27:11):
Are at the moment?
Speaker 14 (27:14):
No, I don't know how could they when our Prime minister,
our Foreign minister, and our defense minister aren't telling them.
Speaker 6 (27:21):
So.
Speaker 14 (27:22):
Penny Wang, in her Asian speech, which apparently was clear
right about the threat from China, said we need transparency
about why they're building this big military and why they're
getting nuclear weapons. We've got way too much transparency. As
we just heard, Shijingping has instructed the Chinese military to
be prepared to fight a war at a moment's notice,
(27:44):
with their first priority being conquering Taiwan. And that's exactly
what the Chinese military is preparing to do. You can
see it. So we've got all the transparency we need,
but we've got the key government leaders not telling the
Australian people what we actually know and are seeing.
Speaker 2 (28:05):
Just still on August, but a little bit of a
turn across the Pacific. The Australian The Soufternoon reported that
Malcolm Turnbull no fan of August as we know, in
one of the French submarines and is still pushing the
French submarines. It's been revealed that he's had a meeting
and discussed Aucust in detail with the Bent took on
(28:26):
policy chief, the Under Secretary of Defense Elbridge Colby.
Speaker 3 (28:31):
Now Colby is doing a.
Speaker 2 (28:33):
Review into August as we know, it's understood the report
say that they've engaged on issues for more than three years.
Speaker 3 (28:41):
But he's a critic. What do you make of this?
Speaker 14 (28:46):
Well, I think Malcolm Turnbull's views are so well known
and they're so tied to what he was doing when
he was Prime Minister, I'm not sure they'll have a
whole lot of weight in the Pentagon. It's very clear
that mister Turnbull would have loved the French program that
he helped negotiate to proceed, and he'd still like it
(29:06):
to happen again now. But really, because his position is
so fixed and known, I'm not sure it'll be a
big influence on the Colby review.
Speaker 2 (29:19):
Yes, I imagine he called Colby more than Colby called him.
But we'll see what Malcolm tells us in the future.
Michael Subrich, thank you. After the brag Union's call for
a new carbon tax, business say we've got to push
back on these unrealistic emissions targets, plus a massive blow
for poor old Chris Bowen and Victoria's offshore wind could
(29:39):
put pulled out by the Spanish. Tell me if we've
got any of these offshore wind miss strout monstrosities going ahead,
welcome back. Still to come the loving battle between the
States and the Feds of the E. V. Levy Still
the calm poor old car drivers hit yet again the
(30:00):
first The ACTU is pushing for a return of a
Gillard era style carbon price and the hope it will
reduce the cost of Australians meeting its climate goals. However,
other groups are pushing in the opposite direction. The Australian
Chamber of Commerce and industry. Well, they want to see
the government actually lower some of these climate targets to
be more realistic, warning that a target for twenty thirty
(30:23):
five of some sixty five percent and has certainly been
mooted is unachievable. JOTA be noown to discuss this and more.
The Center for Independent Studies Director of Energy Research Aid.
Speaker 3 (30:35):
Morrison, Well, Laden, thank you for your time.
Speaker 2 (30:38):
We've got actually here saying these targets are over ambitious, unachievable,
sending business out the back door. At the same time,
you've got the unions over here saying they're working, they're fabulous,
and we need a carbon tax on top of it.
I mean, they're completely at odds. This spells trouble in
policy terms, doesn't it.
Speaker 15 (31:00):
I think it does. But it's worth pointing out that
if it wasn't to be on top of what we
currently have, a carbon tax would be a better, much
more adult way of seeking to reduce our emissions. There's
just simply nothing worse than where we currently are with
having a whole bunch of different layers of government being
able to mandate exactly how much of which particular technology
has to be reached in every state at whatever cost,
(31:23):
because it allows the government to basically deny there is
any cost and keep perpetuating this falseome childish narrative that
actually reducing our carbon emissions is somehow helping drive down
consumer costs and help us with our cost of living,
and there's even an economic opportunity. The reality is that
it costs something, and a carbon tax, of flat carbon
tax across the whole industry would be the more grown
(31:43):
up way of making that cost clear and letting the
market figure out the most efficient way. But now we're
letting every state government play all their games pretend there's
no costs while having whatever it takes subsidies to sort
of hide and push any particular energy agenda they seek
to achieve in their own jurisdictions.
Speaker 2 (32:04):
So this is the economists answer about tax efficiency, and
this is exactly why we got the GST when we did,
and all the states then were promiseddated and if you
remember that they would, as a result of the revenue
from the GST remove all their ancillary taxes, they never have.
Speaker 3 (32:21):
They never have.
Speaker 2 (32:21):
So even if we were to take you at the
word and the other economists as well, and went with
a so called efficient carbon price, tax, We wouldn't get
the situation where everything else would go. We wouldn't get
the situation where all the subsidies would disappear, because industry
has built a whole business model on this stuff, and
it's all predicated. The foundation of this is net zero.
(32:42):
If we weren't pumping for net zero by twenty fifty,
we wouldn't need to do all of this economic harm.
So where are the liberals about driving a Fedingham debate
in this country about net zero, because it's the debate
that's overseas just not happening here.
Speaker 15 (33:00):
Yeah, I think it's essential they take the bill by
the horns and have that question asked. And you're quite right.
As soon as the cost is transparent, you find it
very hard to justify the kinds of measures that are
being taken to pursue net zero. And also, ultimately, I
think there is just now no credible path that is
open to reaching net zero because it always sort of
had three components. The first was get your electricity to
(33:22):
be zero, make that really clean, and then you go
into double or triple the amount of electricity to electrify everything,
and then you're going to have even more electricity to
use hydrogen for those last hard to abate things. But
now we know for sure that renewable electricity is actually
very expensive. Electricity electrifying everything, let alone hydrogen looks absolutely
absurd from an economic perspective. So the current path to
(33:44):
net zero is really intellectually quite dead. There's no point
pursuing this if you want to actually have a serious
discussion about the cost, because the costs from where we
currently stand look plainly horrendous. So I think net zero
needs to be discussed with a very clear eye view
of that.
Speaker 2 (34:03):
Well, I look forward at the time the Liberals will
stop reviewing themselves to death and actually get onto something
like this issue.
Speaker 3 (34:09):
I will wait for that one. I'll tell you what.
Speaker 2 (34:10):
We'll get right into it when they do. The Spanish
mob blue float energy. They've walked away from the Victorian
offshore wind project. We've had them fail as you know,
on the New South Wales south coast and elsewhere. I mean,
have we got any of these offshore projects going up?
And what SYS do to all those claims from Chris
Bowen that people like them, that they were being supported
(34:33):
and that they made sort of economic sense, because they
don't look like they do.
Speaker 13 (34:38):
It's exactly right.
Speaker 15 (34:39):
No, there are no projects that will go ahead for
offshore win. I don't think there's a chance. Unless the
government just pulls out all stops and offers to pay
obscene subsidies, none of it will. The fact is this
pipeline that's been talked up so much of a whole
bunch of different companies coming up to sort of want
to be on this type of work. They've been paid
from the get go to do all their feasibility study
(35:00):
and really it's just a whole bunch of vaporware. It's
very cheap to have a purely paper project and say
you're looking at it and considering it, particularly when the
government is actually paying for some of the costs of
doing those feasibility studies in the first place, which is
what various governments do. They actually support and subsidize the
business development case. But the economics of offshore wind has
never stacked up anywhere in Australia and it won't. So
(35:23):
unless the government wants to double and triple the level
of subsidies they provide to these projects, none of them
will go ahead.
Speaker 3 (35:31):
And we want to know.
Speaker 2 (35:32):
While we've got trouble in maternity boards, in public hospitals
because this is where the money is going, and this
is where the money is going.
Speaker 3 (35:38):
Thank you for your time.
Speaker 2 (35:40):
Now, after the break, the government wants to slug an
ev driver for more and more and more. The states
want a piece of the pie as well. And what's
led to that four hundred percent increase in car thefts?
I've got the answer after the break. Now, what's the
government up to. It's not stopping a rogue activist out
(36:02):
there targeting children?
