June 5, 2025 • 48 mins
Donald Trump imposes some common sense border bans, the Coalition vows to oppose Labor’s super tax. Plus, a peak medical body embraces gender affirming care practices.
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):
Pedo Krandland Live on Sky News Australia.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
Good evening, welcome to the program. Here's what's coming up
tonight on Kredline. Donald Trump has today done and I
think we should have done here in Australia refuse entry
to anyone from particular countries that refuse to take their
citizens back should they ever need to be deported. I
really like this. I think it's common sense and it
shows America is serious about its borders. Despite much of
the world moving away at least questioning gender affirming practices.
(00:32):
Here in Australia, one of our peak medical bodies is
embracing it, even recommending the use of the so called
gender unicorn with children. I speak to doctor shortly about
why we've got our head in the sand and am
not looking at some of these international reports against these
practices bloss why yesterday's anemic growth numbers are a lot
of worry for our economy and why I'm going to
(00:54):
see Labor break its election promise to cut immigration. And
in a sign the new Look Opposition might be up
for a fight, the Shadow cabin has just signed off
on their first major policy position, saying no to Labour's supertas.
Speaker 3 (01:09):
We will definitely as a coalition oppose this unfair supertax
of labors every step of the way.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
But first of all, the government was crowing yesterday about
the modest growth in the economy, just zero point two
percent in the last quarter. The truth is we're drifting
backwards fast as a nation. Here's the treasurer.
Speaker 4 (01:34):
With all of the uncertainty in the world, any growth
is a decent outcome.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
Only it's not, is it. Because what he does not
want to talk about coming out of yesterday's numbers is
the fact that as individuals we're actually getting poorer. In
aid of the past nine quarters there's been negative growth
per capita. That's to say, the average production of Australians
has declined, which is why most of us feel poorer,
even though the economy as a whole is notionally bigger,
(02:06):
just notionally bigger. The basic problem is that the population
is growing faster than the economy, and that's because the
government can't help itself. Now, for the private sector, once
the enjuryroom of our economy, things are tough and they're
getting tougher. Labour's union loyalties mean that it's nearly always
making it harder for businesses to run themselves without more
and more government interference. After all, the unions they donate
(02:30):
millions and millions to labor every year, so that when
Labour's in government, those favors from the unions get called
in for the taxpayer. Labour's big taxing, big spending agenda
is only set to get worse as they exploit their
massive parliamentary majority and flush with success they didn't think
back before the lecture was even remotely possible, they'll go
(02:52):
for broke and they'll start to pull out of the
bottom drawer all their most hard left policies and for
our future or energy security equals national security, Labour's climate
obsessions will not only send businesses to the wall and
households too as costs continue to skyrocket, but make us
vulnerable at a time when the world has not been
this perilous for decades, and so with a budget struggling
(03:16):
because the economy that underpins our prosperity is struggling, the
only way to keep up the pretense politically is to
ack a whole lot of spending off budget, which Labour's
doing more and more, and to prop up things in
terms of overall growth with more and more immigration. While
that works on paper, it doesn't really work in reality,
(03:38):
does it, Because sustained immigration at record levels puts downward
pressure on wages, upwards pressure of course on housing, and
all that extra strain on our infrastructure, all of which
creates a sense of economic and social malaise, especially if
at least some of the recent migrants don't seem keen
(03:58):
on fitting in and integrating as their forerunners did in
the nineteen fifties and sixties and did so well. And
under the Albanezy governor, our economy is becoming less dynamic
and more dependent on government. The federal government now comprises
about twenty seven percent of GDP. Now, that's up three
percentage points since Anthony Albanez was elected. The federal government's
(04:22):
welfare bill, in particular, or that surged a record sixteen
percent last year to one hundred and sixty seven billion.
Welfare spending on age care, disability care and childcare as
well as healthcare, well, that's gone from just over thirty
billion in the final quarter under the Morrison government to
almost forty five billion a quarter. Now that's a forty
(04:44):
percent increase. The so called care economy. Our employers some
fifteen percent of our workforce, and this is up from
just ten percent a decade ago. And it's this expansion
of the care economy in part that's responsible for our
fighting productivity. Given there's been almost no measured labor productivity
growth in the care sector for almost the past two decades,
(05:08):
and given the childcare, age care, and disability care is
not readily amenable to mechanization and technological improvements, means I
can't really lift their productivity. That's hardly surprising. Now. This is, though,
an argument for trying to ensure that it's the productive
private sector part of our economy rather than the less
(05:30):
productive subsidized part of our economy that we put the
effort into to expand. Yet the current government, well, it's
making work in the care economy more and more attractive
via all those big wage increases in age care and childcare,
often tied to union membership, that need to be supported
(05:52):
by ever increasing government subsidies. This is on top of
a bigger and bigger and bigger public service. More generally,
figures produced by the IPA think tanks show that in
the eight years to August twenty twenty two, seventy seven
percent of new employment was in the private sector. By contrast,
(06:13):
between August twenty twenty two and August twenty twenty four,
so these are alban easy years, eighty two percent of
new employment was in the public sector. So apart from
more public servants who now mostly work from home, and
apart from more workers in the highly subsidized care economy,
what's the economic diningism that we must see under this government. Well,
(06:38):
there isn't much. A more conservative economic policy would not
neglect the care economy because conservatives want to preserve our
social fabric, but it would better appreciate than In the end,
it's profitable private businesses, not governments and institutions that have
to be subsidized, that are the engine of economic growth.
(06:59):
Now there is no magic pudding when it comes to
government spending. There's no money tree in the back of
Jim Chalmers garden, which is why there's a reckoning coming
to Australia as we fail to live within our means.
At the same time as we move to noble or
were still shut down some of our most productive industries
(07:20):
and export earners. The problem with socialism, as Margaret Thatcher said,
is it eventually you run out of other people's money.
This is where we are headed unless we wake up.
All right, let's get the headlines now, skynies political reporter
(07:41):
Reuben Spargo.
Speaker 5 (07:43):
Farmers with land in self managed super funds face mounting
pressure under proposed changes. The government will double the tax
on earnings for balances more than three million dollars. With
little cash on hand, some farmers may be forced to
sell their land to cover tax bills on unrealized gains.
Veteran politicians eligible for older super schemes, including the Prime Minister,
(08:05):
will be able to defer payments until they retire.
Speaker 6 (08:10):
What we need to do is to make sure that
our superanuation system is fair. That is what we are
setting about to do.
Speaker 5 (08:19):
Labour needs support in the Senate to pass the legislation.
The coalition is now formally opposing the government's model. Green
Senator Sarah Hanson Young believes her former colleague Derinda Cox
should quit the Senate. Senator Cox left the party this
week to join the government.
Speaker 7 (08:36):
I do think the honorable thing is to resign from
the parliament.
Speaker 5 (08:39):
Senator Cox was the subject of multiple workplace bullying complaints.
The Greens have now ended an internal investigation. The government
is pushing to secure a free trade deal with the
European Union. Trade Minister Don Farrell is holding talks in Europe.
The Prime Minister claims Donald Trump's global trade war could
provide the backdrop to secure agreement.
Speaker 6 (09:01):
If it benefits us, we'll be in it. If it doesn't,
we'll continue to not sign up.
Speaker 5 (09:08):
A trade deal between Australia and Europe fell flat in
twenty twenty three.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
Joining me now generalist The Day Telegraph, James Willis this guy,
News commentator Karli Katson Barnas Well, welcome to you both.
Let's start with the super tax or the tax on
super that being impressed today on the fairness of his plan. Well,
there's not anything new here.
Speaker 6 (09:31):
This has been before the parliament for about two years past. Yes, yeah,
this is about This has been before the parliament for
about two years. What we need to do is to
make sure that our superannuation system is fair.
Speaker 2 (09:51):
Now, I'm going to get into a bit more of
the mechanics in the monment an investments expert. But he
was asked a question there. The pointed question was how
can you get to defer at Prime Minister? You don't
have to pay this tax until you realize your gains.
You get the money in your pocket, but farmers and
others don't get that they have to pony up money
that they don't even have based on this increased value
(10:14):
of their asset. Now he couldn't answer that, Caroly. All
they could say was, well, it's been in the parliament
for some time. That doesn't make it right.
Speaker 8 (10:23):
It certainly doesn't, Peter. The problem is that it sends
out such a wrong message. This is a very evil tax.
We know that it will be the tip of the iceberg.
It's going to force people to have to sell any properties,
any farms that they may have. You just can't tax
people on money and earnings that they haven't actually earned yet.
And as you said, it's a very while saying oh,
(10:43):
it's been before the parliament for two years, supposedly this
is a new parliament. It is a shame during the
election campaign that the Liberals didn't get on top of
this and actually bring it to the forefront of people's minds,
which it seems to be at the moment. But it's
not good because we know that when they start with this,
it will just continue. And you've got so many great
economic minds, Philip Low.
Speaker 2 (11:04):
You've even got Paul.
Speaker 8 (11:04):
Keating that are completely against what this government is doing,
and yet they're able to just get it through. And
it's terrible, terrible message sending out for investment into Australia
as well as most importantly for everyday Australians that are
working hard, trying not to suck off the teet of
the state, and this is just going to break them.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
What about those numbers yesterday, James I went through them
again tonight. The fact that we are in a weak position,
we are also in a per capita recession. I don't
think enough's been made of the fact that the government's
keeping up this pretense out there that we're chugging along,
but all they're doing is wacking a whole lot of
spending off budget. We know they love to do this,
(11:45):
but it's happening at a rate I have never seen.
But they're also propping things up with more and more immigration. Now.
They said in the election they would rain back their
record high migration. I just think there is no chance
they're going to do that, because we won't just be
in a per capita recession, we will be in an
actual recession. And Labor just can't bear that having just
(12:07):
won the election.
Speaker 9 (12:10):
Yeah, Peter, there's no doubt that there would be people
in Treasury warning that if it wasn't for higher levels
of migration, that Australia would be in a full blown recession. Instead,
the figures have been largely blurred by as you say,
every quarter the migration numbers come out I think monthly sometimes,
But in every bit of data I've seen, there has
never been a significant or dramatic reduction from what Labor
(12:33):
has promised to do to say Okay, we get it,
we had to do this, We're actually going to bring
it back. We haven't seen that yet. We also know
that a large part of the budget and anything that
Jim Chalmers talks about is being propped up by record
numbers of public servants, huge spending on public servants and
also jobs linked to programs like the NDIS. But on
(12:53):
the broader issue, I mean, it's one thing for the
Prime Minister to say, oh, this has been before the parliament.
