Paul Murray Live | 9 September

0:00This is Paul Murray Live. You know me very well, Sherry. Thank you very much. We've got a big show ahead tonight. It's fight night when it comes to the debate section of this evening's program. I guarantee you're going to love the rumble that happens inside the man cave. The wonderful meeting Kelly is here where there's an awful lot of stuff happening in the United States. But can we start with FNBZ going full Trump? What do I mean? Well, as you know, Donald Trump, when every doesn't like with the media reports, what does he say? FNBZ. FNBZ. FNBZ. FNBZ. Well, to the scandal that is of the government's own making half a billion dollars that just happened to end up in mostly labour seats. We showed you this last night in detail. Sinner for public integrity. This is a non-partisan group. They've whacked lips when they're in government just as hard as they're whacking the government. And they were able to work out that of the half a B for billion dollars that was put into a slush fund. And I say this slush fund because it wasn't just, oh, he's the community projects. You apply for

1:01them best one wins. No, no, you had to be invited to apply and guess what the majority of the result was. And as I showed you last night, there is a golf club in regional Victoria that's full of asbestos desperately needs a little bit of financial help. But when they went to the local MP, the local MP says, sorry, you haven't been invited because the money's going to the Marricville golf club, of course, in the Prime Minister's home electorate. Now, remember, all of this was just outrageous when it was the Liberal Party and the money was a lot less. Now, remember, Bridget McKenzie was in a world of trouble because she was a member of a shooting club that got some of the money from the then federal government. She was the minister at the time. Well, guess who is a member of the Marricville golf club? Anthony Albanese. It is apparently undeclared, but he was out and about today saying, oh, no, it just doesn't matter. I don't really go. It doesn't really matter to me. Well, then why are they getting the cash? Anyway, he decided to, as I say, go the full Trump

2:03and he was going the media and didn't the love his love of fight of left on left where he was cracking into the ABC, who, as I told you last night, scented this on the 730 program and have been doing pretty strong coverage about this all day because it stinks. It's half a billion dollars of taxpayers' money that ends up with the Labour Party in the Oso convenient marginal seats that they either want or want to win at the next election. Here he is doing his best orange man impersonation. 15 years ago, someone decided to say, oh, we'll make him an honorary member. I don't have a card. I don't go in there. I haven't been in there for years. The ABC were told this. And the ABCs should do better. Oh, oh, oh. Now, of course, the ABC will not turn on the Prime Minister. It's just a way of him trying to say, here I am, being strong to everyone.

3:03Remember, the fundamentals here is, how do you feel about a half billion dollar fund being invented to advantage the political party of the day that is also the government of the day? Now, theoretically, if there was $500 billion that they decided was for 150 electorates around the country for the local MP to be able to work out, what is the best way of spending the money? We'd be having it even chat. But instead, we are talking about this and this is a story that as much as the Prime Minister and many of his media mates would like to minimise it is not going to go away. And ironically, one of the people who is prosecuting this is the lady who had to give up her job when she was caught in all of this back in the Liberal government, Bridget McKenzie. Trust in our political system is dependent on ministers, governments and parliamentarians upholding the highest standards. I would hate to think that I am the last minister in this Westminster system to actually resign over

4:07a perceived conflict of interest and an upholding of the ministerial code of conduct. But we know you can lie to parliament like the Finance Minister did, but Alba will look the other way. You can behave like Jim Charmers. There were no problems. You can travel to the Liberal court or the accusations here and thereof, like an Annika Wells, nothing to see here, no problems. We can go through the list. You can be as clear as Claire O'Neill and no, no, no. There will be no admissions of failure even when it is half a billion dollars and it is not the ABC. It is not news 24. It is the centre for public integrity that's calling him out. Dennis Shanahan, as always, sharpen on point, makes the observation here that Alba's response to the story has now turned it into a different story. Remember the cover-up always being worse than the crime? Well, what are we talking about here? Well, the independents are now sinking their teeth into this. Now, of course, are they still of the centre left if they had to choose who would the government be after the next election? They

5:09will choose Labour. They will choose Anthony Albanese. This is no go bake up for the left. But this is a moment where the so-called integrity people actually have to call out the integrity of the government. Manigrayan asked this question in question time today. Don't you agree that government spending should be based on merit and need and should be transparent rather than being based on retaining and winning marginal seats? The Prime Minister's response, remember, the new broom, the transparent one, the one who wasn't going to do politics like those evil liberals? The three projects that are referred to in my electorate, I hesitate to find anyone who would regard them as not being worthwhile. Honourary membership, summer made a decision. I don't have a card. For two years membership is $5. We'll get them two years membership. For two years! See again, look over here. And he plays this game. Remember, he did it with the Isis brides all the