Speaker 4 (36:04):
Why not?
Speaker 2 (36:05):
And this pushed by the New South aust Liberals to
challenge the May election result in the seat of Bradfield.
We'll get to that in a moment, but first to
yet another new tax that the Treasurer is said to
be working on. It's a new national road user charge
based on distance for those who drive an electric vehicle.
And before we get any further along, we've also got Victoria,
(36:27):
New South Wales demanding that they get a slice at
the revenue. And this follows the twenty twenty three High
Court case which was struck down the allowance or the
ability of Victoria to charge its state based ev levy.
To talk us through what's happening here and more motoring
expert Paul Gover, Well, never mind, this is just.
Speaker 3 (36:48):
Another tax hit for motorists.
Speaker 2 (36:50):
But I mean this really sets up a revenue fight, Paul,
with the states.
Speaker 3 (36:54):
So talk us through what's happening here.
Speaker 2 (36:56):
Now, I'm all for UV guys paying something for ev
I was paying something because we know their cars are
so much heavier and are damaging the road.
Speaker 3 (37:07):
Well, what are we likely to get.
Speaker 16 (37:10):
What we're likely to get, Peter, is a replacement for
the tax on fuel. So what's happened is very poor
planning by the governments, state and federal, and they're suddenly
going for a cash grab. What they're doing is they
realize that excise is going to fall over time. They've
done no planning, so they're now trying to shuffle around
(37:33):
and do the policy that they should have had when
electric cars first arrived. What they're seeing is their share
of the excise will fall over time the amount of money,
so they're looking to top that up. And of course
the state governments at the same time are now making
their own cash grab, saying, well, hang on, we're supposed
to get money from the Feds to fix our roads.
(37:55):
What are you going to give us? So there's a
whole lot of people right now in government at various
level with their hands out, but no clear policy described
yet on how much the charge might be, how will
be applied, how are they even going to measure it?
I mean they're going to run into a situation where
people will either have to run a logbook for an
(38:15):
electric car, or they're going to have to invade privacy
by tracking where cars go minute by minute so that
you can give them a kilometer based bill for their
running on the road.
Speaker 2 (38:29):
I am shocked given how long evs have been facale
in Australia, hybrids for what twelve to fifteen years for
the electric for at least ten years, that no one
in Canberra's got their head around how on earth we
have equity in this system? Because right now it's people
like me who drive diesel or petrol vehicles who are
paying a charge for our roads and the EV people who.
Speaker 3 (38:53):
Are not playing a cent.
Speaker 2 (38:54):
Why so long before they work this stuff out, blind
Freddie going to tell them that was coming, they would
see a fall away revenue.
Speaker 16 (39:02):
Well, somebody's been asleep at the wheel, pardon the pun.
And it's not just ten years. You've got to remember
hybrids have been around since nineteen ninety. The electricification has
been going on for that long. And the fact is
that there was a court case that was decided in
twenty twenty three, so two years ago. Did that not
ring an arm bell somewhere that this was going on
(39:25):
at that time?
Speaker 5 (39:26):
Though?
Speaker 16 (39:27):
What government state governments in particular, we're doing was giving
incentives to buy electric cars because they wanted more people
to fit their agenda without realizing, oh, we're not going
to get any We're not going to get any excise
once these cars are not running.
Speaker 2 (39:40):
Fuel crazy crazy, and this is why I've got potholes
everywhere in our roads. Hey, this cheap security busting device,
I'm told this is why we've got some four hundred
percent increase in the theft of some of the major
car makes.
Speaker 3 (39:57):
Tell us how this works because it.
Speaker 2 (39:59):
Essentially allowed than to on unlock our cars without a
key and start them within seconds.
Speaker 3 (40:05):
I'm told, Paul, is that right.
Speaker 16 (40:09):
Unlocking them is a little bit more problematic. But the
thing about it is, in the old days, you would
take your current of the dealership to be serviced. The
first thing they did was open the bonnet to look
at the bits that make the car go these days,
what they do is they plug into port under the
dashboard called an obdport, which is the onboard diagnostic So
the first thing they do now is they plug a
(40:31):
cable from a diagnostic device in the dealership into the car,
and the car tells it what's wrong or if.
Speaker 3 (40:38):
There's nothing wrong.
Speaker 16 (40:39):
What thieves have realized is that if you get access
to this obdport, which is under the dash in most cars,
it's not hidden, you can then reprogram stuff and take
the car. I'm hearing more and more of this, lots
of emails coming in from people, and so what's happened
is the thieves have worked out this out. There are
(40:59):
now companies selling OBD locks, So it's a piece that
you can put across the front of.
Speaker 2 (41:04):
The You've still you've still got to break into the car.
Ended we smash a window or something and then plug
in this device.
Speaker 3 (41:15):
That how it works, yes, yeah, yeah yeah.
Speaker 16 (41:18):
But the other thing that that's also part of this
is that people the electronic keys in cars now are
pretty pretty hard to beat. So that's why we're also
getting a lot more crime where thieves break into houses
and steal car keys. That's still the easiest way to
steal a car. But if you're out on the street
and you're doing it. So if you've parked your car
(41:40):
for a business meeting somewhere, break the window, get in
through the OBED report and away you go.
Speaker 2 (41:47):
And just quickly before I go, you're saying that there
are now devices to be able to lock this port up.
Is that what people should be doing? Contact their dealers
and ask how can they lock this off?
Speaker 16 (41:57):
Yes, exactly correct, And a lot of dealers are not
aware of this sort of stuff. Unfortunately, Googles your best
friend in terms of getting an OBD lock, but they
are getting more and more common and more and more
people are using them.
Speaker 3 (42:11):
All right.
Speaker 2 (42:11):
When I put the story up on the front of
the Sky News website, if you're at home and you
want more information and your car make was one of
those we just popped on the screen, go there and
you'll get more information.
Speaker 3 (42:20):
Paul, You're amazing, Thank you. As always.
Speaker 2 (42:22):
Right after the break, the Bradfield election saga rolls on
it on our go to the High Court. Class experts
are pleading for action over the explosion of AI generated
child abuse material. That's next, all right, let's bring them
a panel straight away, Queensland Senator James McGrath and the
(42:43):
Liberal member for Barker in South Australia, Tony Passon.
Speaker 3 (42:46):
Gentlemen, welcome. Let's go first to.
Speaker 2 (42:48):
The climate activist group called Rising Tide, reportedly recruiting young
people through what it calls its Youth Rising Wing. Now
these guys are asking for details about what school the
kids tend, what their social media handles are, and it's
prompting a fair amount of concern about data collection and
safeguards for children. I mean, Tony first to you, why
(43:10):
is the Albinezy government talks a big game on social media,
but why is it turning a blind eye to all
these radical activists targeting our kids.
Speaker 13 (43:19):
Well, I think it's Peter.
Speaker 12 (43:20):
It's the same sort of hypocrisy which means that when
a large scale renewables project is confronted with the environmental
laws of the country, you can just wipe them away.
Here we've got a labor government that is looking for
the next generation of activists, and so when it comes
to the sensitive collection of young people's information, you think
(43:43):
it'd be shouted down, not in the interests of the children,
but yet quite quite murmuring about concern. Just imagine for
one moment if this was Advance or the Liberal Party or.
Speaker 13 (43:57):
A right wing knuckle dragon like me. I mean, they'd
be outrage and there should be because this is private, personal,
sensitive information of children and there is no role, no
role for organizations like Rising Time to get access to that.
Speaker 2 (44:16):
Yeah, you're not wrong, You're not wrong, James. You're a
campaigner as we know, special Minister of State or shadow
special Minister of State. Talk us through what's happening here
in the seat of Bradfield. The Libs are going to
obviously lodge an appeal or seek the Court of Disputed Returns,
which is what it sits at the High Court.
Speaker 3 (44:34):
When it hears matters like this.
Speaker 2 (44:36):
Initially Gizelle capt Terran one, then it was eventually given
to nicol Ed Bowley.
