Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant the accuracy of closed captions. These are derived automatically from the broadcaster's signal.
Sky News Paul Murray Live -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) This program is live captioned by Ericsson Access Services.

Hello, good evening and welcome to Wednesday night, the two most fired up hours on Sky News begin now. If you want to be part of it, use the hashtag PM live, if you are on Twitter, or send me an email. Hello to the Drummonds watching us in Hong Kong and everyone is watching us around the country, you are doing so on Australian channel. Nicholas Rees and Peter Cridland, my earpiece doesn't work tonight, here in the same room at the same time, and I cannot wait to you that for at least the first hour. It is a big and busy show we have you this evening. First, if you things worth mentioning at the top of the show. Gillian Triggs, thankfully this idiot's long annoying repetitive selectively outraged term as the boss of the human rights commission is over. Today was the last day and befitting the person who has given no interviews to a journalist that would push back against her world view, no one who would give her a tough time about prosecuting children or rather students, at the University in Queens land.We are regressing on almost every front, whether it is women, indigenous, homeless, and most of course asylum seekers and refugees.And why is that?I think it is partly because we have a government ideological opposed to human right and I think it is exacerbated by the distance of most Australians from where these problems are actually most visible. This woman is a joke. Yet she will forever be held up as a hero for the left because she only started to care about children in detention after it was a Liberal government that stopped the votes and started clearing children out of contention. She was the human rights Commissioner under the Labor Party that had more kids in detention than at other times in our history. She said nothing. She is about as partisan as the nonpartisan public service gets and I am so glad that her time is over. Sadly of course we will continue to hear from her and there will be people stupid enough to nominate her for Australian of the year last year. But how did someone as allegedly smart as Gillian Triggs say we have a government ideological opposed to human rights in Australia? What utter full hit. No government will do anything to rein it in. Think about the free education system and the welfare system that means that even when you constantly turned down the opportunity to work, we will keep giving you the welfare, and you get a million chances. This is a Sheila who wants to pretend that human rights is something this government is ideological opposed to when they funded and kept this idiot in her job, that funds team unpronounceable to literally go on the internets to complain about Bill leak? If this government was ideological opposed to human rights, do you think they would have had half of the connections about trying to put in national security laws they have currently had? This woman is a liar, and I have long wanted you to do just a little bit of research about Gillian Triggs and the guilt at the very heart of her soul. That has driven her to say the stupidest things for a very long time. All I will tell you is this, in the next ad break I want you to Google Gillian Triggs good weekend profile, and make sure you read all the way to the end, because it will explain an awful lot about this woman and why you should ignore every one of her pronouncements to come. Gillian Triggs good weekend, read it all the way to the end. George Pell has gone before court today and let's be, he not only had to have a police presence but there was more media surrounding his appearance at court than you would get someone charged with multiple accounts of murder. There were protests is, there were people who were trying to say that there should be justice for all victims, even though they have no direct connection to the matter is currently before the court in Victoria and George Pell. I have said this for a long time. I have been very critical of George Pell for a long time and have copped plenty of criticism for it but does anyone believe that this book will be able to get a fair trial? Does anyone believe they will be to find 12 objective Djourou is? When the jostling and carrying on is the physical manifestation of what has been the media obsessively so without using him as the ultimate symbol of everything that is wrong, prove the blue wrong, with the Catholic Church. -- prove a blue wrong. I think it is fair to say there was no special treatment for this person to go before the court when the average person going before the courts does not need a police escort. Also worth talking about here, the sound of my breaking heart. How is this? In the UK, they have decided no more petrol cars, not in a sort of little left province or a local council, the entire country, 2040, no more petrol cars to be sold, no more diesel powered cars to be sold at all. It is macro let's go electric, and not in the never-never, but in the medium term, probably the time that most of us will be thinking about saving up and buying for a brand-new car. This has happened in France, lots of other little pockets of Europe, but the idea it is happening in the UK, get ready for people in this country to stay at saying this is the issue here. My issue is always how much is it going to cost? Currently you can buy cars in Australia that yes are fuelled by that evil petrol the $20,000. Tesla, I think they are only asking $80,000 for their cheap version. Of the electric car. The electric car coming, and compulsorily so, to the UK for 2040. The challenge for anyone who gets to ask a leader in this country is you going to make a similar decision here, because you remember there was that conversation about the tax on pollution that they were really putting together but then pretended that they weren't. Maybe the way around it is a bipartisan attempt to get rid of the V8. If so, you can take it out of my cold, dead hands. And finally, while Gillian Triggs wants to pretend the world is a grossly unequal place, we learn today that there are more female doctors in Australia than men. We learned last week there are more female lawyers than men. This doesn't happen through quotas or targets, it happens by girls doing better at school, qualifying to do the courses at university, and then going on to fill those professions. No, lefties, if you put the work in hard enough at school, you get to become the ultimate of our society, doctors and lawyers. In later life. Without any helping hands. Just with these. Let me know what you think. Caroline Marcus is standing up front at central station in Sydney because there was a shooting taken place out there where there is an awful lot of buses and a lot of people. What happened there this evening?Good evening to you, Paul. It has been very busy here at central station, as you know one of the busiest if not the busiest train stations in Sydney. You can see behind me police have cordoned off an area here of the station, and friends except down again. They have set up a police tent, and that is because they have shot a man dead here, after receiving reports of an armed robbery at a florist at the station. When they turned up to the station, there was a brief stand-off with police, and then police fired a number of shots at the man, and he has been killed in that stand-off. We actually have some video of this incident that has been posted to social media, and we will bring that to your viewers. Should however issue a warning that it is confronting. We won't show you the moment the man is actually shot, but you will hear some of the sounds of police firing their weapons, and you will see the man rushing towards police before they fire their weapons, so let's take a look at that.