6:14time very, very clever with his language. The point is not about the Marifield Golf Club. The point is half a billion dollars. $400 million of which ends up with a Labour party wants it to go, supposedly a fund for every part of the country. Hence why the difference of $409 million to $120 million to $23 million matters. Now, David Paucock is making the most of this as he rightly should in the Senate. Now, what about this? Yesterday, he decided to ask about this. The Minister for Finance, Katie Gallagher, yes, one of the mean girls, the one who lied to the Parliament when it came to her knowledge in and around all allegations, way back when about what they have happened in an office under the former Liberal Gu- you get the whole story, right? Well, she is the finance minister

7:19is in charge, essentially, of how federal government money is spent by the federal bureaucracy. So she would be very much across this process. And generally speaking, money that is supposed to be to the benefit of community projects should be to communities everywhere, not just ones that have a Labour or might get a Labour MP. So he, of course, asks the question, this is what he posted on social media, and unbelievably when she asks for receipts and he tries to put them on the table, guess what the Labour Party didn't want to see? So the Minister says this isn't pork barreling. We haven't targeted marginal seats and then the report that shows that nearly half the money that the government made in election commitments went to marginal seats. When I try to table that, the government says no. You can't table the evidence. Labour Party, that's in not position that the coalition report barreling, they get into the hot seat and they're doing the exact same thing. It does not cut it. We have to do better as a country and we deserve better as a

8:19country. We should have governments that make election commitments that are based on need, not based on the seats that they want to win or the seats that they want to hold. This is damaging our democracy. And then when he tried to table the very report that did not come from the ABC, they did not come from news 24, they did not come from a super sleuth on the internet. Instead from I know repeat, the Centre for Public Integrity, the non-partisan group that has given it to the Libs just as hard as they have now given it to Labour, guess what the government did. They used their numbers to say no. You can't table the very report that is the receipt. I'm going to show it to you for the third time. $400 million magically ends up in the Labour Party pot. Everyone else? Look, $100 million in bad for the coalition. But are you kidding me? Now normally, at this time of the night I'm ripping and tearing about how the 6pm news lets you down. It didn't tonight. And a reporter that I have been plenty critical of for plenty of time actually saw this for what it

9:25was. Andrew Proban on Channel 9. This is how he is explaining. Now, of course, he has to find a way to make it seem like both sides are as bad as each other. Remember, this is more money and an even more bent process. But still, this is what they finally talked about on the 6pm news tonight. Whereas the sports rort scandal involved a selection process that was corrupted by politics, Labour's infrastructure grants program seemed to have no process at all except to curry political favour. Sports rorts was pork barreling by deception. This is pork barreling by design. So, one of the ways that political scandals live on is what name you end up giving them. Now, whether this is going to be, Albo's pork barreling, Albo's barrel of pork, whether it's going to be Labour's slush fund, I don't know if you have suggestions please send me an email at Paul.netus24.com.au. But it's yet another example about this government taking the piss with

10:30other people's money. Half a billion dollars. They had to demand the head when it was of a political opposite but when it is them, it's fake news. Pay attention. This is about the overall picture because as soon as you argue about the Marickville Golf Club, well he's going to go off and pretend that this is just a very small matter. It ain't, it's half a B for billion dollars. And where does this money come from? Well, I think we all know the good people of Australia, the single largest source of government revenue at the federal level, comes out of people's pay packet, not company tax, not the GST. Of course, at the state level, if you buy and sell things, you end up paying things like stamp duty. If you run a business, you've got things like payroll tax. Well, are we all sitting down? Because one of the reasons why the government thinks they can get away with spending half a billion dollars in this fashion is because government's tax take is up 60% since COVID, 60%. Now they're going to argue, well, I want we've sort of a

11:36four-fifths of bugger off for a couple of years there. So this is all just false. Let me show this to you. Australia's combined annual federal state local government tax take has left 61% since COVID to $893 B for billion dollars. Stamp duties, payroll tax, company tax, sky rocking more than double the rate of GDP growth according to the official figures. Jim Charms gets a forecast from treasury to become Australia's biggest income taxing treasurer with a share of GDP of 18.6% this financial year. He's got more money than ever before, yet he's still running a deficit and they still have to invent new ways to claw money back because they need to create slush funds like what we're talking about here. In fact, let me show you this in terms of taxation revenue, federal state, local government. You see the year's 19 and 20, the year before pandemic, the two after, well, what's happened since