Speaker 3 (44:43):
What's likely to happen here?
Speaker 6 (44:47):
So what's going to happen is there about eight hundred
votes that the Liberal Party are going to ask the
Court of Disputed Returns to rule on. In particular, there's
one hundred and seventy votes that originally were to declared
to be formal and then when the recount happened, they
were declared to be informal those votes did favor that
(45:08):
the Liberal Party. So what you Sell wants is effectively
just wants a video call. What wants the video ref
to make a call on these eight hundred ballots. There
won't be a by election, but it's a determination of
the ballots and making sure that the will of the
voters is correctly recorded on these ballot papers and that
(45:29):
the final decision in Bradfield is upheld or overturned, and
certain ballot papers may be struck out, and then you
Sell could then be returned as the member.
Speaker 3 (45:41):
Just quickly. How long is it likely to take?
Speaker 6 (45:46):
Normally the High Court takes some time. You would expect
it to be done before the end of the year
at the absolute latest. That the court sitting as the
Court of dispirit returns, knows that these matters need to
be done in a timely fashion, So you think it
would get done within a couple of months at the
absolute most. Otherwise questions can start to be.
Speaker 3 (46:07):
Asked, all right, just quickly.
Speaker 2 (46:11):
I could not go past that story today from the
China expert doctor John Lee, who has picked up the
influencing of the Communist Party with Australian voters. He's warned
this is happening. We certainly saw evidence of it happening
in Canada. It's favoring labor and it feels to me like,
(46:34):
if everything's right and everything's above board, Albanez has gone
across to Beijing is a bit of a Manchurian candidate
to thank his masters for helping him get over the
line in a few key seats where we've got a
high proportion of Chinese linked or ethnic Chinese voters. Now,
if this is correct in any way, shape or form, James,
how on earth do we guard against it happening in Australia.
Speaker 3 (46:56):
Again, we need to.
Speaker 6 (46:59):
Make sure that Australian Electoral Commission are properly questioned in
terms of any issues they may have experience during the
recent federal election. There's also a body called the Election
Assurance Task Force that is normally questioned by the Joint
Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. So both need to be
asked about these specific issues. But it is also up
to the government to come forward to say if they
(47:20):
are aware or have been advised by any other acronyms,
any other security agencies that in the public interest. And
this is very important that in the public interests. They
are aware of interference in our elections now there was
no known interference in the twenty twenty two federal election,
(47:41):
and it's very important that the relevant bodies are held
accountable to Parliament over the coming weeks and months if
they are aware of any such interference, because we need
to protect Australia's democracy. Too many men and women have
died to help build this country that it is today.
Speaker 2 (48:00):
Tony passon a few things at a grab bag of
child protection. We've got AI so kids being exploited online
and AI as a tool to have that happen. There's
supposedly a meeting on Thursday. There's not much national regulation.
We've got huge issues with these working with children checks.
Speaker 3 (48:20):
They're done at the state level.
Speaker 2 (48:21):
That really needs to be a national alliance of all
of this inconsistency. And Henny Johnson's come out today child
safety advocate and says that the privacy laws are working
against parents in her home state of Queen's line.
Speaker 3 (48:33):
What the heck's going on?
Speaker 13 (48:36):
Well, there's a lack of leadership federally, Peter.
Speaker 12 (48:40):
You just mentioned a number of examples where there needs
to be better leadership across the nation. What we've got
is a grab bag of state based registers which are
dysfunctional and disjointed. It might come as a surprise to
your viewers that we don't have a federal national sex
offender register.
Speaker 13 (49:00):
Think that that'd be the first order of business, but
we don't have one.
Speaker 12 (49:04):
And then they'll be doubly surprised to learn that when
the coalition called for that during the last federal election campaign,
I didn't hear any support for that from labor. You
think that's something that just would automatically bring parties of
government to a bipartisan position what we need right now?
Speaker 2 (49:29):
I'm going to have to leave it there, so I've
not given you enough time to respond, probably, but I
know you'll raise it. We'll talk again next week, but
I know you raise it when camera it resumes. I
think that's next Tuesday. Thank you, Tony Passon. Apologies there
up next Volt
Peter Krandland live on Sky News Australia.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Good evening, welcome to the program. Here is what's coming
up tonight on Credline. Well, a lot of high but
Anthony Albanezi imagjinping today lot smiling faces. A glowing review
too from the Communist Party media mouthpiece. But anything of
substance out of today. More on that in a moment.
The nation's upcoming productivity review, Well that's what it was about.
(00:29):
Now it's new taxes under the table, on the table
under the guy's so called reform the actull they want
a carbon tax. Business says, you've got to actually bring
down some of these emissions targets. They're just unachievable. So
there's a clash coming the latest with the economist Adam
Crichton coming up speaking of emissions too massive blow to
(00:49):
Chris Bowen, a Spanish energy giants pulled out of a
massive offshore wind project in Victoria that pushes those targets
even further away.
Speaker 3 (00:59):
So where are the liberals with the debate we've.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
Got to have on net zero Pluss, it's going to
be a worry when Orcust critic Malcolm Turnbull has the
ear of Elbridge Colby, the US Defense Under Secretary Tarts
with reviewing the agreement. Turnbull was once a big fan
of the French submarine, So is that what this is about?
And of all the things you could think the Prime
Minister would have raised with Jijing Hing, well, the Port
(01:25):
of Darwin would have been right up on the batting order,
But apparently not.
Speaker 4 (01:30):
Did the President express any objection to your plans about
bringing the Port of Darwin back into Australian hands or
any potential response that China might take to that.
Speaker 5 (01:40):
No, it wasn't right.
Speaker 3 (01:43):
We'll get to that in a moment. It is unbelievable.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
It's hard to overstate, though, the significance the Prime Minister's
pilgrimage to communist China and this gulf that's opening up
between Australia and the United States under his government. Today,
the official and very staged meeting between the Prime Minister
and Chinese communist leader Xijingping occurred in a lengthy and
somewhat syncophantic opening statement that was all the media had
(02:10):
access to before they were ushered out of the room
by Chinese officials.
Speaker 3 (02:14):
The Prime Minister stressed that this was his.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
Eighth visit to China and dwelt on how much time
he was spending in China six days as we know,
and of all the areas of quote common ground, he
talked about free and fair trade. He talked about quote
calm and consistent leadership. Calm and consistent leadership in an
obvious rebuke to the current American administration.
Speaker 6 (02:40):
With joint efforts from both states, the Channel Australia relationship
has rules from the setback and turned around.
Speaker 5 (02:48):
I note your comments and your opening remarks about seeking
common ground while sharing differences. That approach has indeed produced
very positive benefits for both Australia and for China. Australia
is our relationship with China and will continue to approach
(03:09):
it in a calm and consistent manner, guided by our
national interest, but which we regard very much as a
relationship being positive.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
Now, I've been there when a Prime minister's met the
Chinese president in that very room. It's designed to intimidate,
highly choreographed and in those openly grabs which our Prime
minister knew would play out here at home with a
whole of interest and a lot of scrutiny, he deliberately
made no mention of the detained Australian academic, nor his
(03:44):
government's promised take back of the Chinese own port of Darwin.
No mention either of the Australian divers deliberately harmed by
the Chinese navy, nor the Chinese navy's recent drive by
shooting of the coast of New South Wales, and no
mention either of the fact that is such a trusted friend.
Speaker 3 (04:02):
So trusted are they that I know the Prime.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
Minister and his team will have left their phones and
their laptops behind on their military aircraft because that standard
security advice when you enter China. And that at the
top of all of this, we've got the world's largest
biennial military exercises taking place in Australia, Operation Talisman Saber,
(04:26):
some thirty thousand troops from some nineteen nations, all exercising
in northern Australia, together with ships such as the USS
America and the h MAS Prince of Wales, and all
in Australia and training in preparation for potential Chinese aggression.