GUNSHOTS.We have also spoken to some witnesses here, including the manager of the cafe directly opposite where this happened, who heard the whole thing.First we heard screaming, put her down, put her down, I walk towards the door, I saw policeman, I only noticed the two guns drawn and in the four or five shots, and then that was it really, no movement in the body, nothing.And you saw the man they were shooting?I saw the back of the man, I did not notice a face.That man was allegedly holding a weapon during that reported armed robbery, it has been reported that was a pair of scissors. We are yet to confirm that but police will be doing a media conference here at the scene in the next hour or two, they tell me, so we will bring you more details then.Thank you. Joining me in the studio to talk about so much this evening, no more marking around, no more delays, that was a good trick last week. The writer of the Herald Sun, you can see him on Friday nights hosting politics HQ. Nicholas, welcome to the studio. Great to be here, I am pumped, so many scores to settle the night and if you ever think I would take a dive, you don't know me.I know, I know!A genuine problem with the earpiece.You can read her columns in the weekend, and you can see her on Jones and Coe and with Andrew Bolt, but the highlight of my TV week is to sit with Peter Peta Credlin.Mine too.Gillian Triggs, her exit interview today, and the absurdity of what she has to say about any government, left, right, centre, in this country being ideology played a postage and rights, one more time of the door today, your five-year
darling.As you prepare to walk out term is up. Any regrets?No regrets, I believe we have done a terrific job, we have stuck to the facts, we know the facts are right, we know the law is right, we are very proud of that. There are no open regrets and I very much hope in the future the commission can continue to be fearless in standing up for the rights of Australians.Full hit