12:37through the roof and that is just the taxation. Once we throw in the payroll tax, the stamp duty tax, the goods and services tax, look what's happened. Now, yes, has there been an awful lot more people that have come to the country, about 1.4 million since this government came in? Sure. But are they making the most of bracket creep? Are they finding new ways to tax you? You bet you. So no wonder. They've got more money than ever before, yet they think no accountability about how they spend it. This is red hot, whether they like it or not, whether they like the new source that talks about it or not, or whether it's going to be a pain in their backside for a little while. It should be. It's a disgrace. I hope that the Tiffany Tears, that the independence, keep the fight up about it. I hope that this is not just a box ticking exercise from the normally compliant media to say, here's the one example where we held them to account. Do it again tomorrow. Do it

13:37again tomorrow. The likelihood, of course, is most likely they won't, but still we'll keep on it. Oh, and while the government has more money than ever before, finding new ways of spending it, including completely unaccountable ways like the rort that's happening right now, come up with a good name and when we do, we'll stick with it. Guess what? Despite some signs of economic slowdown, the Reserve Bank looks like it will increase interest rates again. So yes, the great working public that is paying more tax than ever before, that is the biggest source of revenue to the government, whose biggest asset is their house, whose bill has gone up 15 times since this government came to office, get ready to pay more again. But nothing to see here, nothing to see here. Flag burning is a culture war and letting people take $2,500 of their own superannuation. Well, somehow ruin everyone's retirement. This government and the way they are swimming in cash,

14:40yet spending it for purely political reasons, purely political reasons is something we could take a couple of days to talk about. Let's see whether ADD kicks in and the usage in the moves on or people can follow the money because there's too much of it being miss spent, but it's other people's money so they don't care. The future of the country is of course being played out in our schools each and every day. Are they too far to the left? Yes, but this is not about that. I have told you for years about one of the biggest problems in Australian classrooms, which is discipline in the classrooms and every time because there'll be somebody watching, I was a horror evicute. I got sent out plenty of it suspended a couple of times. Mine is not a great school behavior story. Which is perhaps why I feel guilty as the kid who mucked up about what I did to all of the kids around me because I was carrying on like a two-bow watch. Well yet again, today we have an example

15:46of just how poorly Australian classrooms are being controlled 30 years after I left high school. Yes, I know. But also academic performance. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent by state and federal governments to so-called improve our education. Well take a look. Does this look like an improving education system? When it comes to science, yes, there's been a little bit of a blip up, but when it comes to reading down in 20 years, when it comes to maths down in 20 years. And I think part of this is because we have lost control of the classroom. Now long on other days of the cane, rightly so. But even when I was acting up like a two-bow watch, I wasn't able to do it for very long because any and every teacher would boot you out of the room and if it kept going on, you'd be off to the principal, you'd get suspended and no matter what bitching and moaning I gave to my parents, they doubled down on the punishment of the school because that's the way it's supposed to work. But nowadays, that is not the way that it works.

16:50The reality is, is that too many parents are too soft on their kids and they back their kids in to be too out of control with teachers who they seek to punish whenever the teachers try to discipline the classroom. And again, I'm not talking about six of the best. I'm saying to Johnny and Julie, shout up. Again, let's have a look at global standards and how Australia compares. This is a first world country with hundreds of billions of dollars, but we have lost the fight for discipline. Noism disorder, we are well and truly above the international average. When it comes to spend more than two hours daily on screens, Australia, in a world of pain because we are spending more time on the screens. Reports that students do not listen to what a teacher has said in all science lessons, we're worse than the rest of the world has skipped at least one day of school in the past two weeks. Look at that number at the bottom. If all that information just

17:54look at the bit at the bottom, why? Because they're sick because they're anxious, maybe, because they're wagging or they're taking the piss, probably, this doesn't cost money. We have chosen discussion over discipline. We have chosen the rights of the child over the stability of the classroom at a wider level. Now, I get very frustrated with much of the political ideology on much of our education system, but I have maximum, maximum empathy for teachers who are having to deal with kids who are not disciplined at home and they have virtually no power to discipline them at school. And what do you learn at school? At a certain point in time, you start to notice what everyone else can get away with. And then you start to go, well, what's the point in playing