When Alvineazy put this date in his diary after the
(04:48):
May election win, and it would not have been there
before this, It would have been programmed with the department
after he won. You can only conclude did it deliberately
knowing he would be in Beijing? By talam Talisman's saber
was happening at home? A signal perhaps to Gi that
we are not to be seen as the American ally
(05:11):
we once were. Be that as it may, clearly the
Chinese are very happy to use this visit and their
relationship with Albanesi to try and leave Australia away from
the United States, and it would seem that Beijing's handsome
boy is only too happy to play along. Today, the
regime's mouthpiece, The China Daily, literally gushed over Anthony Albanesi
(05:34):
and an editorial headlined common ground prevails over differences. The
propaganda outlet so that Albanesi's visit was quote sends a
message amid the changing global landscape. It went on against
a backdrop of rising tensions between the United States and
many countries because of the US administration's recent threat to
(05:55):
levy higher tariffs on them. Albanesi's visit shows the Australian
side has the clearer judgment and understanding of China than
it had under the previous Scott Morrison government. The paper
stress that Albertes's visit was and I quote, a friendly
gesture to ensure the positive development of bilateral relationships. The
(06:15):
quote serves the common interest of the world. Okay, that's
not right, is it. I mean, if the Prime Minister
really does understand the reality that a world dominated by
China would be much darker and more dangerous than the
worll we enjoy today, well he's showing zero strategic awareness
of it. In today He's Daily telegraphed The China Expert,
(06:38):
doctor John Lee warned that the People's Republic of China
has spent enormous efforts weaponizing some sections of the Australian
Chinese diaspora to advocate for the PRC's interests and values.
People's Republic of China, that's what PRC is, and that's
to say, it's trying to turn the local Chinese community
(06:58):
in Australia into a potential fifth column. Lee went on
and said this might have been politically beneficial for the
Labor government, but it creates structural problems for social cohesion
in Australian society and politics. He says that it's quite
a radical departure to have a PM more interested in
(07:20):
narrowing the differences with China than with the United States.
You can say that again. Now look, we know the
Almaneza governments are addicted to spending, and what we are
now learning too is they're addicted to taxing.
Speaker 3 (07:39):
Here's the treasurer.
Speaker 7 (07:41):
The substantial progress that we've made in repairing the budget
comes from all different categories of effort. For example, I
increased taxes in the PRRTS.
Speaker 3 (07:55):
Now it's not only wealth taxes.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
Is thinking of like the covering new tax on earned
income of big super accounts, because now it seems labours
toying with the reintroduction of a carbon tax. That's right,
the tax, the very tax of Julia Gillard said would
never ever happen. There will be no carbon tax under
the government high lead.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
Well, that was the election campaign. She won't.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
Of course she introduced one, didn't she, And more than
anything else it cost to her government. And whilst she
might be gone, not so the left's obsession. Confirmation today
that a revamped carbon tax is a key policy priority
for the ACTU in its submission to the government's upcoming
productivity sub it all, let's call it a tax summit.
(08:43):
The ACTU is calling for the introduction of an economy
wide carbon price, and it goes as far as to
claim that the Gillard government's economy wide carbon price was
a success. In its submission, the ACTU said that Guillard's
carbon tax or emissions for the economy grow and that
adversely impacted Australians will compensated. And the act U cited
(09:07):
a survey supposedly showing that some eighty six percent of
economists identified a carbon price as the most efficient way
to reach it zero. Well, never let the facts get
in the way of a good bit.
Speaker 3 (09:18):
Of spin here. I'll tell you that to the ACTU, because.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
The truth is the Gainland's carbon tax put up power
prices by about ten percent and that cost impost cascaded
through the entire economy. And as for being popular, well
Tony Avid whon a landslide campaigning against Labor's great big
tax on everything, and then he repealed it. But the
(09:42):
Left can't help themselves, can they. They never change, They
rarely listen, they rarely learn, and they always think they
know better than you. All right, let's go to camon
out for the headlines. Skye used the political reporter ribbon Spark.
Speaker 8 (10:01):
The prime Minister has held a high level meeting with
President Jijingping in Beijing inside the Great Hall of the People.
The two leaders open discussions by describing the state of
the relationship. Cameras were then switched off.
Speaker 5 (10:16):
We have strategic competition in the region, but we continue
to engage in order to support peace and security.
Speaker 8 (10:26):
Shortly before the meeting, there was an incident between Chinese
security guards and Australian journalists.
Speaker 9 (10:32):
Reporters were ordered to.
Speaker 8 (10:33):
Stop filming and remain until police arrived. The group was
eventually able to board a bus and depart. The Reserve
Bank is calling for an end to debit and credit
card surcharges. A review has found the system is outdated
and no longer nudges people toward cheaper payment methods. Restaurants
and cafes worry they'll end up footing the bill, warning
(10:56):
prices may need to be raised.
Speaker 10 (10:58):
I know how incredibly frustrating the search charges are for consumers,
and it is absolutely clear I hear it all the time.
We've also got to balance that with the need for
small businesses in particular to be able to survive.
Speaker 8 (11:11):
The changes will fall within the RBA's powers, so no
legislation is needed, but the government could act if surcharges remain.
In a statement, Treasurer Jim Chalmers says the government will
weigh up the RBA's advice alongside industry feedback. A six
week consultation is underway, with a final decision due by
the year's end. Independent Nicolett Buller is vowing to defend
(11:33):
a legal challenge. The Liberals are launching a last minute
bid to reclaim the seat of Bradfield. It's the most
marginal electorate in Australia. Gazelle Captarian lost by twenty six votes.
It marked the first time in seventy four years the
seat has not been in Liberal hands.
Speaker 2 (11:50):
We want to make sure that we have absolute confidence
that the final result is as accurate as we can
make it given our system.
Speaker 8 (11:56):
If the Court of Disputed Returns cannot make a determination,
it could force a by election.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
All right, plenty to get across tonight will also get
into all the entrails of what we saw today in Beijing,
but domestic issues will start there first. Joining me now,
Senior Fellow and Chief Economist at the Listory of Public Affairs,
Adam Crichton, and author and radio extraordinary at the spectator
Tarry Barnes. Look, following on from that leaked Treasure advice yesterday,
(12:24):
we've got the Treasure today saying that he's open to
raising or creating new taxes. And he says, I don't
believe this one cutting spending. I don't see labor cutting
spending anywhere, state or federal. But let's take him at
his word. It all comes ahead of course. So what
was a productivity roundtable coming up? But now it's very
much an event that's all about taxes. In their submission,
(12:46):
the Commonwealth Bank wants income taxes slashed and they want
the GST overhauled. AKI, which is the Business Chamber of Commerce,
says that emissions targets are hurting, and the ACTUS just explained, well,
they want to reinstated Gillard era carbon price. Well, Adam
as I said, it's now tax reform, which is code
(13:07):
for tax increases unless the Treasury changes the habit of
a lifetime and labor cup spending.
Speaker 3 (13:12):
Yeah.
Speaker 9 (13:13):
Look, we've just had the fastest growth in government spending
since the Whitlam years. I think it's about twenty seven
percent of GDP. So I'm also someone sins the Whitler
mirror that's actually true.
Speaker 3 (13:20):
That's not my capation. That's wow.
Speaker 9 (13:23):
I think Chris Richardson's calculations actually so it is quite striking. So,
you know, a fairly pessimistic backdrop. Just on the tax front,
I mean, yes, it is basically shaping up to be
a series of tax grabs. We always we already have
the tax on unrealized games in super and you know
there could be more. They really need to get spending
under control. I mean, the NDIS is completely out of control.
I mean, I just I just checked today. The number
(13:44):
of participants is doubled in five years to seven hundred thousand.
That is completely unsustainable and forty eight billion.
Speaker 2 (13:49):
I explained that forty eight billion perannum and rising on
a massive trajectory.
Speaker 9 (13:55):
And basically will be more than our total defense spending
in just a few years. Basically on the current level,
it's growing to twelve percent every single year. Just on
the Comal Bank sumission, I mean, I think it's good
that they stressed that we need to cut personal tax
and not company tax.
Speaker 3 (14:08):
I mean in Australia.