I mean I challenge anyone watching to go home and
go onto the Parliamentary website and have a look at
some of the ideas and legislation and first readings that
are actually before the Parliament have had been inquiries and
all that.
Speaker 10 (13:11):
Sort of stuff.
Speaker 9 (13:11):
There's ideas out there that doesn't mean just because they're
hidden away that it's not suddenly a big issue.
Speaker 10 (13:16):
It's crazy the Liberal Party.
Speaker 9 (13:18):
Didn't make this front and center during the election. And
I'm also seriously worried once we do get into the
weeds of this, just how far it will go if
Labour ends up doing a deal with the Greens as
has been reported today to get this through the Upper House,
and whether it stops at three million dollars and what
tax comes next.
Speaker 2 (13:37):
Well, it might have been in the parliament past the parliament.
So I agree with you. If you look at the
notice paper any given day, you can find plenty of
crackpot ideas that you could say are in the parliament,
but they haven't passed the parliament. And look, I want
to pick up carollly the point that James makes there.
You know why the heck didn't the Coalition go harder
on this. I think they needed to get back to
(13:58):
economic base. They need to fight this tax. They are
a bit constrained last time. They need to fight this
tax absolutely, but they've got to get onto issues like population.
Have a fared income population policy, a fed income decent cut,
not a tweak, but a real cut into these immigration
intake numbers. They've got to get out there and on
(14:18):
the renewables, the burden, the cost burden of renewables. I mean,
James Carvell said, and he's a Democrat, it's the economy
stupid where they're stupid if they're not fighting on the economy.
Speaker 8 (14:30):
Oh my goodness, taken back to nineteen ninety two with
of course Bill Clinton successfully it might be that goodness,
But no, you're quite right, and I think the most
important thing is is that we've got a new shadow
opposition and they've got time to actually bed things down,
present to the Australian people what they're going to fight on.
And you're one hundred percent right. They need to fight
on this stuff. You know, a month ago the renewables
(14:52):
that the absolute folly of Chris Bowen and Albanesi still,
you know, spending all this money on green hydrog and
win farms and things that just actually don't work. People
are wanting, they're wanting to vote for the Liberals, but
they've got to not be deterred and not listen not
listen to doing dealers. I'm actually very glad that the
young that you know, it's going to be Labor and
(15:14):
the Greens doing this deal because it's not up to
the coalition to rescue labor with the unrealized tax games.
And it's also not up to the coalition to veer
from the from the path that people want them to take.
There's just no money in it either.
Speaker 2 (15:28):
It's just terrible. Let's go down to Tasmania and things
are crook there for the Liberal leader, Jeremy Rockliff. It
looks like they're off there, off and running to a
state election. The speaker cast the casting vote. I watched
her decision as she put it down, she's a labor speaker, obviously,
as she put it down to her being a labor
person for many, many years, and of course you wouldn't
(15:51):
expect otherwise. Although it is a bit of a sad
outcome that it comes down to that. But what I
thought was really interesting. So when the opposition leader, so
the Labor leader, goes out and does his press conference
and it gives a reason as to why poor old
Tasmanians are heading back to the election only just having
had a state election, James. He puts it down at
the terrible, terrible debt position in Tasmania, which would be
(16:13):
a rounding era in a state like Victoria. And I'm
sitting there screaming at the TV saying, please, can't we
have a notice of no confidence in the Victorian Parliament.
Can't we go to an election because we're drowning in debt?
Wouldn't that be nice? Yeah?
Speaker 9 (16:29):
And the budget figures in Tasmania. And there was a
story about a year ago that said, compared to the
other states and how they should all be performing, Tasmania
had fallen behind even further. But you're right, the debt
position is nowhere near in the other states, which is
I watering in Victoria. There was a story about South Australia.
Today New South Wales is not doing much better. I
(16:49):
find this a really really interesting political story, Peter, because
this came down to one voter, as you say, the
Labor speaker who passed this no confidence motion in Rockcliffe.
Speaker 10 (16:59):
The press.
Speaker 9 (17:00):
The other thing to note that Tasmanians only went to
the polls a little over a year ago. There was
a hung parliament there. Neither the Liberal Party or the
Labor Party have the numbers. There is now talk of
a labor Green's coalition that is an official one compared
to an unofficial one that we have in other parts
of Australia, including in Canberra from time to time. But
there's three big issues that have been identified and the
(17:22):
biggest one of all, away from the ferries and the debt,
is the fact that this is all going to potentially
blow up the Tasmanian AFL team, which Rockcliffe has champion
from the start. The Greens have been ferociously against this
and I think you'll find that there's a feeling that
a lot of Tasmanians don't support it. So with that
in mind, that extra team, which needed a one billion
(17:44):
dollar stadium, may actually not go ahead. So there's a
big blow there for the AFL in the sporting world.
Speaker 2 (17:52):
Yeah, I think given where Rockcliffe was chapening that football
field a football stadium, I suspect that has many voters
may well be more favorable to him. We'll see. I
think it's difficult territory for liberals, regardless of where they
are around the country, but we'll see what happens. Let's
go to this debate today back again. Gender quotas inside
the Liberal Party. It fled up because of comments made
(18:13):
by Alan Stockdale, former Treasurer of Victoria, former party president.
Federally for the Libs, and he's currently on the Admin
Committee because New South Wales is in administration. He's basically
is running the New South Wales Party. He told a
women's Council meeting that women had gotten so assertive that
they may need reverse quotas for men. He said the
(18:34):
comments were in jest. That didn't stop the Prime Minister
today from weaponizing them.
Speaker 6 (18:40):
There are more more women in the Labor Caucus in
the House of Representatives whose first name begins in a
literally than there are Liberals and national women on the
floor of the House of Representatives.
Speaker 8 (19:00):
Now.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
Look, I've known Alan Stockdale for thirty years. I reckon
I'm a pretty assertive woman. He's never had a problem
with me. I've gone him absolutely professional. His wife is
an accomplished business woman. She's pretty assertive too, so I
suspect he's in the doghouse at home. He said they
are poorly chosen words. I think that's probably right, but
that in itself does not make a case for quotas.
Speaker 8 (19:23):
Caroly No, it certainly doesn't I mean, have we all
lost our sense of humor? The man is eighty years old.
It's generational. I mean there are a lot, as you say,
there's a lot of assertive women. I mean a good
luck to them, good luck to them as well. I
mean just center price Sarah Henderson, Claire Chandler, I mean
even more redeeming. I mean, for goodness sake, But you
(19:44):
know it does.
Speaker 2 (19:45):
Run the risk. I don't agree with quotas at all.
People have got to get there on their marriage.
Speaker 8 (19:49):
And you know it's Albo of course, he can't resist,
you know, taking a potshot at anything that he wants to.
Speaker 2 (19:56):
James, what do you reckon You're one of these men
that are suddenly extinct or threat of extinction from assertive women.
How do you feel you're on a panel of assertive women.
Speaker 9 (20:05):
Because well, look, I've got absolutely no concern in regards
to you know, whether women or men are in senior positions.
I think labor are hypocrites given some of their senior
leadership positions, but I do not. And you've identified a
few of those fantastic women in the Liberal Party, Sarah
(20:26):
Henderson and also Claire Chandler, And I think Bridget Mackenzie
does an excellent job. But I would note that in
New South Wales and the seat of Bradfield, which had
always been held by the Liberal Party, the pre selection
contests decided to go with a Liberal candidate called Giselle
Capterian to do that. Warren Mundine, who was fantastic during
(20:48):
the voice and the No campaign, was the other option.
Speaker 10 (20:52):
He was dudded.
Speaker 9 (20:53):
He was told by a number of senior Liberals, sorry,
we have to go with a woman here, and so
an Aboriginal man was in favor of a female quota,
and unfortunately it's come out in the last twenty four
hours that the Liberal Party will lose that seat for
the first time. So I think as a test case
that argument has a bit of work to do.
Speaker 2 (21:12):
Very good point, very good point. Thank you both. Let's
return now to Labour's proposed changes to superannuation, with a
coalition today taking an in principal decision that they will
not do a deal with Labor, which means it's down
to a prospective deal with the Greens.
Speaker 8 (21:27):
Now.
Speaker 2 (21:27):
Much of the focus is on the tax of unrealized gains,
but this is also a question of fairness to given
the uncertainty whether politicians, including the Prime Minister, but a
whole host of senior public servants, can defer their payments,
something the Treasurer was pushed on yesterday.
Speaker 11 (21:46):
And you confirm that the tax on three million, not
the superannuation funds, will only apply it to the Prime
Minister once he leaves office, that you won't pay any
extra tax on his superanuation until he leaves office.
Speaker 2 (21:59):
Under your.
Speaker 4 (22:01):
I'm so pleased you ask me this question. Tax liabilities
are deferred until a pension phase because members in those
schemes can't access their super to pay tax debts until
that point. It's a function of necessity that that's how
that calculation is made. But we charge an interest rate
on those liabilities to make sure that people don't receive
(22:23):
an inappropriate advantage.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
Jentlemen, how to discuss is Wilson Asset Management Chair and
Chief Investment Officer Jeff Wilson. Well, he dodged the question yesterday,
which tells me he doesn't really want to answer it.
He's trying to bury it in bureaucratic language. But of
course we know what the truth is, don't we.
Speaker 1 (22:42):
Jeff Well, I mean, he just should have answered the
question rather than going on a big rant. You should
have said, yes, that effectively he won't pay tax. He's
on a different he's a different situation to the forty
million Australians that are in the normal superannuation system or
(23:03):
the workers.
Speaker 10 (23:05):
And he gets a semi free kick.
Speaker 2 (23:10):
I've been the government thought they're on a winner here
because you know, they're talking about initially balances a three
million and they think, well, you know, most people are
into the politics of envy. They think it won't affect them,
this is nothing to sort of think about or worry about.
But the more they start to understand this, I think
it's tipping away from the government, and I think public
(23:31):
opinion is really starting to shift, particularly where people understand
that it is not indexed.
Speaker 10 (23:38):
Well, I mean, it's one hundred percent.
Speaker 1 (23:41):
And I was talking to someone in the early thirties
yesterday who didn't really understand superannuation, and I explained to them,
I said, if you had when you were twenty five,
if you had thirty thousand dollars in your super fund
and you didn't put another cent in and an increased
by eight percent by the time you were fifty five,
(24:02):
that would be more than three million dollars now effectively
without the indexation. We've done some numbers and within the
next thirty years, eight point one million, or more than
half of the working population will be over that three
million dollar mark. So without indexation, eventually every worker will
(24:25):
be paying tax on unrealized games. So they'll be paying
tax on a profit that may never eventuate. And one
of the things that really sort of concerns me is
the fact that both Anthony Albernici and Jim Charmers and
the various other government politicians are sort of gas lighting
(24:47):
Australians by saying it only impacts a very short small
people of a small group of people eighty thousand.