18:55along? This doesn't take money, this takes resolve. Now, there are teachers who work in incredibly disruptive areas who have been able to crack this nut. The state education ministers at every level and the federal should be talking to them. How do you do it? How can we do it more? For all of our looking to the international community on so many other issues, could we start to look at it when it comes to education? Could we go and find the head of the Singaporean education system and get them just to sit up the back of the average class in suburban Australia and then have a look at their suggestions of how we run a classroom? We are failing our kids and the kids end up failing the tests, which means they are not starting life at their optimum. We have taken a world that used to be school was the microcosm of the greater world where there were authority figures, where there was a punishment to be afraid of. When you got caught doing something wrong,

20:00that was the end of the conversation. And instead, we've turned it upside down. Those kids, of course, become adults, those adults have their own kids and the problem goes down the tut. If you're a teacher with ideas, send the emails, okay? Paul at news24.com.au. Paul at news24.com.au. Now, let's talk about these social media laws, which are on their way because I've got to say, on the face of it, do I have a problem with Australians being able to have a button to decide that if they're on Instagram or you see other people you follow or a button that says, oh, show me some of the other stuff on the internet. I don't really have a problem with that. But as always, there's devil in the detail. And the devil in the detail here is a very specific power, which the government wants to give itself to be able to go after the things it doesn't like on the internet. Sarah Henderson is the shadow communications minister. She joins us now from Canberra. Let's get to the overall in a second. I'm loving to see you, Senator. Let's talk about what is inside the

21:02bill here and what is the power the minister wants to give herself here. Well, Paul, great to join you this evening. We all want to see online harms and very serious online harms not exposed at all, particularly to children. We want tougher action to empower parents, but this proposed digital duty of care law is extremely dangerous because it gives the minister unfettered powers to make regulations without parliamentary oversight in relation to categories of harm or serious harm. So that means that the minister could make a decision again with our parliamentary oversight about any material that she thinks is not appropriate or in the case of children harmful to children. So just imagine material denying the existence of climate change or questioning gender ideology. It is really quite frightening because there are no guardrails.

22:08There are no safeguards and that's why this is a very, very significant threat to free speech. But also, why does she need the power because theoretically, kids have been banned from these platforms? Well, that's exactly right. She needs these very wide powers, she would say, because the social media ban is not working. It of course only relates to social media platforms. That's been a disaster. Yes, there was all the right intent, which we also backed, but it's been very poorly designed. It's been very badly implemented and of course, there's very high rates of non-compliance. So this is just another example of Annika Wells' rushing legislation into this parliament, not doing the hard work. And of course, we know that this is a Trojan horse pull. We saw what happened with the misinformation and disinformation bill. That was a very, very scary way of regulating Australians online speech. And this is take two all over again.

23:12So the reason why I always get very nervous about individual power sitting with a specific minister is because at some point in time it is going to be somebody who is the complete opposite ideology that you may have at any one time, right? So if you're somebody who currently is hard call lefty, thinks that, you know, Libs never will get back in power. How good is this going to be? Well, guess what? At some point in time, this ends up with the political opponent. Some day this ends up with the Greens God forbid. Some day this ends up, you know, whatever, in any version of this. And my issue is that obviously I don't want to find excuses for garbage on the internet. I've spoken about it like we all have about the dangers, the manosphere, all of that stuff and completely aware of all of that. But I think that we've seen through things like the communications and media authority at times, having nebulous discussions about good taste or these sorts of things, right? There's 28 million versions of what the word harmful is.

24:16There's 28 million versions and we keep being told, you know, silence is violence and all these other definitions and backdoor words. So rather than the obvious, which is harmful, I guess you'll be doing things that are stopping the depiction of abuse. Yes, yes, yes. But then we start to get into all the other stuff when it's somebody's eight-hour day job, five days a week to look for threats. They start inventing them. Well, Paul, that's exactly right. And we don't cripple with some of the very serious harms that are outlined in this bill. So things like pornography, terrorism, material, child sexual abuse. There's absolutely no debate about that sort of horrific material. But where we have very deep concerns is the minister's unfettered ability to decide what is harmful. And that could mean almost anything. In relation to children, she's got very broad powers. And then of course, there's also an obligation on online services to basically safeguard against any sort of harm.

25:20They've got a proactive duty to do so. And when you're talking about fines of up to $100 million, you can only imagine that online services will make conservative decisions because they don't want to risk these major fines. And so that is another fetter on free speech. And as for Annika Wells, I don't know whether you caught her interview with Laura Jay's this morning. An absolute train wreck. I have no idea. She didn't even know whether news media websites were in or out. She finally agreed that news media websites are included in this bill. So there's no exemption for journalism, for media. Of course, which is a fundamental tenet of our democracy. It's a real mess. And it's another example of the insidious extreme left agenda of the Albanese government. Oh, 100%. I mean, also we've seen where the government declares what truth is. We saw that in around COVID. A more pronounced scenario in the United States.