Speaker 9 (14:09):
I mean it's a little bit complicated, but basically company
taxes are withholding tax, the marginal tax, rates. That really
matter are the personal income tax rates, especially that top rate,
you know, the forty nine percent rates, so forty seven
percent rate, which cuts in at a very low level internationally,
and that's you know, it's a great de terence to
starting businesses, to working more to economic growth. So I
think there needs to be a focus there. But like
I say, I'm not expecting it. And you know you
(14:31):
mentioned the emissions tax there the missions trating scene. We
actually kind of already have one through the safeguard mechanism
which is being legislated. It's not called that, but that's
what it is. And you know that is going to
be basically a massive tax, massive tariff on Australian exporters
when it ramps up.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
I'll get into that in my name Morrison. Let's go
to some shocking statistics out today. This is a relation
to the birth rates in hospitals, and they're comparing public
hospitals terry obviously to private hospitals. Let's have a look
at some of the death rates and other horrific data
that's out today. This is between twenty sixteen and twenty nineteen. Overall,
(15:09):
there were nearly eight hundred more steel births or neonatal
deaths in public hospitals as opposed to the public the
private system, and I have a ten thousand additional maternal hemorrhages.
Now you've worked in health policy for a very long time,
you can't have this sort of disparity in a first
world country like Australia.
Speaker 3 (15:30):
So what the heck's going on?
Speaker 11 (15:32):
A lot of public systems strained beyond really capacity, has
been for a long time. I think the other thing
is that the private sector is actually much better at
delivering a full range of neonatal, birthing, post natal services,
particularly in relation to access to obstetricians, whereas in the
private sector you tend to be seen by an obstric
(15:54):
In the public when it comes to your pregnancy testing,
it's more often done by a nursery midwife. There is that,
But really, I think that the private sector is so
essential and the private choice is so essential that we're
dealing with situation at the moment where private maternity service
is actually closing down. I mean, if you look at
(16:14):
the problems that the HEALTHCOA network's been having, they're closing
down them turny wards look quicker than they're closing down.
Speaker 3 (16:19):
Other operators's driving that terry.
Speaker 11 (16:22):
Well, it's basically costs, cost and access to good people
that the best people do go private because they're paid better,
the working conditions are better, and it's job satisfaction is
better too, I think. But the public sector is where
most people still tend to go for their obstetrics. They're
birthing and certainly, I think those numbers and that study
(16:44):
over a number of years it's really alarming.
Speaker 2 (16:46):
Because of what's the answer to do you just throw
more money at the system, because, I mean, we throw
so much money at health, is it landing the right places?
Speaker 11 (16:53):
I don't think it is, And I think part of
the problem it goes to what we've just been talking
about with the tax I mean, it's how we spend
the money and spend it well. And if we're not
throwing if we're throwing money at the system as opposed
to targeting it, I think you're going to get outcomes
like that. So part of the problem I think is
all around the States, the quality of service provision is
(17:16):
relatively poor, and we take a lot for granted, and
to be fair to the people in the public system,
they do a heck of a lot on a shoestring
compared to the private sector, and this is no reflection
on the competence or the enthusiasm or the professionalism of
those people.
Speaker 2 (17:34):
Let's go to some grabs we played before from Michelle
Bullock and obviously from the Intrust rather the IVA, looking
into credit card surcharges. A few things collide on this
issue with me Adam. First of all, you've got armor
Guard yesterday basically being kept afloat by a number of
businesses because we're getting out of cash even if you
can get cash. And I've gone into a couple of
(17:55):
a and said banks recently where you can't get cash
even if you can get it, you turn up to
pay and they won't take your cash, so you're forced
to use a card anyway, So I can understand why
people are getting cranky, but I really resent having to
pay a surcharge on a debit card because that's as transaction.
Speaker 3 (18:12):
Are we going to get changed here?
Speaker 9 (18:14):
Well, I mean interestingly, I actually worked in the government department.
The Reserve Bank actually came up with the rules twenty
years ago, so I know something about this, and the
original idea was to have a market signal. Some payments
are more expensive than others. And it's true the debit
cards only cost about three or four cents per transaction,
so you're regardless of the amount. But if it's a
Visa or MasterCard, it's a percentage of the transaction, so
it's much more expensive for the merchant for the business
(18:36):
they have.
Speaker 2 (18:36):
To And I'm okay with that being passed on to
me because I don't want a small business paying for it.
But I really resent if I'm trying to use cash,
which your debit card is, I cop it no.
Speaker 9 (18:46):
And certainly, and some businesses are actually charging the same
fee for the Visa and MasterCard as they are for
the debit card, which is very sneaky and that should
not be allowed. So I think the Reserve Bank would
be right to ban those fees for debit cards. But
I'm a little bit more uncertain about the credit cards
because there is a cost there, and basically that's going
to mean that people who use debit cards are basically
going to be subsidizing people who use credit cards and
also people who use cash. And the whole cash issue
(19:08):
is another interesting thing because the usage has fallen massively
and look, you know, we all tap, we all use cards.
But I'm a little bit suspicious of a world with
no cash, which I think is where the result I
would like to know would like to go. Because the
government knows absolutely everything about everything you do.
Speaker 3 (19:24):
So that's the world we're headed to.
Speaker 9 (19:26):
So we have to be worried about when we see
stories about armor guard going broke, because that's because people
aren't using cash.
Speaker 11 (19:32):
But I think the other side of it is that
when it comes to businesses that charge the surcharge because
they're supposed the search charge is supposed to be there
if there is a cash alternative. But if you go
to try to book a ticket with an airline, for instance,
the only way to pay for it is by your
credit card, they still charge your search charge because you
could technically go to their office and keep them the money.
Speaker 3 (19:52):
Out of the cap.
Speaker 11 (19:52):
That's the sort of rout that needs to be dealt
with here.
Speaker 9 (19:55):
And those charges are much greater than the actual fees
that the bank's charge. Connus say, because I think form memory,
they charge about two percent quarrise charges the customer, but
the real thing is about point six percent.
Speaker 3 (20:03):
I remember.
Speaker 2 (20:04):
Aha, Well that's what the RBA should fix. Yes, bring
up your old boss spick your mind just quickly. Mooney
Ponds are stabbing. This is happening all the time in Melbourne.
The man though, when he was held on the ground
and his citizens arrest, yelled out Allah akbar. And there
were some comments made by the police today. Let's have
(20:24):
a listen.
Speaker 12 (20:31):
We have contacted the counter Terrorism Command and we have
nothing to indicate that this is.
Speaker 13 (20:37):
Either religiously or politically motivated.
Speaker 3 (20:42):
So we really don't know.
Speaker 2 (20:43):
They're saying it's not a terror event, although that language
would make people think and worry that it is. But
whatever it is, this is daytime Melbourne, terry.
Speaker 11 (20:53):
Melbourne sort of becoming the Bronx, isn't it. And certainly
Mooney Ponds, I mean, I don't forget there were actually
two incidents, two knife incidents in many pronks today, both
involving citizens arrest, and I think full credit goes to
those two men. But certainly, you know, he shouted that,
he called it out. I think you can't just dismiss
it until you've actually done some investigating, So I think
(21:15):
the Victorian police need to actually sort of just hold
their horses and actually ask the questions. But in terms
of the fact that knives are on the streets in
terms of other dangerous repons on the streets, machetes and
so on. I think that's something that we do have
a major problem. Part of it, I hate to say
it is ethnic related, but certainly the fact that too
(21:37):
many people are resorting to violence and knives, machetes, guns,
even there's something wrong with our society. I think it's
not the society I grew up in fifty odd years ago.
Speaker 3 (21:50):
You're not wrong. We'll over it there, Thank you, gentlemen.
Speaker 2 (21:52):
Let's go back to the PM's trip to China and
the face to face today was GIP joined them in
our strategic analysis, as straighted Director Michael Shuebridge. Well, a
very interesting pause. We didn't have a press conference with
the president and our Prime minister. Our PM held one afterwards,
which is the usual protocol, and it was pushed pretty hard.
Michael and those live fire exercises earlier this year. Here's
(22:14):
what he said.