Speaker 10 (24:54):
They don't focus on the indexation. But also the fact is.
Speaker 1 (24:58):
Everyone who's got their money, and that's four point two
trillion dollars that's invested in Super, and everyone is going
to change their behavior. For every action, there's an equal
and opposite reaction, and there are going to be significant
consequences for this tax coming in. And I think already
in that four point two trillion that's invested in Super,
(25:22):
people are changing how they're going to invest that money.
Speaker 2 (25:28):
I guess one of the concerns I have too, from
the sort of the political parliamentary side of things that
we've seen this happen before. Labor is on a tax
they don't love, and you put in a trojan bill
that basically is about taxes on superannuation unrealized gains. But
it creates a framework, legislative framework that with regulation perhaps
(25:49):
down the track, they can change the asset class. So
whilst it's on super now, they can move thresholds. Potentially
they could add in another asset class. Let's say they
don't do changes to investment properties and negative gearing, but
they might do a tax on the unrealized gains of
your second, third, or fourth investment property and your first
(26:11):
investment property. I mean, how real is that?
Speaker 1 (26:15):
I think it's very real because to me it seems
it seems strange that the government was pushing so hard
to get the legislation through the Senate before it before
the last election, to even put it with another bill,
the credit card bill that removed the additional charges on
(26:38):
your credit card. Like the fact that Lamby and Popcock
stood up to.
Speaker 10 (26:43):
That, Like, to me, that was.
Speaker 1 (26:46):
Really showed some metal. So like, why are they so
desperate to get this through? And as you said, it's
Division two ninety six. It can be moved wherever you
want in terms of any asset class can be effectively
taxed by the new legislation, assuming it gets through, which
(27:10):
it looks like it will.
Speaker 2 (27:11):
Right, you're going to try and start it with a petition.
Where can people go to give you some support?
Speaker 1 (27:17):
Well, I mean that's right the Wilson as Management website
and back in two thousand and eighteen twenty nineteen, when
Bill Shorten and Chris Bowen were trying to bring in
that legislation now the flawed legislation on Frankin. That was
the last time we ran a petition and what we
only started this petition last week and it was really
(27:39):
in desperation to get everyone to understand how the incredible
negative consequences are that this legislation will have on the
Australian economy.
Speaker 2 (27:52):
Right, it's up there on the screen. Let's hope people
jump on there and give support to the opposition case
against this. Thanks for your time, Jeff. After the break,
What exactly is a gender unicorn and why has it
been used by one of our peag medical bodies? And
discussions with children last one of Australia's foremost gender medicine proponents.
Well they've been excoriated by a federal court judge and
(28:14):
this afternoon the name of that doctor has finally been
made public. Welcome back to the come why Donald Trump's
ban on foreign nationals from particular countries should be on
the table here in Australia, for first, has been growing
concern over gender affirming care practices, particularly in the wake
(28:36):
of the landmark cast review out of the United Kingdom. Today,
a gender medicine expert who was ruled to have given
misleading evidence to the family court to support a mother
who wanted her child to be given puberty blockers has
been named as Professor Michelle Telfer. Professor Telfer is the
lead author of the nation's gender affirming care guidelines. These
are the guidelines in the hospitals the people look to
(28:59):
in dearly with the gender confused children. And in the
scathing judgment, the judge said that you said he found
in favor of the father who opposed the child taking
these drugs. He said that the unquestioning approach of these
agenda affirming guidelines quote overlooks the obvious, namely that the
(29:20):
child is still a child and not even if that
matters a teenager. Now, this comes as the Royal Australian
College of General Practitioners their latest monthly professional development work
on the website is focused on how GPS can and
I quote positively influence the lives of gender diverse individuals
through gender affirming healthcare. Joreman Now, someone who has long
(29:44):
raised concerns about this model, academic psychiatrist doctor Andrew Amos. Andrew, welcome.
We'll start with the criticism of Professor Telfer. We know
her name now that's been released this afternoon on the
Australian's website. How significant was the criticism of the judge
about her, her evidence and those guidelines.
Speaker 12 (30:08):
Look, I think it's incredibly significant, Peter. In addition to
saying that Professor Telfer had provided misleading testimony, which never
puts a judge in a good mood, Judge Strum drew
attention to the fact that she described herself more like
an activist than a doctor. And this basically confirms the
opinion of the Gold's Standard Cast review that you mentioned,
which said that the treatment guidelines atself are created went
(30:31):
not to scratch, mostly because she and the other authors
ignored the lack of evidence for puberty blockers and hormones
and other treatments. So I think the judge has done
gender confused ossie kids and their families an enormous favor,
but it's also alerted us to problems with the whole
treatment model created by Professor Telfer.
Speaker 2 (30:51):
Yeah, this is the point, right. So we've got the
Cast Review, which is a significant study into this model
of care used obviously at our kingdom and elsewhere in
the world, including Australia. That's basically said, put it away
in Australia. Now we get a judge picking up not
just the evidence of the proponent, the person who authored them,
(31:12):
but the absolute practice as well. And yet in Australia
it's still the gold standard of care. And in Australia
we can't even have an inquiry state or federal into this. Now,
why are we bearing our head in the sand.
Speaker 12 (31:28):
Well, look, there's a lot of institutional resistance to this.
It's mainly the people making the decisions. We call this
institutional capture. So essentially a small group of people are
very enthusiastic or most you could say religious, about making
sure that this particular model is implemented, and they really
refuse to have anything to do with criticism. They haven't,
(31:50):
for example, acknowledged the CAST review. They certainly haven't addressed
the claims that it makes about the complete lack of
evidence that these treatments help patients. And they also haven't
looked at the evidence that it's more likely to harm
kids than to help them in the long run.
Speaker 2 (32:09):
So what we really need to do is, sorry, Andrew, Sorry,
I'm just want to jump in there. Where are the
parents though? Right? So, when someone gives this sort of
medical advice to a parent who's got a confused child.
We know about the Telfa case because the father violently
(32:29):
opposed what the mother wanted to do. She wanted to
adopt this gender care. Thank god someone was standing up
and asking a few questions. But where are all the
other parents in cases like this?
Speaker 10 (32:41):
Yeah? Look, it's really unusual.
Speaker 12 (32:42):
I think this father did a great job of caring
for protecting his son. He essentially took the view that
kids will be kids. This is likely a phase that
the kid's going to grow out of. Let him explore.
We call this gender nonconformity. So many kids will go
through this sort of stuff. They'll experiment with different ways
of being. The father said, that's fine, I can tolerate that.
(33:07):
And the judge basically said this father sought out many
other therapists in order to take a therapeutic approach to
what essentially is a mental illness, but no one was
willing to take this kid on. And that's largely because
Professor Telfer and advocates or activists like her have made
(33:27):
it almost impossible for that sort of therapy to be done.
Speaker 2 (33:33):
Right, talk to me about the ROCGP. This is the
body that provides training for our GPS. They've got a
whole lot of stuff there on the website, and one
of their training modules they even say, when you're dealing
with young children, to use something like this gender unicorn.
I and't even know really what this is, help us
understand what's going on.
Speaker 12 (33:54):
Oh look, the gender unicorn is fairly legendary in these circles.
I think you can see it's a cartoon, but it's
a cartoon that essentially summarizes what I would describe as
various forms of gender delusions. And in my mind, basically
this proves that the module that's been put out by
the RACGP is an activist fantasy masquerading as a medical
(34:16):
training document completely meeds misleads GPS, who I think want
to do the right thing by their patients, but this
sort of very flawed advice puts them in a really
pernicious position. I mean, if you go through the whole module,
I think there's a real risk that gps are going
to be sued because they think they are immune from
(34:38):
the liability for the harms that are being done by
this model of care, and they're very quickly going to
find out that that's not true.
Speaker 2 (34:46):
I'm going to get to one next week because a
lot of parents, I think need to know what grandparents to,
what do they do if this is thrown into their
family as an issue, and where they can go to
get a help that isn't just going to take them
down a path which in the case of of Justice
Strum today has named and shamed in terms of this
is academic as not being necessarily in the best interest
(35:08):
of the child. But we'll do that next week. Thank you, Amos,
Andrew Amos there, thank you very much, doctor Aimos. All right,
let's go to this embarrassing backflip out of London. This
involves our High Commission. This is where they had a
very exclusive taxpayer funded event, but they banned the media
from turning up. This is about Australia's men's cricket squad.
(35:30):
Let's go to the woman on the ground, our News
Corp European Correspondence. So for Ellsworth, well, I'll tell you what.
If taxpayers are paying for a really expensive shitten dig
taxpayers want to know what's going on and we want
our media in there as well. What happened here, Peter,
great to be with you.
Speaker 13 (35:49):
We have the Australian cricketers here in London. They'll be
playing behind me at Lord's next week. And there was
this media event last night or this function should I say,
Australia House, which you and I and the taxpayers paid for.
And the Australian media were only invited eight hours before
the event, given virtually no notice, but we were told
(36:11):
by the High Commission that we could not report from
this event. This was extraordinary, Peter. There was a lot
of pushback from the Australian journalists here on the ground
in London that said, hang on a minute, why has
the BBC got an arrangement where they can report on
the event and we can only come in a personal capacity,
(36:32):
but no reporting. And sure enough logic prevailed and the
High Commission overturned this decision. I asked Stephen Smith, the
High Commissioner, about this last night. He was not very
pleased when I approached him about it. And there seems
to be an awful lot of finger pointing here, finger
pointing at Cricket Australia at the BBC. Peter, this is embarrassing.
(36:54):
We are Australian reporters here on the ground. We should
be reporting on these events and it was only that
we pushed.
Speaker 2 (37:01):
Back that we were allowed to do. So let's go
to the spike in migration or legal micration across the Channel.
I've covered at a couple of times this week. It's
interesting you've got to report that proves it's the Rewondan
solution that actually never got off the ground. That's been
about the only thing that's cut back some of the
(37:24):
early numbers.
Speaker 13 (37:27):
So, Peter, it's been a disaster to hear with the
channel crossings, the illegal migration. Last weekend they had more
than one thousand illegal immigrants come into the country from France.