26:25Well, of course, that being a health matter, the idea of harmful. Again, you've got to test the principles of these things, right? And the broader issues around them, how they can be misinterpreted. That's part of the process here. So again, we're not going to negotiate this publicly here. But if it ends up a very tight list of things, as you say pornography, all the rest of it, then okay, maybe there's a conversation. But one last thing here, again, devil in the detail. I'm always fascinated by this, which is so under the rule, which would say, I can press a button and all I will see on Instagram feed is the people that I follow. Let me guess, is there an exemption for political communication? Is there an exemption that Annika Wells might be able to pop up in my feed still that those Labour backbenches who spend all day, every day making social? Is there a secret little back door where it doesn't apply to the people in the building you're in right now? Wouldn't that be wonderful? Of course, Annika Wells gave an interview where she talked about, we've got to turn the algorithm off because no one trusts even government anymore.

27:26And I would say, Annika, no one trusts you because you are the worst lying government we've ever had in power, including the horrific lies of this Prime Minister. No wonder no one trusts you. So look, we're very open-minded about this whole discussion, about turning off the profile or the content recommendation algorithm. We think that much more work needs to be done. And of course, when this was announced yesterday by the Prime Minister, he talked all about my feed, my way, we're going to make sure that we can protect your feed. But guess what, there's nothing in the bill, which actually outlines that particular power. That is another regulation making power of the minister. So look, there's a lot of smoke and mirrors, but fundamentally, we have to protect free speech in this country. It's a fundamental part of our democracy pool. This is a serious threat to free speech. And if the government is not prepared to move on these incredibly important issues,

28:30I mean, this is a disaster, this is a disaster, it cannot be supported. 100%. I'm not too interested in Annika Wells' versions of thumbs up and thumbs down, because she can't even add up all she's. All right, thank you very much, Senator, I do appreciate it. Senator Sarah Henderson there is the shadow communications minister. There's something in this. There really is something in this. Again, they want to keep it all at the headline, the joys, they've actually got to produce the bill and the details that are inside it. Let's see, where all of this process goes. It's messy, but it's one worth talking about. We would have made that in a whole lot more. In a moment or two's time, it told you it's fight night. Ah, the man cave's going to be rocking in a moment or two's time. There's one of our guests think this is a rot, or just delivering on election commitments. This will be fun. Or in a sec. Thank you very much for watching. We'll have to put off the fight in the man cave for another time, but we'll still have a fight. Don't worry, Linda Scott joins us now from Canberra, Lucy's Ella, which was ready to look at right in the eye and have a go here in the man cave. We'll put it off for a week. They love you, see you both ladies. All right, Lucy. So the government comes up with half

29:33a billion dollars that they decide to send mostly to where they want it to go politically, yet the prime minister's trying to do fake news around all this. What are you reckon? Oh, might this be the time we disagree? And I upset a couple of viewers. I don't know, I get beat up vibes around this. Really? Yeah, I get a little bit of beat up vibes. And I know that a lot of comparisons have been made to the situation that occurred with Bridget McKenzie when she was forced to resign over the sports rules of fair, but at that time as well, I think Piemann C had declared that she had breached ministerial rules. It'll be very interesting to see what would happen with this if it went to Piemann C. and it had to go through similar checks and balances, but this just felt a little bit like it was clutching, given that it's his local golf club. He doesn't go. Is there much in this poorly? No, I'm not pretending that the membership to the golf club is the hook of which all of this sits on. I'm talking about how does it work that half a billion dollars, which is supposed to be for community organisations,

30:33ends up $400 million in labour seats versus 123 million in coalition seats. Linda, what exactly is the best defence of this? Because I have no doubt you've got it for me. Well, look, as you know, I hate to agree with Lucy. No! I actually do agree with her here, and I think it is important to call out, right? This is a grant programme that is designed to allow government to meet their election commitments. Invitation only. It is assessed independently by public servants for value for money and for aligning with the promise. My understanding is it was found to be value for money and committed to by Minister King, whose electorate is not the electorate of grain that were the golf club was. No, I'm not talking about the freaking golf club. Come on, mate. It's half a bill. That's what I'm talking about. If four hundred and two fix a leaking sewer, that was literally pumping poo into a local river, right? So if you think about what everyone can certainly add, that use of public money, I'd love to meet them, right? But