Speaker 5 (22:15):
I said what I said at the time, which was
that it was within international law. There was no breach
of international law by China, but that we were concerned
about the notice and the way that it happened, including
the live fire exercises, is.
Speaker 3 (22:37):
This really good enough, Michael.
Speaker 14 (22:40):
Boy if that's as strong as he is in a
press conference with critical Australian journalists, how watery was he
face to face with shijingping this line that he trotted
out at the time, if you remember was the problem
was there just wasn't enough notice. The Chinese gave no notice.
They're dangerous live firing under civilian airline flight paths. It
(23:04):
was a virgin pilot that found out about it, and
airliners had to divert for the safety of their passengers,
and it was deliberate military provocation and intimidation by China.
The Prime Minister at the time said this is all
lawful and perfectly normal, and he's done the same and
he's face to face with she it is. It's an
(23:26):
embarrassment and it shows the Prime Minister values his stabilization
fiction more than the safety of airline passengers.
Speaker 2 (23:36):
And correct me if I'm wrong with At the time,
of course, we had to deploy the New Zealand Navy.
God help us if all we've got is in New
Zealand Navy in the event of a conflict, because we
had no available ships anywhere in the vicinity. I mean,
this goes to the point you made there about this
sort of facade of the relationship that everything is put
(23:56):
into this fiction of stabilization, no stabilization with China. They'll
play the game as long as they want to, They'll
trade with us as long as they want to, until
they don't. The issue of the Port of Darwen that
also came up.
Speaker 3 (24:12):
Let's have a listen.
Speaker 4 (24:14):
Did the President express any objection to your plans about
bringing the Port of Darwin back into Australian hands or
any potential response that China might take to that.
Speaker 5 (24:23):
No, it wasn't raise.
Speaker 13 (24:24):
You didn't use the opportunity meeting him to explain your
policy on that. I don't need to.
Speaker 5 (24:30):
I've had the same position for a decade since the
Liberal government chose to provide an incentive to the liberal
federal government chose to give an incentive to the Northern
Territory Liberal government to flog off an asset.
Speaker 2 (24:46):
Well, first of all, those comments are pretty political there,
you know liberal this liberal that that's not the protocol.
But we might as well sent a wind up doll
to that meeting. If he hasn't raised human rights issues,
if he hasn't raised how our military has been treated
if he hasn't raised international incursions by warships and li
fire rounds and the port of Darwin, I mean, need.
Speaker 5 (25:06):
I go on?
Speaker 14 (25:08):
Well, I saw that he raised the case of the
illegally detained yanghen Jun, the Australian citizens still in Chinese custody.
But he was quick to say and of course I
don't expect any results, any quick results. So even when
he raises something, he gives she an exit door and
a free pass. This is not the kind of direct
(25:30):
leader to leader conversations that are advancing our interests. This
is mister Albanezi seeing the political value here of his
contrast of saying I'm the guy that's stabilized the relationship
with China in contrast with my domestic political foes. This
is not the act of a national leader dealing with
national security issues.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
Now, you and I and Peter Jennings and people that
have worked in this space before and intersected with government
defense and intelligence, we know where this is headed.
Speaker 3 (26:04):
She has made it.
Speaker 2 (26:05):
Absolutely crystal clear what's on his medium to short term agenda.
And I listened to a very interesting interview today with
our own Chong Lay and a Chinese writer Wu On
shen Wen. He was on sky and he warned, he
warned very clearly where this is headed.
Speaker 3 (26:27):
Have a listen.
Speaker 1 (26:29):
Since Sinpin came to power, he has said at least
fifty times that we must prepare for war.
Speaker 3 (26:40):
And it's not a lie.
Speaker 1 (26:41):
I think the war probably will belong sooner than we think,
than we thought, and I think we have to act now,
to act now, to prepare for this for the coming war,
and it will be much bigger than the Yukin war
and much dangerous than that.
Speaker 2 (27:05):
Not just the government here, Michael, but do you think
ordinary Australians really understand how dangerous things.
Speaker 3 (27:11):
Are at the moment?
Speaker 14 (27:14):
No, I don't know how could they when our Prime minister,
our Foreign minister, and our defense minister aren't telling them.
Speaker 6 (27:21):
So.
Speaker 14 (27:22):
Penny Wang, in her Asian speech, which apparently was clear
right about the threat from China, said we need transparency
about why they're building this big military and why they're
getting nuclear weapons. We've got way too much transparency. As
we just heard, Shijingping has instructed the Chinese military to
be prepared to fight a war at a moment's notice,
(27:44):
with their first priority being conquering Taiwan. And that's exactly
what the Chinese military is preparing to do. You can
see it. So we've got all the transparency we need,
but we've got the key government leaders not telling the
Australian people what we actually know and are seeing.
Speaker 2 (28:05):
Just still on August, but a little bit of a
turn across the Pacific. The Australian The Soufternoon reported that
Malcolm Turnbull no fan of August as we know, in
one of the French submarines and is still pushing the
French submarines. It's been revealed that he's had a meeting
and discussed Aucust in detail with the Bent took on
(28:26):
policy chief, the Under Secretary of Defense Elbridge Colby.
Speaker 3 (28:31):
Now Colby is doing a.
Speaker 2 (28:33):
Review into August as we know, it's understood the report
say that they've engaged on issues for more than three years.
Speaker 3 (28:41):
But he's a critic. What do you make of this?
Speaker 14 (28:46):
Well, I think Malcolm Turnbull's views are so well known
and they're so tied to what he was doing when
he was Prime Minister, I'm not sure they'll have a
whole lot of weight in the Pentagon. It's very clear
that mister Turnbull would have loved the French program that
he helped negotiate to proceed, and he'd still like it
(29:06):
to happen again now. But really, because his position is
so fixed and known, I'm not sure it'll be a
big influence on the Colby review.
Speaker 2 (29:19):
Yes, I imagine he called Colby more than Colby called him.
But we'll see what Malcolm tells us in the future.
Michael Subrich, thank you. After the brag Union's call for
a new carbon tax, business say we've got to push
back on these unrealistic emissions targets, plus a massive blow
for poor old Chris Bowen and Victoria's offshore wind could
(29:39):
put pulled out by the Spanish. Tell me if we've
got any of these offshore wind miss strout monstrosities going ahead,
welcome back. Still to come the loving battle between the
States and the Feds of the E. V. Levy Still
the calm poor old car drivers hit yet again the
(30:00):
first The ACTU is pushing for a return of a
Gillard era style carbon price and the hope it will
reduce the cost of Australians meeting its climate goals. However,
other groups are pushing in the opposite direction. The Australian
Chamber of Commerce and industry. Well, they want to see
the government actually lower some of these climate targets to
be more realistic, warning that a target for twenty thirty
(30:23):
five of some sixty five percent and has certainly been
mooted is unachievable. JOTA be noown to discuss this and more.
The Center for Independent Studies Director of Energy Research Aid.
Speaker 3 (30:35):
Morrison, Well, Laden, thank you for your time.
Speaker 2 (30:38):
We've got actually here saying these targets are over ambitious, unachievable,
sending business out the back door. At the same time,
you've got the unions over here saying they're working, they're fabulous,
and we need a carbon tax on top of it.
I mean, they're completely at odds. This spells trouble in
policy terms, doesn't it.
Speaker 15 (31:00):
I think it does. But it's worth pointing out that
if it wasn't to be on top of what we
currently have, a carbon tax would be a better, much
more adult way of seeking to reduce our emissions. There's
just simply nothing worse than where we currently are with
having a whole bunch of different layers of government being
able to mandate exactly how much of which particular technology
has to be reached in every state at whatever cost,
(31:23):
because it allows the government to basically deny there is
any cost and keep perpetuating this falseome childish narrative that
actually reducing our carbon emissions is somehow helping drive down
consumer costs and help us with our cost of living,
and there's even an economic opportunity. The reality is that
it costs something, and a carbon tax, of flat carbon
tax across the whole industry would be the more grown
(31:43):
up way of making that cost clear and letting the
market figure out the most efficient way. But now we're
letting every state government play all their games pretend there's
no costs while having whatever it takes subsidies to sort
of hide and push any particular energy agenda they seek
to achieve in their own jurisdictions.