Tim three macro this is a woman who as I have said before, Gillian Triggs, good weekend 2014, I have very little judgment for.Can I say she was not a conservative coalition picked for that job, put that on the record, she was not one of ours. I don't think she is even impasse will. I think she has been quite a reprehensible head of human rights commission. She has preyed upon the very worst parts of the left culture and legitimise them in the pure Aqua see. Her positions on things right across the board, to go out and say Australians have grave human rights abuses in women, it indigenous, Homans -- homeless, asylum seekers, where was she when 15,000 asylum seekers came here by boat? When thousands died at sea? When there were many, many children in detention under the former Labour government? She is complacent and she was silent. She is a highly political and partisan figure. I think as soon as the Coalition got in and started to take the children out of detention, to call an enquiry at that stage just showed exactly where her politics were.Australia is a signatory to the human rights convention but we are only one of 27 countries that actually take people out of the camps into somewhere else.Correct.Out of all the countries in the world we are manifestly against human rights. It is just rubbish. Are you able to have a go at the patron saint of everything awesome?Let me agree with you on a couple of points. And then say something different. Watch said was wrong, this government does not have an ideological problem with human rights, she definitely overreached with her comments today. But I also think she has been subject to an endless stream of venom during her time as human rights commissioner, and that has been, in many cases, very unfair. And I think, for the most part, she has handled that with quite a degree of grace and fortitude. It is very important I think that this country has a human rights commission, they have an important role to play. We should not forget Tony Abbott wanted to abolish the human rights commission. Hang on, let me finish. I will let you finish but let me correct that record, because she writes that same point, she says Tony Abbott campaign to get rid of the human rights commission, she is wrong. Tony Abbott has only talked about removing the human rights commission since 2017.OK.Tony Abbott campaign for them to do their job properly, to use their good offices after causes that deserve their attention, he ruled it out, and in the 2013 election and right up until this year. She put it in writing.The challenges that she faces, and there she is having a former Prime Minister Tony Abbott calling for the abolition of the human rights commission. I only make that point because it is symptomatic of a broader set of attacks, which she has come under and the human rights commission have come under, many of which I think are unbalanced and go too far.But hang on, this is the thing, when she turns around and goes after Bill Legg to doing a cartoon, or goes after those students saying, pay five grand now, we will comfort $250,000 later, that has to be strikes you are out, not black marks against your record, and that is where the venom has come from, how she has used her power.I am not saying she has a perfect track record. And think she was wrong on that. But Australia is one of the few advanced democracies that does not have a Bill of Rights. Why don't we? Because there is a culture that somebody

I also think it is the case in Australia that under the veil of fighting terrorism, we have seen certain rights that have been fundamental to our justice system rolled back. You would know about that as a lawyer. Peta. You see in many spheres of Australian rife that macro life that rights are under attack, so I think it is a good thing Gillian Triggs has taken a strong stance was top Rosalyn Croucher who has been appointed as the new Human Rights Commission, I think she will do a great job as well.Just jumping in on that Bill of Rights comment, because this gets thrown around and Gillian Triggs used the example in her interview today. It is true that we are one of a handful of Western democracies that do not have the Bill of Rights, I accept that point, but the reason we don't, I know previously Labour have but it has been a dormant issue for some time, right now we believe in this country that the politicians who are elected by the people, that representative, Chrissy have the last say, because if we don't like where they take out human rights through the statutes, through legislation, we bounced them out of government. The idea that we have a Bill of Rights that you take that power to a bureaucratic representative, like Triggs. If we had a Bill of Rights, she wouldn't be there under Labour. They would have made her the head of our Bill of Rights oversight committee. If she had the power and a Bill of Rights, God help us.What is the one thing you would like to see at the top of the Bill of Rights, what is the one right that needs to be enshrined in our constitution, like the right to bear arms in the United States, that can be misinterpreted, reinterpreted, deliberately flouted the generations after it was put in. If you had to write a rule of one, what is the rule?I would start with the sanctity of human life.So abortion is out?No, I don't think it would be.This is the problem. You would put in a right to a fair trial.But you have that now.What is missing? Discrimination laws exist that mean I can't say I am not hiring you because you are back, white, whatever. We have defamation laws that say I can't make up things about you on air. We have suppression orders that means latticed -- matters like George Pell can't be discussed, because he said free speech, then we could randomly speculate about anything going on before the courts.Our democracy is not perfect. We have seen whether Moxey is around the world have gone from being fair and balanced, like we are talking about, to seeing some pretty serious invasions of human rights, sometimes far worse. What a Bill of Rights does is entrench things. There are certain rights that are inalienable, and a politician can come and go but these things cannot be violated. So it is an extra insurance policy. A safety check on human rights and decency.I understand that but the interpretation of what those Bill of Rights stand for and mean is then left the bureaucrats and the judiciary, who are not elected, as opposed to a Parliamentary system with the legislation that enshrined issues as we come along, which has or has been the case in Australia, is responsible to the people, because they can be taken out of power. It is a far more people directed Bill of Rights system as opposed to an arbitrary system adjudicated by an elected officials and that is the worry.So there is nothing in our political system that is perfect, just an extra love of insurance, and you would have mechanism that would allow it as well.Let's move onto other things. Do the excuses stack up or not? The number one thing the media were trying to do the days go and find mum. Here is an example.