31:38this is a grant programme design for governments to, you know, fulfil their election commitments with property and transparency and value for money. Either the coalition thinks the government should not uphold their election commitments or they do. If they do think they should, because they're in the House every day here in Canberra saying, uphold your election commitments, how do they think the government should do it? They should do it through this grant programme with rules that is assessed by public servants as being value for money and in line with the commitment, right? So governments have to have a way of making the commitments about public money and then delivering them. And if they can't, they can't hold their promises. All right, so I'm going to test this talking point, which is, because Stephen said the same thing last night, right? So there's the collective mind is working heavily on the red side of the desk, right? Okay. And Lucy, there's definitely not on the red side. Well, I'm talking about the golf club. I don't speak to you. She's just... Okay, okay, here we go to the man with the red jacket on. Okay, here's the deal. There are 150 electorates in the country of which

32:42labour ran in 150 seats, which meant they made a promise in 150 seats, right? Correct. We'd all agree, that's the case. Correct. Right. They won 94 of the 150 seats, which is a lot, but it's not as much as everyone can see here where 400 million of the 500 million ends up only in the 94 seats that labour had a focus on. That's my point, Lucy. The whole point, right? Now, every single one here, am I coming out against the spending on the swimming pool? No. Just saying, if this was $400 million of when the Libs wanted it to go. Oh, they'd been making a big deal out of it. That's my point. And let's highlight that point, right? Because it is a very fair one. I think what gets a lot of people's noses out of joints is the level of hypocrisy that is leveraged at situations and in situations like this. So when we cast our minds back to when Bridget McKenzie was forced to step down, Alba was going hard for her, right? Saying she's got to go, she's got to this, she's got to that. And credit to the teals, at least they are being level on this, right? At least they're going

33:42in both directions here. Let's see how long it lasts. Yeah. All right. They're going to still back in labour anyway. They too will climate change issue pops up and then we'll watch them get off kilter. But there is that issue of pork barreling, which has been something that occurs within politics and has for a very long time. All right. You think? We have to admit that. I'm off in the wrong place. You can always send me the email. No, I think you're off in the wrong place. I just think you're saying you can send me an email because this is an open communication program. We like it. All right. Linda, the social media stuff. I don't know how much you just heard the the shadow minister again on the headline of stuff. I got kids and I'm also a victim of the doom scroll like everyone else in the middle of the night. Okay. I don't have any problem with a button that says I'm only going to follow and I'm only going to see what Lucy posts and I'm only going to see what Linda posts and I'm only going to say what we're made fine. Right? No problem. I think most people will end up choosing the what else is around because that is the way it works on YouTube and Spotify and all the rest. The anyway you learn about something outside of your own

34:43little column is generally that way. However, the specific power for the minister to decide what is harmful. Do you have any concerns if let's imagine Barnaby Joyce became the communications minister in the next parliament and he had individual power over what is harmful on the internet. How would you feel about that Linda because that is what we're being told is the consequence of the bill. Well, look, I'm here in care of this week trying to meet with Barnaby Joyce about superannuation. He's not taken up my offer to meet. So I'd like to have a conversation with him. Let me say that on Sky News. Sorry news 24. Please, please. Sorry news 24, my apologies. But I do want to say this Paul. I think that the digital duty of care is a really important legislative principle that countries around the world are now looking out and that countries like Australia should legislate for so I really like a true communist. But I do understand that the devil is in the

35:44detail right. Sure. Do understand that we've got to have protections around news. We've got to have protections around journalism. We've got to have protections around these things. But it's a very hard thing to legislate and it's a very hard path to weave through. So I mean, I'll speak very honestly with you. I think we've got to find a way through here. But what I don't want to see is a whole bill with a digital duty of care knocked over because the stuff that is being served up, as you say, you know, to my teenage sons, to your children, it is socially, morally, ethically unacceptable. It is dangerous. It is changing young people's brains in a way that is so unhelpful for them and their future lives and those of every other Australian. We have got to do something about this and it is really urgent. The social media companies need to take more responsibility. There's a bit also right. I would argue that the brain rot that exists on reels and shorts, right, that I often end up walking into the room and barking at the kids because it's some, you know,