There was remarkably French police just taking photos of these
illegal migrants jumping on boats and crossing the Channel. And
(37:47):
this is something that the Kars Starmer has not been
able to stop, and we constantly hear in the media
here Tony Abbott could do it in Australia, why can't
it happen here in the UK? Is a real bugbear
for the labor government here, Peter. They've been in a
year year in offices, you know, in July, and this
is a problem they have not been able to stop.
(38:10):
And he's going to continue to dog them right up
until the next election in four years time.
Speaker 2 (38:17):
I'm just looking at those rubbert Acki boats. Maybe we
send the British Navy some of the machetes that seemed
to be everywhere in Australia. They could slash a few
of them like they slash the tires in Melbourne and
away we go. Those boats would be stopped. But we'll
see what happens with that. Thank you, Sophie Joy the
cricket after the break. Those twelve countries that Donald Trump
has now banned, who are they? And should we do
(38:39):
it here? Undustash too in New Zealand over the Harker
this is extraordinary. Mari mp Is threatened to tear up
the treaty and throw out the crown. Now this will
confuse you. It's a Thursday. But Kel Riches is coming
up after the break because we missed things last night
(39:00):
with a few technical hitches. But we don't want you
to miss helm. Let's go though to my International panel,
because Donald Trump has today banned foreign nationals from twelve countries,
along with partial bands on another seven. He was the
president earlier.
Speaker 14 (39:14):
The recent terror attack in Boulder, Colorado has underscored the
extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of
foreign nationals who are not properly vetted, as well as
those who come here as temporary visitors and overstay their visas.
Speaker 10 (39:30):
We don't want them.
Speaker 2 (39:33):
Joining me now. My International Panel sky and is contributed
to Koshergata a former Labor MP. Michael Danby will welcome
to you both. I have to say, Michael, if I'm
pretty tough on this too, you know, I think this
is a good idea. We've got one hundred thousand people
in Australia left over from the old rud Gillard days
when the boats just kept coming, who refuse to go back,
(39:53):
and some of them come from countries like Iran that
refused to take them back. I think we should only
ever give visa tourist visas working for any sort of
visa two people from countries that if we have to
deport them will take them back.
Speaker 15 (40:09):
I think that's a good idea. But what do you
do with the people here now? Unfortunately Australia has a
very indulgent lawfare system where people can contest these kinds
of things while they're here. They get a bridging visa
and it's like endless before you get them out. Canada,
by contrast, which is an equally sort of smaller liberal regime,
(40:30):
if you fail court judgment, you have to go offshore
and appeal. So I think the government should take this seriously.
I hope we haven't got any people. Interestingly enough, Egypt
wasn't on the President's list, and that bloke who did
the terrible thing in Baalder, Colorado was from Egypt. He
was the Egyptian press is saying, is the Muslim brother fanatic?
Speaker 2 (40:53):
Right? Well, lest Egypt didn't take the gardens like we
took the gardens and we check the gardiens. I mean,
what do you think of this move constitutional challenge? Is
it likely? Yes?
Speaker 7 (41:02):
So definitely anything Trump does is getting challenged, and that
itself is a constitutional question. If random judges have the
right to issue these nationwide injunctions.
Speaker 2 (41:11):
That's heating up.
Speaker 7 (41:12):
This is something he tried in his first term, and
in twenty eighteen there were two or three versions of it.
The third version did go all the way up to
the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court held it and
basically affirmed that the president and the executive branch do
have broad authority as it relates to matters of immigration
and national security. So so long as you state it
in the statue that that's what this is about. They
ruled in favor of him. So that's going to help
(41:32):
this time around, because that's already been done. Now this
one is wider in scope, it has more countries, it
has no expiration date. Those previous ones were short term bands.
So there are reasons why we do expect to see
legal challenge. But he's on offense. The political mood has
completely shifted. People are much more in his corner on
the issue of immigration broadly, and so he is moving ahead, and.
Speaker 2 (41:52):
Of course the best defense is at tech. I think
he's struggling a little bit with the departure of Masks.
He's got the big Bill, which he says, Michael, it's
a good thing. It's all the electric commitments he made.
I think probably there's some good things in there, but
there's a hell of a lot of spending and big government.
So he's changing the conversation. He is, Peter.
Speaker 15 (42:14):
But it's the same problem as here and with a
Victorian government all levels. We've got unsustainable debt. I mean,
the American economy can have it all kinds of problems
caused by China refusing to keep buying American treasury bonds
to fund that debt. So they've got to address it sometime.
(42:38):
I'm not saying they should cut it back now, but
there are a lot of Republicans who will eventually stand
up to the President on these kinds of issues.
Speaker 10 (42:44):
Not just a musk.
Speaker 2 (42:46):
I want to play some vision. I think we've got
it there to play for my audience. It's about this
fight and the parliament. Parliament, the bee Hive they call
it in New Zealand where Mari MPs disrupted a vote
that chamber, they did a harker. They were found in
contempt of the chamber. One's been suspended for twenty one days,
(43:07):
the youngest one for seven days, and then kicked off
Kosher a whole five about sovereignty and a whole range
of things about the treaty, and if the treaty can
be torn up by marimps, then the crown should leave
New Zealand and on it goes, so.
Speaker 7 (43:23):
That constitutional question will be adjudicated in their system. I'm
sure it's always trendy. Every country has this faction of
people who want their sovereignty and fight, whether it's the
Qubecans in Canada or these folks here.
Speaker 2 (43:34):
But this kind of behavior never ages. Well.
Speaker 7 (43:36):
I don't think it's a good showing of anybody's cause.
Speaker 2 (43:39):
No matter what it is.
Speaker 7 (43:40):
But I think it's a reflection of just the culture
right now where you, especially the young generation. They just
feel entitled that they can in any forum, even Parliament,
behave in that way and they can do no wrong.
So this put it on display. And it's not often
that New Zealand is on the global map internationally.
Speaker 2 (43:55):
But this one put them there. Now, I do know,
just Indade, it's got a book out and she says
how the rest of the world loves her, and she's
not that popular at home. I don't think she's launching
the book at home and she's moving to the United States. Hey,
let's talk about this China ban on critical minerals. This
has got a lot of people worried. Michael.
Speaker 15 (44:15):
Beijing says that it is working with the Europeans to
speed up these kind of things. But half of the
exports are held up in Chinese ports, particularly magnets which
you need in cars, which are some of parts of
them are made from these rare earths. Australia's got a
big role in this. Maybe that's why the Americans were
leaning so hard on the Ukrainians. I haven't heard much
(44:35):
of that critical minerals deal with the Ukrainians, but I
do know of some people in Australia who are trying
to extract minerals in Tasmania and West Australia, and I say,
all strength to their arms, and you should get onto
to the Indian and German auto manufacturers and see if
we can get some of that stuff out to them.
Speaker 2 (44:56):
Just quickly. Gretaan Gaza, do you think she's had a
fifteen minute I think so.
Speaker 7 (45:01):
I think she's suffering from relevance deprivation syndrome and she's
always trying to figure out how to insert herself into
the topics that are relevant right now. And this one
also is not going to age well. Her on a
board with a bunch of activists trying to dock into Gaza.
Another example of young people who overestimate I think their
value and what they bring to the table on these issues.
Speaker 15 (45:19):
And she's been so all the on the sea, they'll
run out of protein bars and milk, which is the
small packages that they're bringing.
Speaker 2 (45:26):
It just laughing on the boat going to Gaza just
harks back to those kids there on that day, at
that dance party in the morning, and what they've lived through.
Speaker 15 (45:37):
Brenda Thunberg is no imagination, so that's no understanding.
Speaker 2 (45:41):
The analogous memory there. I think just hit time.
Speaker 15 (45:44):
I think she's discrediting herself people or it's interested in
the environment, which she's sort of seen as a joan
of arc of the environment, but not the long time
getting narrower and narrower.
Speaker 2 (45:54):
Okay, quick break Kells after the break, Well, last night
there technical gremlins might have got him, but he's indefatigable.
He's back tonight. Words with broadcaster kel Richards joins me
now this is when I say all the time, Kell,
great to have you on the program. Martin has written
(46:18):
to ask me about and he says he objects to
the expression no brainer.
Speaker 3 (46:25):
Ah.
Speaker 16 (46:25):
He's worried that it's offensive. He's worried that it's saying
some people have got no brains, they mentally divisioned. He
even mentioned poor old Joe Biden in passing. But no, Martin,
there's nothing to worry about. That's not what it means.
It's not about persons. It's about ideas. Some ideas are
no brainers an American bit of colloquialism from about nineteen
fifty nine. And it just means there are something so
(46:47):
obvious you can just see them without thinking about them.
So Martin, don't worry. It is not offensive.
Speaker 2 (46:55):
I use it in that context. It is a no brainer.
You don't even need to switch a gray should know
instantaneously it's the right thing to do. It's the right
thing to reject another one. John wants to know where
the phrase even stevens comes from.
Speaker 16 (47:10):
It would be lovely if there was a cute story
behind this about someone whose name was Stevens. But I'm
afraid there isn't. It's just an American bit of colloquialism
about eighteen thirty seven that comes from and it's rhyming reduplication.
We have it today because the English language is and
always has been very fond of rhyming reduplications. They're catchy,
so they catch on. People start repeating them a lot.
(47:32):
When this one first appeared in print, as I said
eighteen thirty seven, it was in a bit of journalism
trying to recapture the way uneducated people spoke, So presumably
that's the origin of this thing.
Speaker 2 (47:42):
I would say, it's interesting. My husband's got an Irish
connection and we've been over there with his Irish arts
from Galway and they have a sing song, lilting speech,
very literal speech. I know other countries have that too.
We should do that one time, because in beautiful phrases
north of Ireland, hey armed to the teeth. This is
(48:03):
definitely not what Australia is. We are not armed to
the teeth. Charles wants to know what's the oranges of
this one?
Speaker 16 (48:10):
Middle Ages and in those days too, the teeth meant
completely or fully, as in from head to toe. So
pictuer a knight in armor from his steel shod shoes
up to his helmeted head, carrying all the weapons he
could possibly carry. He is armed to the teeth and
you're right. These days he would be missiles, not swords.
But it would be better if we were armed to
(48:30):
the teeth.
Speaker 2 (48:33):
Oh, I'll tell you what. Hey, where do we go
to lodge? Some more words? Please?
Speaker 7 (48:37):
Oh?
Speaker 10 (48:37):
Okay?
Speaker 16 (48:38):
Oswood's oz words dot dot com dot au, oswords dot
com dot au. And there's a contact page where you
can send me your questions. Love to hear from you.
It's always great.