It has been this kind of week for the time one family. Brian Canavan was not keen on talking. Back in can break from Barnaby Joyce was slightly less reluctant.I see this person is a great person pronation and I wanted resolved.He will remain as the Harcourt -- the High

Labour calling on more documents to be released.It will be useful of the Italian consonant or government could release all of the documents. Barnaby Joyce said I have never been to England. Only problem is...My grandmother is endless, I am working on the presumption I am not English, I have never been to England. But he haslast time -- this time last week. He later clarified it in a trade. Twente for hours on, I like Matt can a bank everything he has fought for and the resources stuff, that he is protocol, but this will not stand up, ignorance of the law will not be a defence against it, wishing it was not the case is not going to somehow undo it. I just find it implausible the idea that mum didn't tell him for 11 years. More importantly on top of that how the hell is the High Court going to turn around and say because you did not know, that is fine?That is not the argument, it is not ignorance of the law, it is whether he was Julie committed as a citizen, even under Italian law, and I am not OK with that, but it is a European law basis, he would have to commission his movement from being a non-Italian citizen to an Italian citizen. Whether his name is on the paperwork or whether it is signed by him. The other things, instrumentalities are the things the High Court will look at but I will say this. I declare an interest, I was the one who hired Matt Caravan to work for the Coalition to further -- the first work for Barnaby as Shadow Finance minister under Tony Abbott and then he progressed and became a senator, so I have known him for a long time. Do you really think if he knew back in 2006 long before he was even a staffer that he had Italian citizenship or thought or might have or could have discussed it with his mother, do you think that somewhere along the line before he stands for Parliament this guy's and economics graduate, not a stupid idiot, do you think you would not have rescinded and announced that citizenship? Ike Specter would. I agree and I am all in on the guy but let's supplement him being a member of the Greens and the same thing came up. Presumably he has enough of a concern to resign from Cabinet. Otherwise it is there is no paperwork I have never seen anything in my life, I battle on.If I was Prime Minister you would demand his resignation because you don't want the distraction. I think it is a line ball argument with the High Court, I think it is just as likely the High Court will kick him out as keep coming. I think this is uncharted territory. It is much easier argument for the other two who were born overseas. His mother was born in Australia.It is absurd. It strikes me as odd that your mum Kangogo in there, whack in some paperwork and you see don't know about it.And the witness top of all of that, Nicholas, we have heard all day from a million people who have direct experience with this, you are also dealing with the local council in Italy that help, some have higher thresholds than other. The idea that anywhere in the world you can be signed up to citizenship and not have to sign the papers as an adult, that is concerning. Secondly, I like the guy, I don't want to talk about this but that is not an excuse not to talk about it. This guy's not going to win.I don't share Peta's view about the way of the law is likely to go but I must confess I am not an expert. I am not sure how it will stack up. The key point is he says that his mum made him an Italian citizen without his awareness. He was an adult when this happened.Think about our own parents, would your mum not mention this for 11 years?By the way, I've made you an Italian citizen.I think it is difficult to say that the 16 years or whatever his mother didn't say anything, but I do think if there is not a signature, if he hasn't been part of the commission of this citizenship, it is like, you know, someone makes you, points you to a position, or you get married in some wacky religion without your consent, you are hardly married, so I think you have two as an adult be party to it.What about the other issue here, Senator Malcolm Roberts, friend of the program, but again we have to bring it up, plenty of people talking about his citizenship, after being physically born in India, I think it was. He said on Twitter today, prior to nominating for the citizens -- for the Senate that I made sure I was not a British or Indian citizen and I have the documents. People say show them to us.He has produced a stacked deck, introducing he is an Australian citizen but he has not shown the evidence to prove feeders not have British citizenship. So I think you have to be a little bit suspicious about it. There is a bigger point here, though. There are examples here may be the Greens being a bit dopey, maybe Matt caravan is a bit unfortunate. Malcolm Roberts, who knows, he is a strange cat. But the law is an ass, all of these moments of got few, where you have people who effectively have lived in Australia all their lives, did not even know they were citizens of another country, finding that their Parliamentary careers are over. That is not a good outcome.I disagree. To require a change, what is the yes campaign for a referendum to say you can have jewels citizenship and be... People will say, I will pay you, you have to be 100% said Saint of Australia. It will not pass.So in every other job in our society it is OK to serve -- to have jewels citizenship.I am not paying for the other job.So if you are born