Speaker 2 (32:04):
So this is the economists answer about tax efficiency, and
this is exactly why we got the GST when we did,
and all the states then were promiseddated and if you
remember that they would, as a result of the revenue
from the GST remove all their ancillary taxes, they never have.
Speaker 3 (32:21):
They never have.
Speaker 2 (32:21):
So even if we were to take you at the
word and the other economists as well, and went with
a so called efficient carbon price, tax, We wouldn't get
the situation where everything else would go. We wouldn't get
the situation where all the subsidies would disappear, because industry
has built a whole business model on this stuff, and
it's all predicated. The foundation of this is net zero.
(32:42):
If we weren't pumping for net zero by twenty fifty,
we wouldn't need to do all of this economic harm.
So where are the liberals about driving a Fedingham debate
in this country about net zero, because it's the debate
that's overseas just not happening here.
Speaker 15 (33:00):
Yeah, I think it's essential they take the bill by
the horns and have that question asked. And you're quite right.
As soon as the cost is transparent, you find it
very hard to justify the kinds of measures that are
being taken to pursue net zero. And also, ultimately, I
think there is just now no credible path that is
open to reaching net zero because it always sort of
had three components. The first was get your electricity to
(33:22):
be zero, make that really clean, and then you go
into double or triple the amount of electricity to electrify everything,
and then you're going to have even more electricity to
use hydrogen for those last hard to abate things. But
now we know for sure that renewable electricity is actually
very expensive. Electricity electrifying everything, let alone hydrogen looks absolutely
absurd from an economic perspective. So the current path to
(33:44):
net zero is really intellectually quite dead. There's no point
pursuing this if you want to actually have a serious
discussion about the cost, because the costs from where we
currently stand look plainly horrendous. So I think net zero
needs to be discussed with a very clear eye view
of that.
Speaker 2 (34:03):
Well, I look forward at the time the Liberals will
stop reviewing themselves to death and actually get onto something
like this issue.
Speaker 3 (34:09):
I will wait for that one. I'll tell you what.
Speaker 2 (34:10):
We'll get right into it when they do. The Spanish
mob blue float energy. They've walked away from the Victorian
offshore wind project. We've had them fail as you know,
on the New South Wales south coast and elsewhere. I mean,
have we got any of these offshore projects going up?
And what SYS do to all those claims from Chris
Bowen that people like them, that they were being supported
(34:33):
and that they made sort of economic sense, because they
don't look like they do.
Speaker 13 (34:38):
It's exactly right.
Speaker 15 (34:39):
No, there are no projects that will go ahead for
offshore win. I don't think there's a chance. Unless the
government just pulls out all stops and offers to pay
obscene subsidies, none of it will. The fact is this
pipeline that's been talked up so much of a whole
bunch of different companies coming up to sort of want
to be on this type of work. They've been paid
from the get go to do all their feasibility study
(35:00):
and really it's just a whole bunch of vaporware. It's
very cheap to have a purely paper project and say
you're looking at it and considering it, particularly when the
government is actually paying for some of the costs of
doing those feasibility studies in the first place, which is
what various governments do. They actually support and subsidize the
business development case. But the economics of offshore wind has
never stacked up anywhere in Australia and it won't. So
(35:23):
unless the government wants to double and triple the level
of subsidies they provide to these projects, none of them
will go ahead.
Speaker 3 (35:31):
And we want to know.
Speaker 2 (35:32):
While we've got trouble in maternity boards, in public hospitals
because this is where the money is going, and this
is where the money is going.
Speaker 3 (35:38):
Thank you for your time.
Speaker 2 (35:40):
Now, after the break, the government wants to slug an
ev driver for more and more and more. The states
want a piece of the pie as well. And what's
led to that four hundred percent increase in car thefts?
I've got the answer after the break. Now, what's the
government up to. It's not stopping a rogue activist out
(36:02):
there targeting children?
Speaker 4 (36:04):
Why not?
Speaker 2 (36:05):
And this pushed by the New South aust Liberals to
challenge the May election result in the seat of Bradfield.
We'll get to that in a moment, but first to
yet another new tax that the Treasurer is said to
be working on. It's a new national road user charge
based on distance for those who drive an electric vehicle.
And before we get any further along, we've also got Victoria,
(36:27):
New South Wales demanding that they get a slice at
the revenue. And this follows the twenty twenty three High
Court case which was struck down the allowance or the
ability of Victoria to charge its state based ev levy.
To talk us through what's happening here and more motoring
expert Paul Gover, Well, never mind, this is just.
Speaker 3 (36:48):
Another tax hit for motorists.
Speaker 2 (36:50):
But I mean this really sets up a revenue fight, Paul,
with the states.
Speaker 3 (36:54):
So talk us through what's happening here.
Speaker 2 (36:56):
Now, I'm all for UV guys paying something for ev
I was paying something because we know their cars are
so much heavier and are damaging the road.
Speaker 3 (37:07):
Well, what are we likely to get.
Speaker 16 (37:10):
What we're likely to get, Peter, is a replacement for
the tax on fuel. So what's happened is very poor
planning by the governments, state and federal, and they're suddenly
going for a cash grab. What they're doing is they
realize that excise is going to fall over time. They've
done no planning, so they're now trying to shuffle around
(37:33):
and do the policy that they should have had when
electric cars first arrived. What they're seeing is their share
of the excise will fall over time the amount of money,
so they're looking to top that up. And of course
the state governments at the same time are now making
their own cash grab, saying, well, hang on, we're supposed
to get money from the Feds to fix our roads.
(37:55):
What are you going to give us? So there's a
whole lot of people right now in government at various
level with their hands out, but no clear policy described
yet on how much the charge might be, how will
be applied, how are they even going to measure it?
I mean they're going to run into a situation where
people will either have to run a logbook for an
(38:15):
electric car, or they're going to have to invade privacy
by tracking where cars go minute by minute so that
you can give them a kilometer based bill for their
running on the road.
Speaker 2 (38:29):
I am shocked given how long evs have been facale
in Australia, hybrids for what twelve to fifteen years for
the electric for at least ten years, that no one
in Canberra's got their head around how on earth we
have equity in this system? Because right now it's people
like me who drive diesel or petrol vehicles who are
paying a charge for our roads and the EV people who.
Speaker 3 (38:53):
Are not playing a cent.
Speaker 2 (38:54):
Why so long before they work this stuff out, blind
Freddie going to tell them that was coming, they would
see a fall away revenue.
Speaker 16 (39:02):
Well, somebody's been asleep at the wheel, pardon the pun.
And it's not just ten years. You've got to remember
hybrids have been around since nineteen ninety. The electricification has
been going on for that long. And the fact is
that there was a court case that was decided in
twenty twenty three, so two years ago. Did that not
ring an arm bell somewhere that this was going on
(39:25):
at that time?
Speaker 5 (39:26):
Though?
Speaker 16 (39:27):
What government state governments in particular, we're doing was giving
incentives to buy electric cars because they wanted more people
to fit their agenda without realizing, oh, we're not going
to get any We're not going to get any excise
once these cars are not running.
Speaker 2 (39:40):
Fuel crazy crazy, and this is why I've got potholes
everywhere in our roads. Hey, this cheap security busting device,
I'm told this is why we've got some four hundred
percent increase in the theft of some of the major
car makes.
Speaker 3 (39:57):
Tell us how this works because it.
Speaker 2 (39:59):
Essentially allowed than to on unlock our cars without a
key and start them within seconds.
Speaker 3 (40:05):
I'm told, Paul, is that right.
Speaker 16 (40:09):
Unlocking them is a little bit more problematic. But the
thing about it is, in the old days, you would
take your current of the dealership to be serviced. The
first thing they did was open the bonnet to look
at the bits that make the car go these days,
what they do is they plug into port under the
dashboard called an obdport, which is the onboard diagnostic So
the first thing they do now is they plug a
(40:31):
cable from a diagnostic device in the dealership into the car,
and the car tells it what's wrong or if.