36:44person dressed in pink unboxing something like just the crap. There's so much garbage in and around the internet. But again, a whole other bunch of stuff that's harmful. Loose again, normally with whole hands, but your thoughts on this? I think this is just as, you know, Peter Kredlin put it, this is the Trojan horse. I think the whole phrasing around this digital duty of care, this just sounds like insanity to me quite frankly. And I think a lot of that was revealed this morning in what was a car crash interview between Laura Jay's and their communications minister, Annika Wells, was she effectively revealed that news organisations would be caught up in the algorithms. There have been so many instances where I've been scrolling through and I see a news service that I don't follow journalists that I don't follow. This would be captured by all of these. Correct. And again, as Linda rightly put, the devil is in the data, but we're starting to see more of these details emerge and I'm not agreeing with them. I don't think that any of this is actually going to protect children. I think if you're that damn concerned about what

37:44your children are being exposed to, get them off it completely. You are the parent, you are the authority. But also to me, the children excuse, as given by the minister, haven't you already introduced a band that means the kids are there? By the way, you mentioned that conversation between Laura and the minister for freebies, the minister for all she's the one with so many free tickets that she's got them on herself. She's not going to New York though, remember? She's not going. So guess what? I found the tape and here it is. If you were turning off the algorithm that would change how news websites would be seen, would it not? Well you as a user would be making a choice about whether you wish to follow the algorithm or whether you wish to follow your following feed, which is that your friends and the online creators that you choose to follow. So if you choose to follow news 24, as a on your following feed, you'd see it. So Sassy, always Sassy, she had no idea. No. Zero. She was talking about. Now there's something that I should talk about and I desperately

38:47want to talk about with both of you, which is again the crazy side of the internet, the abusive side of the internet. And there are, and I've talked about this plenty of times before, way too many threats that are made against people in the public eye and the types of threats that women receive in the public eye are a disgrace. The idea that because you disagree with somebody, oh, here's the reference to assault, right? The worst possible physical violations, all the rest are disgusting, right? Disgusting. Now I would love a system where the most hateful stuff that is typed somehow is killed before it even can make it online, but sadly it exists. So Linda, how do we deal with this? Because it is a disgrace, it is not okay. If I could jump in front of a comment that hurts any of my friends, I gladly would, but both of you have been on the end of it. So what is the potential solution here? Well, Paul, I don't want you to jump in front of anything because I don't

39:47want you to be unsafe either, but I do think it's important to thank you. Call out that it continues to be a problem and it does seem to be increasing. There's an incredible article today talking about some of the sad arrests that have been made by people who have made threats against elected representatives in, you know, state and federal parliaments. I had a few death threats when I was in council at the city of Sydney, but I have to say even as a person who's left politics now, you know, who serves only on boards, even there I get sometimes a pretty violent aggressive threat. So it's pretty astonishing to me. I just wanted to call out that I do think this is occurring for women in a range of roles, not just politics. And, you know, whatever we can do to ensure that, you know, going to work is the safe space, whether that's here in federal parliament or, you know, in a boardroom or in a shop in Woolworths, you know, you're seeing workers get abused even in,

40:47as their union is called at the SDA, even in kind of retail stores. Like this has just got to start. People deserve to be safe. If people feel, you know, angry, can we get into a sport or something? Go for a run, you know, just please don't take it out on other people. And again, anyone who decides to be rude to these two ladies, guess what you've just triggered this bloke, all right? Yeah, but you can do it because you know what, whatever. I don't care. All right, I've got to go. A lady who's said, well, suddenly immune to the world of internet commentary is our different Megan Kelly. We're going to have a chat to her about some of these jurors have started to talk in this crazy story about the lady who admitted to killing her kids, but they didn't think she should be found guilty. This is crazy. I want to say. It's our favorite time of the week to talk to our favorite person in the world. The one the only, the one of all Megan Kelly, Megan, love it. I see you. So we're starting to hear from some of the jurors that were in the case and couldn't make a decision about whether the mother accused of killing three of her own children was guilty of murder or not. Now she admitted,

41:52of course, to killing those kids, but postpartum depression, well, it seemed to play a massive factor in the case. What do they say? Oh, M G. So now as we go to air here, the three of the jurors have sat down with one woman who wants us to be clear that she is a journalist who is a commentator, not a reporter. So she sat down with three of the jurors and I believe one of them is the four person and this is this was her tease for the segment, which is all we have right now. Quote, one of them, the jurors said they were so impressed that if they needed representation, they would hire Kevin Reddington, Lindsey Clancy's lawyer. They said they thought the prosecution showed no compassion during the trial and Ronnie talked a lot about how managing those deliberations was harder than her work as a fifth grade teacher. Oh, like the pesky one hold out who really wanted