Speaker 2 (48:51):
All right, my dear audience, have a lovely weekend. I'll
see you Monday. Here's Andrew
Pedo Krandland Live on Sky News Australia.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
Good evening, welcome to the program. Here's what's coming up
tonight on Kredline. Donald Trump has today done and I
think we should have done here in Australia refuse entry
to anyone from particular countries that refuse to take their
citizens back should they ever need to be deported. I
really like this. I think it's common sense and it
shows America is serious about its borders. Despite much of
the world moving away at least questioning gender affirming practices.
(00:32):
Here in Australia, one of our peak medical bodies is
embracing it, even recommending the use of the so called
gender unicorn with children. I speak to doctor shortly about
why we've got our head in the sand and am
not looking at some of these international reports against these
practices bloss why yesterday's anemic growth numbers are a lot
of worry for our economy and why I'm going to
(00:54):
see Labor break its election promise to cut immigration. And
in a sign the new Look Opposition might be up
for a fight, the Shadow cabin has just signed off
on their first major policy position, saying no to Labour's supertas.
Speaker 3 (01:09):
We will definitely as a coalition oppose this unfair supertax
of labors every step of the way.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
But first of all, the government was crowing yesterday about
the modest growth in the economy, just zero point two
percent in the last quarter. The truth is we're drifting
backwards fast as a nation. Here's the treasurer.
Speaker 4 (01:34):
With all of the uncertainty in the world, any growth
is a decent outcome.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
Only it's not, is it. Because what he does not
want to talk about coming out of yesterday's numbers is
the fact that as individuals we're actually getting poorer. In
aid of the past nine quarters there's been negative growth
per capita. That's to say, the average production of Australians
has declined, which is why most of us feel poorer,
even though the economy as a whole is notionally bigger,
(02:06):
just notionally bigger. The basic problem is that the population
is growing faster than the economy, and that's because the
government can't help itself. Now, for the private sector, once
the enjuryroom of our economy, things are tough and they're
getting tougher. Labour's union loyalties mean that it's nearly always
making it harder for businesses to run themselves without more
and more government interference. After all, the unions they donate
(02:30):
millions and millions to labor every year, so that when
Labour's in government, those favors from the unions get called
in for the taxpayer. Labour's big taxing, big spending agenda
is only set to get worse as they exploit their
massive parliamentary majority and flush with success they didn't think
back before the lecture was even remotely possible, they'll go
(02:52):
for broke and they'll start to pull out of the
bottom drawer all their most hard left policies and for
our future or energy security equals national security, Labour's climate
obsessions will not only send businesses to the wall and
households too as costs continue to skyrocket, but make us
vulnerable at a time when the world has not been
this perilous for decades, and so with a budget struggling
(03:16):
because the economy that underpins our prosperity is struggling, the
only way to keep up the pretense politically is to
ack a whole lot of spending off budget, which Labour's
doing more and more, and to prop up things in
terms of overall growth with more and more immigration. While
that works on paper, it doesn't really work in reality,
(03:38):
does it, Because sustained immigration at record levels puts downward
pressure on wages, upwards pressure of course on housing, and
all that extra strain on our infrastructure, all of which
creates a sense of economic and social malaise, especially if
at least some of the recent migrants don't seem keen
(03:58):
on fitting in and integrating as their forerunners did in
the nineteen fifties and sixties and did so well. And
under the Albanezy governor, our economy is becoming less dynamic
and more dependent on government. The federal government now comprises
about twenty seven percent of GDP. Now, that's up three
percentage points since Anthony Albanez was elected. The federal government's
(04:22):
welfare bill, in particular, or that surged a record sixteen
percent last year to one hundred and sixty seven billion.
Welfare spending on age care, disability care and childcare as
well as healthcare, well, that's gone from just over thirty
billion in the final quarter under the Morrison government to
almost forty five billion a quarter. Now that's a forty
(04:44):
percent increase. The so called care economy. Our employers some
fifteen percent of our workforce, and this is up from
just ten percent a decade ago. And it's this expansion
of the care economy in part that's responsible for our
fighting productivity. Given there's been almost no measured labor productivity
growth in the care sector for almost the past two decades,
(05:08):
and given the childcare, age care, and disability care is
not readily amenable to mechanization and technological improvements, means I
can't really lift their productivity. That's hardly surprising. Now. This is, though,
an argument for trying to ensure that it's the productive
private sector part of our economy rather than the less
(05:30):
productive subsidized part of our economy that we put the
effort into to expand. Yet the current government, well, it's
making work in the care economy more and more attractive
via all those big wage increases in age care and childcare,
often tied to union membership, that need to be supported
(05:52):
by ever increasing government subsidies. This is on top of
a bigger and bigger and bigger public service. More generally,
figures produced by the IPA think tanks show that in
the eight years to August twenty twenty two, seventy seven
percent of new employment was in the private sector. By contrast,
(06:13):
between August twenty twenty two and August twenty twenty four,
so these are alban easy years, eighty two percent of
new employment was in the public sector. So apart from
more public servants who now mostly work from home, and
apart from more workers in the highly subsidized care economy,
what's the economic diningism that we must see under this government. Well,
(06:38):
there isn't much. A more conservative economic policy would not
neglect the care economy because conservatives want to preserve our
social fabric, but it would better appreciate than In the end,
it's profitable private businesses, not governments and institutions that have
to be subsidized, that are the engine of economic growth.
(06:59):
Now there is no magic pudding when it comes to
government spending. There's no money tree in the back of
Jim Chalmers garden, which is why there's a reckoning coming
to Australia as we fail to live within our means.
At the same time as we move to noble or
were still shut down some of our most productive industries
(07:20):
and export earners. The problem with socialism, as Margaret Thatcher said,
is it eventually you run out of other people's money.
This is where we are headed unless we wake up.
All right, let's get the headlines now, skynies political reporter
(07:41):
Reuben Spargo.
Speaker 5 (07:43):
Farmers with land in self managed super funds face mounting
pressure under proposed changes. The government will double the tax
on earnings for balances more than three million dollars. With
little cash on hand, some farmers may be forced to
sell their land to cover tax bills on unrealized gains.
Veteran politicians eligible for older super schemes, including the Prime Minister,
(08:05):
will be able to defer payments until they retire.
Speaker 6 (08:10):
What we need to do is to make sure that
our superanuation system is fair. That is what we are
setting about to do.
Speaker 5 (08:19):
Labour needs support in the Senate to pass the legislation.
The coalition is now formally opposing the government's model. Green
Senator Sarah Hanson Young believes her former colleague Derinda Cox
should quit the Senate. Senator Cox left the party this
week to join the government.
Speaker 7 (08:36):
I do think the honorable thing is to resign from
the parliament.
Speaker 5 (08:39):
Senator Cox was the subject of multiple workplace bullying complaints.
The Greens have now ended an internal investigation. The government
is pushing to secure a free trade deal with the
European Union. Trade Minister Don Farrell is holding talks in Europe.
The Prime Minister claims Donald Trump's global trade war could
provide the backdrop to secure agreement.
Speaker 6 (09:01):
If it benefits us, we'll be in it. If it doesn't,
we'll continue to not sign up.
Speaker 5 (09:08):
A trade deal between Australia and Europe fell flat in
twenty twenty three.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
Joining me now generalist The Day Telegraph, James Willis this guy,
News commentator Karli Katson Barnas Well, welcome to you both.
Let's start with the super tax or the tax on
super that being impressed today on the fairness of his plan. Well,
there's not anything new here.
Speaker 6 (09:31):
This has been before the parliament for about two years past. Yes, yeah,
this is about This has been before the parliament for
about two years. What we need to do is to
make sure that our superannuation system is fair.
Speaker 2 (09:51):
Now, I'm going to get into a bit more of
the mechanics in the monment an investments expert. But he
was asked a question there. The pointed question was how
can you get to defer at Prime Minister? You don't
have to pay this tax until you realize your gains.
You get the money in your pocket, but farmers and
others don't get that they have to pony up money
that they don't even have based on this increased value
(10:14):
of their asset. Now he couldn't answer that, Caroly. All
they could say was, well, it's been in the parliament
for some time. That doesn't make it right.
Speaker 8 (10:23):
It certainly doesn't, Peter. The problem is that it sends
out such a wrong message. This is a very evil tax.
We know that it will be the tip of the iceberg.
It's going to force people to have to sell any properties,
any farms that they may have. You just can't tax
people on money and earnings that they haven't actually earned yet.
And as you said, it's a very while saying oh,
(10:43):
it's been before the parliament for two years, supposedly this
is a new parliament. It is a shame during the
election campaign that the Liberals didn't get on top of
this and actually bring it to the forefront of people's minds,
which it seems to be at the moment. But it's
not good because we know that when they start with this,
it will just continue. And you've got so many great
economic minds, Philip Low.
Speaker 2 (11:04):
You've even got Paul.
Speaker 8 (11:04):
Keating that are completely against what this government is doing,
and yet they're able to just get it through. And
it's terrible, terrible message sending out for investment into Australia
as well as most importantly for everyday Australians that are
working hard, trying not to suck off the teet of
the state, and this is just going to break them.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
What about those numbers yesterday, James I went through them
again tonight. The fact that we are in a weak position,
we are also in a per capita recession. I don't
think enough's been made of the fact that the government's
keeping up this pretense out there that we're chugging along,
but all they're doing is wacking a whole lot of
spending off budget. We know they love to do this,
(11:45):
but it's happening at a rate I have never seen.
But they're also propping things up with more and more immigration. Now.
They said in the election they would rain back their
record high migration. I just think there is no chance
they're going to do that, because we won't just be
in a per capita recession, we will be in an
actual recession. And Labor just can't bear that having just
(12:07):
won the election.
Speaker 9 (12:10):
Yeah, Peter, there's no doubt that there would be people
in Treasury warning that if it wasn't for higher levels
of migration, that Australia would be in a full blown recession. Instead,
the figures have been largely blurred by as you say,
every quarter the migration numbers come out I think monthly sometimes,
But in every bit of data I've seen, there has
never been a significant or dramatic reduction from what Labor
(12:33):
has promised to do to say Okay, we get it,
we had to do this, We're actually going to bring
it back. We haven't seen that yet. We also know
that a large part of the budget and anything that
Jim Chalmers talks about is being propped up by record
numbers of public servants, huge spending on public servants and
also jobs linked to programs like the NDIS. But on
(12:53):
the broader issue, I mean, it's one thing for the
Prime Minister to say, oh, this has been before the parliament.
I mean I challenge anyone watching to go home and
go onto the Parliamentary website and have a look at
some of the ideas and legislation and first readings that
are actually before the Parliament have had been inquiries and
all that.