Speaker 3 (40:38):
There's nothing wrong.
Speaker 16 (40:39):
What thieves have realized is that if you get access
to this obdport, which is under the dash in most cars,
it's not hidden, you can then reprogram stuff and take
the car. I'm hearing more and more of this, lots
of emails coming in from people, and so what's happened
is the thieves have worked out this out. There are
(40:59):
now companies selling OBD locks, So it's a piece that
you can put across the front of.
Speaker 2 (41:04):
The You've still you've still got to break into the car.
Ended we smash a window or something and then plug
in this device.
Speaker 3 (41:15):
That how it works, yes, yeah, yeah yeah.
Speaker 16 (41:18):
But the other thing that that's also part of this
is that people the electronic keys in cars now are
pretty pretty hard to beat. So that's why we're also
getting a lot more crime where thieves break into houses
and steal car keys. That's still the easiest way to
steal a car. But if you're out on the street
and you're doing it. So if you've parked your car
(41:40):
for a business meeting somewhere, break the window, get in
through the OBED report and away you go.
Speaker 2 (41:47):
And just quickly before I go, you're saying that there
are now devices to be able to lock this port up.
Is that what people should be doing? Contact their dealers
and ask how can they lock this off?
Speaker 16 (41:57):
Yes, exactly correct, And a lot of dealers are not
aware of this sort of stuff. Unfortunately, Googles your best
friend in terms of getting an OBD lock, but they
are getting more and more common and more and more
people are using them.
Speaker 3 (42:11):
All right.
Speaker 2 (42:11):
When I put the story up on the front of
the Sky News website, if you're at home and you
want more information and your car make was one of
those we just popped on the screen, go there and
you'll get more information.
Speaker 3 (42:20):
Paul, You're amazing, Thank you. As always.
Speaker 2 (42:22):
Right after the break, the Bradfield election saga rolls on
it on our go to the High Court. Class experts
are pleading for action over the explosion of AI generated
child abuse material. That's next, all right, let's bring them
a panel straight away, Queensland Senator James McGrath and the
(42:43):
Liberal member for Barker in South Australia, Tony Passon.
Speaker 3 (42:46):
Gentlemen, welcome. Let's go first to.
Speaker 2 (42:48):
The climate activist group called Rising Tide, reportedly recruiting young
people through what it calls its Youth Rising Wing. Now
these guys are asking for details about what school the
kids tend, what their social media handles are, and it's
prompting a fair amount of concern about data collection and
safeguards for children. I mean, Tony first to you, why
(43:10):
is the Albinezy government talks a big game on social media,
but why is it turning a blind eye to all
these radical activists targeting our kids.
Speaker 13 (43:19):
Well, I think it's Peter.
Speaker 12 (43:20):
It's the same sort of hypocrisy which means that when
a large scale renewables project is confronted with the environmental
laws of the country, you can just wipe them away.
Here we've got a labor government that is looking for
the next generation of activists, and so when it comes
to the sensitive collection of young people's information, you think
(43:43):
it'd be shouted down, not in the interests of the children,
but yet quite quite murmuring about concern. Just imagine for
one moment if this was Advance or the Liberal Party or.
Speaker 13 (43:57):
A right wing knuckle dragon like me. I mean, they'd
be outrage and there should be because this is private, personal,
sensitive information of children and there is no role, no
role for organizations like Rising Time to get access to that.
Speaker 2 (44:16):
Yeah, you're not wrong, You're not wrong, James. You're a
campaigner as we know, special Minister of State or shadow
special Minister of State. Talk us through what's happening here
in the seat of Bradfield. The Libs are going to
obviously lodge an appeal or seek the Court of Disputed Returns,
which is what it sits at the High Court.
Speaker 3 (44:34):
When it hears matters like this.
Speaker 2 (44:36):
Initially Gizelle capt Terran one, then it was eventually given
to nicol Ed Bowley.
Speaker 3 (44:43):
What's likely to happen here?
Speaker 6 (44:47):
So what's going to happen is there about eight hundred
votes that the Liberal Party are going to ask the
Court of Disputed Returns to rule on. In particular, there's
one hundred and seventy votes that originally were to declared
to be formal and then when the recount happened, they
were declared to be informal those votes did favor that
(45:08):
the Liberal Party. So what you Sell wants is effectively
just wants a video call. What wants the video ref
to make a call on these eight hundred ballots. There
won't be a by election, but it's a determination of
the ballots and making sure that the will of the
voters is correctly recorded on these ballot papers and that
(45:29):
the final decision in Bradfield is upheld or overturned, and
certain ballot papers may be struck out, and then you
Sell could then be returned as the member.
Speaker 3 (45:41):
Just quickly. How long is it likely to take?
Speaker 6 (45:46):
Normally the High Court takes some time. You would expect
it to be done before the end of the year
at the absolute latest. That the court sitting as the
Court of dispirit returns, knows that these matters need to
be done in a timely fashion, So you think it
would get done within a couple of months at the
absolute most. Otherwise questions can start to be.
Speaker 3 (46:07):
Asked, all right, just quickly.
Speaker 2 (46:11):
I could not go past that story today from the
China expert doctor John Lee, who has picked up the
influencing of the Communist Party with Australian voters. He's warned
this is happening. We certainly saw evidence of it happening
in Canada. It's favoring labor and it feels to me like,
(46:34):
if everything's right and everything's above board, Albanez has gone
across to Beijing is a bit of a Manchurian candidate
to thank his masters for helping him get over the
line in a few key seats where we've got a
high proportion of Chinese linked or ethnic Chinese voters. Now,
if this is correct in any way, shape or form, James,
how on earth do we guard against it happening in Australia.
Speaker 3 (46:56):
Again, we need to.
Speaker 6 (46:59):
Make sure that Australian Electoral Commission are properly questioned in
terms of any issues they may have experience during the
recent federal election. There's also a body called the Election
Assurance Task Force that is normally questioned by the Joint
Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. So both need to be
asked about these specific issues. But it is also up
to the government to come forward to say if they
(47:20):
are aware or have been advised by any other acronyms,
any other security agencies that in the public interest. And
this is very important that in the public interests. They
are aware of interference in our elections now there was
no known interference in the twenty twenty two federal election,
(47:41):
and it's very important that the relevant bodies are held
accountable to Parliament over the coming weeks and months if
they are aware of any such interference, because we need
to protect Australia's democracy. Too many men and women have
died to help build this country that it is today.
Speaker 2 (48:00):
Tony passon a few things at a grab bag of
child protection. We've got AI so kids being exploited online
and AI as a tool to have that happen. There's
supposedly a meeting on Thursday. There's not much national regulation.
We've got huge issues with these working with children checks.
Speaker 3 (48:20):
They're done at the state level.
Speaker 2 (48:21):
That really needs to be a national alliance of all
of this inconsistency. And Henny Johnson's come out today child
safety advocate and says that the privacy laws are working
against parents in her home state of Queen's line.
Speaker 3 (48:33):
What the heck's going on?
Speaker 13 (48:36):
Well, there's a lack of leadership federally, Peter.
Speaker 12 (48:40):
You just mentioned a number of examples where there needs
to be better leadership across the nation. What we've got
is a grab bag of state based registers which are
dysfunctional and disjointed. It might come as a surprise to
your viewers that we don't have a federal national sex
offender register.
Speaker 13 (49:00):
Think that that'd be the first order of business, but
we don't have one.
Speaker 12 (49:04):
And then they'll be doubly surprised to learn that when
the coalition called for that during the last federal election campaign,
I didn't hear any support for that from labor. You
think that's something that just would automatically bring parties of
government to a bipartisan position what we need right now?
Speaker 2 (49:29):
I'm going to have to leave it there, so I've
not given you enough time to respond, probably, but I
know you'll raise it. We'll talk again next week, but
I know you raise it when camera it resumes. I
think that's next Tuesday. Thank you, Tony Passon. Apologies there
up next Volt
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.