42:53to hold the mother who murdered her three children accountable, scold, scold, scold, which it all makes perfect sense now. How these 11 little disc discers couldn't get the one dude who was like, I'm voting to hold her accountable. I think she's guilty. I'm not buying this nonsense and I'm not going to vote non-kilted by reason of criminal defector in sanity. That they basically in the end found a clever way of getting him by saying he expressed a doubt. He expressed a doubt, but he refuses to apply the standard of reasonable doubt to that doubt. Daddy, that's what they ran to the judge with. Oh, daddy, please make our brother behave and do what we told him to. And the judge was spot on understanding this sounds like a dispute effect. He's got a doubt, but it doesn't rise in his mind to the level of a reasonable doubt. And that's absolutely normal for any jury deliberation. Reasonable doubt beyond all reasonable doubt doesn't mean beyond

43:56all doubt. It's an important, very important relevant distinction in the jury room. Now also let's talk about her lawyer because her lawyer is now openly asking for a pardon from President Trump, which is weird because I thought she wasn't guilty according to the lawyer. And there's a chance of a plea deal because of how the jury was locked up. What's going on there? Well, I mean, I think they're going to say their position is probably we all agree she should be committed to a mental health institution. And let's just have a deal that says that, Mr. Prosecutor. And the prosecution has been saying, I don't agree. I disagree to disagree. I don't believe she belongs in the mental institution. I believe she belongs in jail because we're at risk of her going into the mental institution and then five, ten years, or even sooner, some woke head of the mental institution says, oh, she's not like the rest of them. She's not self-immolating. The problem that the prosecution couldn't get passed in this case

44:58was that her mental unwellness did come on suddenly and it was whatever six months after the birth of her child. And she was saying the right things about postpartum and postpartum. And she did in Lindsey Clancy's defense reach out to many people for help and didn't get the adequate help she needed. Can you believe it's a year in the next couple of days since he was murdered? Who knew that he was the load carrying beam of the 2024 election so much as fall and a part on the right side of politics since? How you're feeling a year on from you losing your mate? It's hard to believe. It really does feel surreal to me. I remember him so clearly coming on the show when he would pop up and his manner and the banter we'd have off air and he was constantly doing 12 different things. Charlie, he would answer a question and you'd see him searching something up on his computer. He wanted to get ammo for his point. Even live on the air with you, try to advance the case and keep the audience up to date on the last minute twists and

46:01turns of every story. And it's just, I have so many aspects of it. Now I know Eric, I didn't know when Charlie died, but now I know Erica and I think like the intense pain that she's had to deal with this year, the intense responsibility. And then I try to separate that from my own feelings of loss, which obviously don't compare, but I just, you know, there's that too. And then the feelings of loss for, as you point out, the conservative movement, you know, I've asked myself 10,000 times how this past year would have gone differently for Republicans if Charlie had lived. I miss him for so many reasons, Paul. I miss him. I miss his own guidance to me. I miss his own friendship to me. I miss his leadership. I miss his, I miss his affability, his sense of humor, his just willingness to engage anybody. You know, he shared what you and I share, which is he would talk about a controversy that one of his friends got in, but he would not rip on the friend. Like he never would have been shamed into breaking up with anybody at another person's

47:07demand. And you and I both know that is very rare and very hard to do. But he knew because he, he was subjected to it. Charlie was one of those controversial figures on the planet because he did speak very frankly about some issues that affected the left, right? He was maybe a little less frank when it came to right wing criticism, but when it came to the left, he would, he would let you have it. And that made him completely loathed by some section of the left who didn't see the other side of him, which was all humanity. So my only hope is that in, in the fullness of time, people, even his detractors will see who he was. Like it kind of bums me out that the Charlie Kirk clips, they're not as ubiquitous on the air anymore. They're not all over X. They're not being exchanged. I don't know if they're still changing people the way they did in the months after he died. And I just feel like, well, it's going to be up to the rest of us to try to keep him alive, his message alive, the real Charlie Kirk protected. And then secondly, try to continue

48:11the spirit, you know, in the overall mission of bringing, bringing, yes, the conservative movement together, but also beyond that, to some extent mankind definitely Christians. You know, he, he was a very important voice for keeping Christians on the right path. And he would say Judeo Christian tradition alive, bound together, and focused on the, on the right items that we can agree on. That's, that is a herculean challenge as it turns out. No wonder, you know, it took somebody like Charlie to do it without us noticing. And now it's just going to be a team effort to try to everybody pick up the, the mantle and try to do him some justice. Beautifully said. Well, again, sorry for all of us mate. Love you to catch up with you and look forward to seeing you next week. Thanks Paul. See you soon.