Speaker 10 (13:11):
Sort of stuff.
Speaker 9 (13:11):
There's ideas out there that doesn't mean just because they're
hidden away that it's not suddenly a big issue.
Speaker 10 (13:16):
It's crazy the Liberal Party.
Speaker 9 (13:18):
Didn't make this front and center during the election. And
I'm also seriously worried once we do get into the
weeds of this, just how far it will go if
Labour ends up doing a deal with the Greens as
has been reported today to get this through the Upper House,
and whether it stops at three million dollars and what
tax comes next.
Speaker 2 (13:37):
Well, it might have been in the parliament past the parliament.
So I agree with you. If you look at the
notice paper any given day, you can find plenty of
crackpot ideas that you could say are in the parliament,
but they haven't passed the parliament. And look, I want
to pick up carollly the point that James makes there.
You know why the heck didn't the Coalition go harder
on this. I think they needed to get back to
(13:58):
economic base. They need to fight this tax. They are
a bit constrained last time. They need to fight this
tax absolutely, but they've got to get onto issues like population.
Have a fared income population policy, a fed income decent cut,
not a tweak, but a real cut into these immigration
intake numbers. They've got to get out there and on
(14:18):
the renewables, the burden, the cost burden of renewables. I mean,
James Carvell said, and he's a Democrat, it's the economy
stupid where they're stupid if they're not fighting on the economy.
Speaker 8 (14:30):
Oh my goodness, taken back to nineteen ninety two with
of course Bill Clinton successfully it might be that goodness,
But no, you're quite right, and I think the most
important thing is is that we've got a new shadow
opposition and they've got time to actually bed things down,
present to the Australian people what they're going to fight on.
And you're one hundred percent right. They need to fight
on this stuff. You know, a month ago the renewables
(14:52):
that the absolute folly of Chris Bowen and Albanesi still,
you know, spending all this money on green hydrog and
win farms and things that just actually don't work. People
are wanting, they're wanting to vote for the Liberals, but
they've got to not be deterred and not listen not
listen to doing dealers. I'm actually very glad that the
young that you know, it's going to be Labor and
(15:14):
the Greens doing this deal because it's not up to
the coalition to rescue labor with the unrealized tax games.
And it's also not up to the coalition to veer
from the from the path that people want them to take.
There's just no money in it either.
Speaker 2 (15:28):
It's just terrible. Let's go down to Tasmania and things
are crook there for the Liberal leader, Jeremy Rockliff. It
looks like they're off there, off and running to a
state election. The speaker cast the casting vote. I watched
her decision as she put it down, she's a labor speaker, obviously,
as she put it down to her being a labor
person for many, many years, and of course you wouldn't
(15:51):
expect otherwise. Although it is a bit of a sad
outcome that it comes down to that. But what I
thought was really interesting. So when the opposition leader, so
the Labor leader, goes out and does his press conference
and it gives a reason as to why poor old
Tasmanians are heading back to the election only just having
had a state election, James. He puts it down at
the terrible, terrible debt position in Tasmania, which would be
(16:13):
a rounding era in a state like Victoria. And I'm
sitting there screaming at the TV saying, please, can't we
have a notice of no confidence in the Victorian Parliament.
Can't we go to an election because we're drowning in debt?
Wouldn't that be nice? Yeah?
Speaker 9 (16:29):
And the budget figures in Tasmania. And there was a
story about a year ago that said, compared to the
other states and how they should all be performing, Tasmania
had fallen behind even further. But you're right, the debt
position is nowhere near in the other states, which is
I watering in Victoria. There was a story about South Australia.
Today New South Wales is not doing much better. I
(16:49):
find this a really really interesting political story, Peter, because
this came down to one voter, as you say, the
Labor speaker who passed this no confidence motion in Rockcliffe.
Speaker 10 (16:59):
The press.
Speaker 9 (17:00):
The other thing to note that Tasmanians only went to
the polls a little over a year ago. There was
a hung parliament there. Neither the Liberal Party or the
Labor Party have the numbers. There is now talk of
a labor Green's coalition that is an official one compared
to an unofficial one that we have in other parts
of Australia, including in Canberra from time to time. But
there's three big issues that have been identified and the
(17:22):
biggest one of all, away from the ferries and the debt,
is the fact that this is all going to potentially
blow up the Tasmanian AFL team, which Rockcliffe has champion
from the start. The Greens have been ferociously against this
and I think you'll find that there's a feeling that
a lot of Tasmanians don't support it. So with that
in mind, that extra team, which needed a one billion
(17:44):
dollar stadium, may actually not go ahead. So there's a
big blow there for the AFL in the sporting world.
Speaker 2 (17:52):
Yeah, I think given where Rockcliffe was chapening that football
field a football stadium, I suspect that has many voters
may well be more favorable to him. We'll see. I
think it's difficult territory for liberals, regardless of where they
are around the country, but we'll see what happens. Let's
go to this debate today back again. Gender quotas inside
the Liberal Party. It fled up because of comments made
(18:13):
by Alan Stockdale, former Treasurer of Victoria, former party president.
Federally for the Libs, and he's currently on the Admin
Committee because New South Wales is in administration. He's basically
is running the New South Wales Party. He told a
women's Council meeting that women had gotten so assertive that
they may need reverse quotas for men. He said the
(18:34):
comments were in jest. That didn't stop the Prime Minister
today from weaponizing them.
Speaker 6 (18:40):
There are more more women in the Labor Caucus in
the House of Representatives whose first name begins in a
literally than there are Liberals and national women on the
floor of the House of Representatives.
Speaker 8 (19:00):
Now.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
Look, I've known Alan Stockdale for thirty years. I reckon
I'm a pretty assertive woman. He's never had a problem
with me. I've gone him absolutely professional. His wife is
an accomplished business woman. She's pretty assertive too, so I
suspect he's in the doghouse at home. He said they
are poorly chosen words. I think that's probably right, but
that in itself does not make a case for quotas.
Speaker 8 (19:23):
Caroly No, it certainly doesn't I mean, have we all
lost our sense of humor? The man is eighty years old.
It's generational. I mean there are a lot, as you say,
there's a lot of assertive women. I mean a good
luck to them, good luck to them as well. I
mean just center price Sarah Henderson, Claire Chandler, I mean
even more redeeming. I mean, for goodness sake, But you
(19:44):
know it does.
Speaker 2 (19:45):
Run the risk. I don't agree with quotas at all.
People have got to get there on their marriage.
Speaker 8 (19:49):
And you know it's Albo of course, he can't resist,
you know, taking a potshot at anything that he wants to.
Speaker 2 (19:56):
James, what do you reckon You're one of these men
that are suddenly extinct or threat of extinction from assertive women.
How do you feel you're on a panel of assertive women.
Speaker 9 (20:05):
Because well, look, I've got absolutely no concern in regards
to you know, whether women or men are in senior positions.
I think labor are hypocrites given some of their senior
leadership positions, but I do not. And you've identified a
few of those fantastic women in the Liberal Party, Sarah
(20:26):
Henderson and also Claire Chandler, And I think Bridget Mackenzie
does an excellent job. But I would note that in
New South Wales and the seat of Bradfield, which had
always been held by the Liberal Party, the pre selection
contests decided to go with a Liberal candidate called Giselle
Capterian to do that. Warren Mundine, who was fantastic during
(20:48):
the voice and the No campaign, was the other option.
Speaker 10 (20:52):
He was dudded.
Speaker 9 (20:53):
He was told by a number of senior Liberals, sorry,
we have to go with a woman here, and so
an Aboriginal man was in favor of a female quota,
and unfortunately it's come out in the last twenty four
hours that the Liberal Party will lose that seat for
the first time. So I think as a test case
that argument has a bit of work to do.
Speaker 2 (21:12):
Very good point, very good point. Thank you both. Let's
return now to Labour's proposed changes to superannuation, with a
coalition today taking an in principal decision that they will
not do a deal with Labor, which means it's down
to a prospective deal with the Greens.
Speaker 8 (21:27):
Now.
Speaker 2 (21:27):
Much of the focus is on the tax of unrealized gains,
but this is also a question of fairness to given
the uncertainty whether politicians, including the Prime Minister, but a
whole host of senior public servants, can defer their payments,
something the Treasurer was pushed on yesterday.
Speaker 11 (21:46):
And you confirm that the tax on three million, not
the superannuation funds, will only apply it to the Prime
Minister once he leaves office, that you won't pay any
extra tax on his superanuation until he leaves office.
Speaker 2 (21:59):
Under your.
Speaker 4 (22:01):
I'm so pleased you ask me this question. Tax liabilities
are deferred until a pension phase because members in those
schemes can't access their super to pay tax debts until
that point. It's a function of necessity that that's how
that calculation is made. But we charge an interest rate
on those liabilities to make sure that people don't receive
(22:23):
an inappropriate advantage.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
Jentlemen, how to discuss is Wilson Asset Management Chair and
Chief Investment Officer Jeff Wilson. Well, he dodged the question yesterday,
which tells me he doesn't really want to answer it.
He's trying to bury it in bureaucratic language. But of
course we know what the truth is, don't we.
Speaker 1 (22:42):
Jeff Well, I mean, he just should have answered the
question rather than going on a big rant. You should
have said, yes, that effectively he won't pay tax. He's
on a different he's a different situation to the forty
million Australians that are in the normal superannuation system or
(23:03):
the workers.
Speaker 10 (23:05):
And he gets a semi free kick.
Speaker 2 (23:10):
I've been the government thought they're on a winner here
because you know, they're talking about initially balances a three
million and they think, well, you know, most people are
into the politics of envy. They think it won't affect them,
this is nothing to sort of think about or worry about.
But the more they start to understand this, I think
it's tipping away from the government, and I think public
(23:31):
opinion is really starting to shift, particularly where people understand
that it is not indexed.
Speaker 10 (23:38):
Well, I mean, it's one hundred percent.
Speaker 1 (23:41):
And I was talking to someone in the early thirties
yesterday who didn't really understand superannuation, and I explained to them,
I said, if you had when you were twenty five,
if you had thirty thousand dollars in your super fund
and you didn't put another cent in and an increased
by eight percent by the time you were fifty five,
(24:02):
that would be more than three million dollars now effectively
without the indexation. We've done some numbers and within the
next thirty years, eight point one million, or more than
half of the working population will be over that three
million dollar mark. So without indexation, eventually every worker will
(24:25):
be paying tax on unrealized games. So they'll be paying
tax on a profit that may never eventuate. And one
of the things that really sort of concerns me is
the fact that both Anthony Albernici and Jim Charmers and
the various other government politicians are sort of gas lighting
(24:47):
Australians by saying it only impacts a very short small
people of a small group of people eighty thousand.
Speaker 10 (24:54):
They don't focus on the indexation. But also the fact is.
Speaker 1 (24:58):
Everyone who's got their money, and that's four point two
trillion dollars that's invested in Super, and everyone is going
to change their behavior. For every action, there's an equal
and opposite reaction, and there are going to be significant
consequences for this tax coming in. And I think already
in that four point two trillion that's invested in Super,
(25:22):
people are changing how they're going to invest that money.
Speaker 2 (25:28):
I guess one of the concerns I have too, from
the sort of the political parliamentary side of things that
we've seen this happen before. Labor is on a tax
they don't love, and you put in a trojan bill
that basically is about taxes on superannuation unrealized gains. But
it creates a framework, legislative framework that with regulation perhaps
(25:49):
down the track, they can change the asset class. So
whilst it's on super now, they can move thresholds. Potentially
they could add in another asset class. Let's say they
don't do changes to investment properties and negative gearing, but
they might do a tax on the unrealized gains of
your second, third, or fourth investment property and your first
(26:11):
investment property. I mean, how real is that?
Speaker 1 (26:15):
I think it's very real because to me it seems
it seems strange that the government was pushing so hard
to get the legislation through the Senate before it before
the last election, to even put it with another bill,
the credit card bill that removed the additional charges on
(26:38):
your credit card. Like the fact that Lamby and Popcock
stood up to.
Speaker 10 (26:43):
That, Like, to me, that was.
Speaker 1 (26:46):
Really showed some metal. So like, why are they so
desperate to get this through? And as you said, it's
Division two ninety six. It can be moved wherever you
want in terms of any asset class can be effectively
taxed by the new legislation, assuming it gets through, which
(27:10):
it looks like it will.
Speaker 2 (27:11):
Right, you're going to try and start it with a petition.
Where can people go to give you some support?
Speaker 1 (27:17):
Well, I mean that's right the Wilson as Management website
and back in two thousand and eighteen twenty nineteen, when
Bill Shorten and Chris Bowen were trying to bring in
that legislation now the flawed legislation on Frankin. That was
the last time we ran a petition and what we
only started this petition last week and it was really
(27:39):
in desperation to get everyone to understand how the incredible
negative consequences are that this legislation will have on the
Australian economy.
Speaker 2 (27:52):
Right, it's up there on the screen. Let's hope people
jump on there and give support to the opposition case
against this. Thanks for your time, Jeff. After the break,
What exactly is a gender unicorn and why has it
been used by one of our peag medical bodies? And
discussions with children last one of Australia's foremost gender medicine proponents.
Well they've been excoriated by a federal court judge and
(28:14):
this afternoon the name of that doctor has finally been
made public. Welcome back to the come why Donald Trump's
ban on foreign nationals from particular countries should be on
the table here in Australia, for first, has been growing
concern over gender affirming care practices, particularly in the wake
(28:36):
of the landmark cast review out of the United Kingdom. Today,
a gender medicine expert who was ruled to have given
misleading evidence to the family court to support a mother
who wanted her child to be given puberty blockers has
been named as Professor Michelle Telfer. Professor Telfer is the
lead author of the nation's gender affirming care guidelines. These
are the guidelines in the hospitals the people look to
(28:59):
in dearly with the gender confused children. And in the
scathing judgment, the judge said that you said he found
in favor of the father who opposed the child taking
these drugs. He said that the unquestioning approach of these
agenda affirming guidelines quote overlooks the obvious, namely that the
(29:20):
child is still a child and not even if that
matters a teenager. Now, this comes as the Royal Australian
College of General Practitioners their latest monthly professional development work
on the website is focused on how GPS can and
I quote positively influence the lives of gender diverse individuals
through gender affirming healthcare. Joreman Now, someone who has long
(29:44):
raised concerns about this model, academic psychiatrist doctor Andrew Amos. Andrew, welcome.
We'll start with the criticism of Professor Telfer. We know
her name now that's been released this afternoon on the
Australian's website. How significant was the criticism of the judge
about her, her evidence and those guidelines.
Speaker 12 (30:08):
Look, I think it's incredibly significant, Peter. In addition to
saying that Professor Telfer had provided misleading testimony, which never
puts a judge in a good mood, Judge Strum drew
attention to the fact that she described herself more like
an activist than a doctor. And this basically confirms the
opinion of the Gold's Standard Cast review that you mentioned,
which said that the treatment guidelines atself are created went
(30:31):
not to scratch, mostly because she and the other authors
ignored the lack of evidence for puberty blockers and hormones
and other treatments. So I think the judge has done
gender confused ossie kids and their families an enormous favor,
but it's also alerted us to problems with the whole
treatment model created by Professor Telfer.
Speaker 2 (30:51):
Yeah, this is the point, right. So we've got the
Cast Review, which is a significant study into this model
of care used obviously at our kingdom and elsewhere in
the world, including Australia. That's basically said, put it away
in Australia. Now we get a judge picking up not
just the evidence of the proponent, the person who authored them,
(31:12):
but the absolute practice as well. And yet in Australia
it's still the gold standard of care. And in Australia
we can't even have an inquiry state or federal into this. Now,
why are we bearing our head in the sand.
Speaker 12 (31:28):
Well, look, there's a lot of institutional resistance to this.
It's mainly the people making the decisions. We call this
institutional capture. So essentially a small group of people are
very enthusiastic or most you could say religious, about making
sure that this particular model is implemented, and they really
refuse to have anything to do with criticism. They haven't,
(31:50):
for example, acknowledged the CAST review. They certainly haven't addressed
the claims that it makes about the complete lack of
evidence that these treatments help patients. And they also haven't
looked at the evidence that it's more likely to harm
kids than to help them in the long run.
Speaker 2 (32:09):
So what we really need to do is, sorry, Andrew, Sorry,
I'm just want to jump in there. Where are the
parents though? Right? So, when someone gives this sort of
medical advice to a parent who's got a confused child.
We know about the Telfa case because the father violently
(32:29):
opposed what the mother wanted to do. She wanted to
adopt this gender care. Thank god someone was standing up
and asking a few questions. But where are all the
other parents in cases like this?
Speaker 10 (32:41):
Yeah? Look, it's really unusual.
Speaker 12 (32:42):
I think this father did a great job of caring
for protecting his son. He essentially took the view that
kids will be kids. This is likely a phase that
the kid's going to grow out of. Let him explore.
We call this gender nonconformity. So many kids will go
through this sort of stuff. They'll experiment with different ways
of being. The father said, that's fine, I can tolerate that.
(33:07):
And the judge basically said this father sought out many
other therapists in order to take a therapeutic approach to
what essentially is a mental illness, but no one was
willing to take this kid on. And that's largely because
Professor Telfer and advocates or activists like her have made
(33:27):
it almost impossible for that sort of therapy to be done.
Speaker 2 (33:33):
Right, talk to me about the ROCGP. This is the
body that provides training for our GPS. They've got a
whole lot of stuff there on the website, and one
of their training modules they even say, when you're dealing
with young children, to use something like this gender unicorn.
I and't even know really what this is, help us
understand what's going on.
Speaker 12 (33:54):
Oh look, the gender unicorn is fairly legendary in these circles.
I think you can see it's a cartoon, but it's
a cartoon that essentially summarizes what I would describe as
various forms of gender delusions. And in my mind, basically
this proves that the module that's been put out by
the RACGP is an activist fantasy masquerading as a medical
(34:16):
training document completely meeds misleads GPS, who I think want
to do the right thing by their patients, but this
sort of very flawed advice puts them in a really
pernicious position. I mean, if you go through the whole module,
I think there's a real risk that gps are going
to be sued because they think they are immune from
(34:38):
the liability for the harms that are being done by
this model of care, and they're very quickly going to
find out that that's not true.
Speaker 2 (34:46):
I'm going to get to one next week because a
lot of parents, I think need to know what grandparents to,
what do they do if this is thrown into their
family as an issue, and where they can go to
get a help that isn't just going to take them
down a path which in the case of of Justice
Strum today has named and shamed in terms of this
is academic as not being necessarily in the best interest
(35:08):
of the child. But we'll do that next week. Thank you, Amos,
Andrew Amos there, thank you very much, doctor Aimos. All right,
let's go to this embarrassing backflip out of London. This
involves our High Commission. This is where they had a
very exclusive taxpayer funded event, but they banned the media
from turning up. This is about Australia's men's cricket squad.
(35:30):
Let's go to the woman on the ground, our News
Corp European Correspondence. So for Ellsworth, well, I'll tell you what.
If taxpayers are paying for a really expensive shitten dig
taxpayers want to know what's going on and we want
our media in there as well. What happened here, Peter,
great to be with you.
Speaker 13 (35:49):
We have the Australian cricketers here in London. They'll be
playing behind me at Lord's next week. And there was
this media event last night or this function should I say,
Australia House, which you and I and the taxpayers paid for.
And the Australian media were only invited eight hours before
the event, given virtually no notice, but we were told
(36:11):
by the High Commission that we could not report from
this event. This was extraordinary, Peter. There was a lot
of pushback from the Australian journalists here on the ground
in London that said, hang on a minute, why has
the BBC got an arrangement where they can report on
the event and we can only come in a personal capacity,
(36:32):
but no reporting. And sure enough logic prevailed and the
High Commission overturned this decision. I asked Stephen Smith, the
High Commissioner, about this last night. He was not very
pleased when I approached him about it. And there seems
to be an awful lot of finger pointing here, finger
pointing at Cricket Australia at the BBC. Peter, this is embarrassing.
(36:54):
We are Australian reporters here on the ground. We should
be reporting on these events and it was only that
we pushed.
Speaker 2 (37:01):
Back that we were allowed to do. So let's go
to the spike in migration or legal micration across the Channel.
I've covered at a couple of times this week. It's
interesting you've got to report that proves it's the Rewondan
solution that actually never got off the ground. That's been
about the only thing that's cut back some of the
(37:24):
early numbers.
Speaker 13 (37:27):
So, Peter, it's been a disaster to hear with the
channel crossings, the illegal migration. Last weekend they had more
than one thousand illegal immigrants come into the country from France.
There was remarkably French police just taking photos of these
illegal migrants jumping on boats and crossing the Channel. And
(37:47):
this is something that the Kars Starmer has not been
able to stop, and we constantly hear in the media
here Tony Abbott could do it in Australia, why can't
it happen here in the UK? Is a real bugbear
for the labor government here, Peter. They've been in a
year year in offices, you know, in July, and this
is a problem they have not been able to stop.
(38:10):
And he's going to continue to dog them right up
until the next election in four years time.
Speaker 2 (38:17):
I'm just looking at those rubbert Acki boats. Maybe we
send the British Navy some of the machetes that seemed
to be everywhere in Australia. They could slash a few
of them like they slash the tires in Melbourne and
away we go. Those boats would be stopped. But we'll
see what happens with that. Thank you, Sophie Joy the
cricket after the break. Those twelve countries that Donald Trump
has now banned, who are they? And should we do
(38:39):
it here? Undustash too in New Zealand over the Harker
this is extraordinary. Mari mp Is threatened to tear up
the treaty and throw out the crown. Now this will
confuse you. It's a Thursday. But Kel Riches is coming
up after the break because we missed things last night
(39:00):
with a few technical hitches. But we don't want you
to miss helm. Let's go though to my International panel,
because Donald Trump has today banned foreign nationals from twelve countries,
along with partial bands on another seven. He was the
president earlier.
Speaker 14 (39:14):
The recent terror attack in Boulder, Colorado has underscored the
extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of
foreign nationals who are not properly vetted, as well as
those who come here as temporary visitors and overstay their visas.
Speaker 10 (39:30):
We don't want them.
Speaker 2 (39:33):
Joining me now. My International Panel sky and is contributed
to Koshergata a former Labor MP. Michael Danby will welcome
to you both. I have to say, Michael, if I'm
pretty tough on this too, you know, I think this
is a good idea. We've got one hundred thousand people
in Australia left over from the old rud Gillard days
when the boats just kept coming, who refuse to go back,
(39:53):
and some of them come from countries like Iran that
refused to take them back. I think we should only
ever give visa tourist visas working for any sort of
visa two people from countries that if we have to
deport them will take them back.
Speaker 15 (40:09):
I think that's a good idea. But what do you
do with the people here now? Unfortunately Australia has a
very indulgent lawfare system where people can contest these kinds
of things while they're here. They get a bridging visa
and it's like endless before you get them out. Canada,
by contrast, which is an equally sort of smaller liberal regime,
(40:30):
if you fail court judgment, you have to go offshore
and appeal. So I think the government should take this seriously.
I hope we haven't got any people. Interestingly enough, Egypt
wasn't on the President's list, and that bloke who did
the terrible thing in Baalder, Colorado was from Egypt. He
was the Egyptian press is saying, is the Muslim brother fanatic?
Speaker 2 (40:53):
Right? Well, lest Egypt didn't take the gardens like we
took the gardens and we check the gardiens. I mean,
what do you think of this move constitutional challenge? Is
it likely? Yes?
Speaker 7 (41:02):
So definitely anything Trump does is getting challenged, and that
itself is a constitutional question. If random judges have the
right to issue these nationwide injunctions.
Speaker 2 (41:11):
That's heating up.
Speaker 7 (41:12):
This is something he tried in his first term, and
in twenty eighteen there were two or three versions of it.
The third version did go all the way up to
the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court held it and
basically affirmed that the president and the executive branch do
have broad authority as it relates to matters of immigration
and national security. So so long as you state it
in the statue that that's what this is about. They
ruled in favor of him. So that's going to help
(41:32):
this time around, because that's already been done. Now this
one is wider in scope, it has more countries, it
has no expiration date. Those previous ones were short term bands.
So there are reasons why we do expect to see
legal challenge. But he's on offense. The political mood has
completely shifted. People are much more in his corner on
the issue of immigration broadly, and so he is moving ahead, and.
Speaker 2 (41:52):
Of course the best defense is at tech. I think
he's struggling a little bit with the departure of Masks.
He's got the big Bill, which he says, Michael, it's
a good thing. It's all the electric commitments he made.
I think probably there's some good things in there, but
there's a hell of a lot of spending and big government.
So he's changing the conversation. He is, Peter.
Speaker 15 (42:14):
But it's the same problem as here and with a
Victorian government all levels. We've got unsustainable debt. I mean,
the American economy can have it all kinds of problems
caused by China refusing to keep buying American treasury bonds
to fund that debt. So they've got to address it sometime.
(42:38):
I'm not saying they should cut it back now, but
there are a lot of Republicans who will eventually stand
up to the President on these kinds of issues.
Speaker 10 (42:44):
Not just a musk.
Speaker 2 (42:46):
I want to play some vision. I think we've got
it there to play for my audience. It's about this
fight and the parliament. Parliament, the bee Hive they call
it in New Zealand where Mari MPs disrupted a vote
that chamber, they did a harker. They were found in
contempt of the chamber. One's been suspended for twenty one days,
(43:07):
the youngest one for seven days, and then kicked off
Kosher a whole five about sovereignty and a whole range
of things about the treaty, and if the treaty can
be torn up by marimps, then the crown should leave
New Zealand and on it goes, so.
Speaker 7 (43:23):
That constitutional question will be adjudicated in their system. I'm
sure it's always trendy. Every country has this faction of
people who want their sovereignty and fight, whether it's the
Qubecans in Canada or these folks here.
Speaker 2 (43:34):
But this kind of behavior never ages. Well.
Speaker 7 (43:36):
I don't think it's a good showing of anybody's cause.
Speaker 2 (43:39):
No matter what it is.
Speaker 7 (43:40):
But I think it's a reflection of just the culture
right now where you, especially the young generation. They just
feel entitled that they can in any forum, even Parliament,
behave in that way and they can do no wrong.
So this put it on display. And it's not often
that New Zealand is on the global map internationally.
Speaker 2 (43:55):
But this one put them there. Now, I do know,
just Indade, it's got a book out and she says
how the rest of the world loves her, and she's
not that popular at home. I don't think she's launching
the book at home and she's moving to the United States. Hey,
let's talk about this China ban on critical minerals. This
has got a lot of people worried. Michael.
Speaker 15 (44:15):
Beijing says that it is working with the Europeans to
speed up these kind of things. But half of the
exports are held up in Chinese ports, particularly magnets which
you need in cars, which are some of parts of
them are made from these rare earths. Australia's got a
big role in this. Maybe that's why the Americans were
leaning so hard on the Ukrainians. I haven't heard much
(44:35):
of that critical minerals deal with the Ukrainians, but I
do know of some people in Australia who are trying
to extract minerals in Tasmania and West Australia, and I say,
all strength to their arms, and you should get onto
to the Indian and German auto manufacturers and see if
we can get some of that stuff out to them.
Speaker 2 (44:56):
Just quickly. Gretaan Gaza, do you think she's had a
fifteen minute I think so.
Speaker 7 (45:01):
I think she's suffering from relevance deprivation syndrome and she's
always trying to figure out how to insert herself into
the topics that are relevant right now. And this one
also is not going to age well. Her on a
board with a bunch of activists trying to dock into Gaza.
Another example of young people who overestimate I think their
value and what they bring to the table on these issues.
Speaker 15 (45:19):
And she's been so all the on the sea, they'll
run out of protein bars and milk, which is the
small packages that they're bringing.
Speaker 2 (45:26):
It just laughing on the boat going to Gaza just
harks back to those kids there on that day, at
that dance party in the morning, and what they've lived through.
Speaker 15 (45:37):
Brenda Thunberg is no imagination, so that's no understanding.
Speaker 2 (45:41):
The analogous memory there. I think just hit time.
Speaker 15 (45:44):
I think she's discrediting herself people or it's interested in
the environment, which she's sort of seen as a joan
of arc of the environment, but not the long time
getting narrower and narrower.
Speaker 2 (45:54):
Okay, quick break Kells after the break, Well, last night
there technical gremlins might have got him, but he's indefatigable.
He's back tonight. Words with broadcaster kel Richards joins me
now this is when I say all the time, Kell,
great to have you on the program. Martin has written
(46:18):
to ask me about and he says he objects to
the expression no brainer.
Speaker 3 (46:25):
Ah.
Speaker 16 (46:25):
He's worried that it's offensive. He's worried that it's saying
some people have got no brains, they mentally divisioned. He
even mentioned poor old Joe Biden in passing. But no, Martin,
there's nothing to worry about. That's not what it means.
It's not about persons. It's about ideas. Some ideas are
no brainers an American bit of colloquialism from about nineteen
fifty nine. And it just means there are something so
(46:47):
obvious you can just see them without thinking about them.
So Martin, don't worry. It is not offensive.
Speaker 2 (46:55):
I use it in that context. It is a no brainer.
You don't even need to switch a gray should know
instantaneously it's the right thing to do. It's the right
thing to reject another one. John wants to know where
the phrase even stevens comes from.
Speaker 16 (47:10):
It would be lovely if there was a cute story
behind this about someone whose name was Stevens. But I'm
afraid there isn't. It's just an American bit of colloquialism
about eighteen thirty seven that comes from and it's rhyming reduplication.
We have it today because the English language is and
always has been very fond of rhyming reduplications. They're catchy,
so they catch on. People start repeating them a lot.
(47:32):
When this one first appeared in print, as I said
eighteen thirty seven, it was in a bit of journalism
trying to recapture the way uneducated people spoke, So presumably
that's the origin of this thing.
Speaker 2 (47:42):
I would say, it's interesting. My husband's got an Irish
connection and we've been over there with his Irish arts
from Galway and they have a sing song, lilting speech,
very literal speech. I know other countries have that too.
We should do that one time, because in beautiful phrases
north of Ireland, hey armed to the teeth. This is
(48:03):
definitely not what Australia is. We are not armed to
the teeth. Charles wants to know what's the oranges of
this one?
Speaker 16 (48:10):
Middle Ages and in those days too, the teeth meant
completely or fully, as in from head to toe. So
pictuer a knight in armor from his steel shod shoes
up to his helmeted head, carrying all the weapons he
could possibly carry. He is armed to the teeth and
you're right. These days he would be missiles, not swords.
But it would be better if we were armed to
(48:30):
the teeth.
Speaker 2 (48:33):
Oh, I'll tell you what. Hey, where do we go
to lodge? Some more words? Please?
Speaker 7 (48:37):
Oh?
Speaker 10 (48:37):
Okay?
Speaker 16 (48:38):
Oswood's oz words dot dot com dot au, oswords dot
com dot au. And there's a contact page where you
can send me your questions. Love to hear from you.
It's always great.
Speaker 2 (48:51):
All right, my dear audience, have a lovely weekend. I'll
see you Monday. Here's Andrew
Popular Podcasts
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.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.