I would not be happy if there were some other countries I won't name on the show and people had July loyalties. I have no issue with this law. I think it is a crock that these people have got themselves caught out, because if I had grandparents even from another country I would want to be absolutely sure before I put my hand up to nominate that once I got in I would not lose my seat.I am going to take a break.Should the law not say you be given a period of time in which you must pronounce it?It is called the four year run. Clean up your act before you put your hand up to run, that is the way it goes. When you sign a statutory declaration or trying to get benefits or welfare or something on your tax, they can go to you for signing the full statement. The nomination form is the full statement.We should look after Nick we all know he will run one time. Are you clean, mate?Clean it all up.Have you got duel?I have family from all parts of the world.Get on the blower.Back in a sec, plenty more to talk about, ripping the ALP in half, in particular in Victoria.

Thank you very much for watching. One of the many people excited Nicholas is in the studio is Chris Kenning, who will you will see in about 90 minutes. He is itching to get on the air at any time. If you want to put the microphone on, Chris, you can join a whole segment, I don't mind! Ready to go two rams? One of my favourite into lockers. Let's see what happens. Let's have a chat about George Pell and what happened today in front of court. This is one of the most difficult things about talking about this. There are a series of things meaning we cannot talk about what is going on inside the court. We can only talk about what happened today outside. What happened outside the court today was a disgrace. It was a disgrace of the people who decided to confront him and about the amount of media that over covered him. It was not one camera from each organisation. When you look at this scrum, this was called the global. The police were around him, as well. I don't think you can find a group of people who can be a jury.Let's have a look. One of the Pope's closest advisers and today George Pell was one of hundreds of accused criminals in the busy Melbourne Magistrates' Court. In pictures sent around the world, George Pell was surrounded by police as he entered court for the third time, just before nine a:m..Move back. Move back.The 76-year-old slowly made his way up the stairs. His high-priced lawyer placed a protective hand on his back as he formerly faced multiple historical sex offence charges. He was not required to enter a plea but nonetheless his lawyer told the court because of the public interest, he wanted to make it clear... interest, he wanted to make it
clear...

High-priced lawyer? Common criminal? And the parade for the cameras. As Andrew bolts said tonight in a pretty amazing editorial I hope everybody gets a chance to look at on Facebook, the whole, say she wasn't there would be no special treatment. It was a pretty extraordinary thing happening out of the front of the court today. If George Pell went through a back door everybody would going nuts. Finger waving and stand if he did and dammed if he didn't. That seems to explain to me a lot of aspects to this case and how can you find a jury when the devil has been on this guy in the public square for more than a generation?There has been no special treatment by the courts today. But there has by the media for some time towards George Pell. And the left elite. I have said before I had known him almost 25, 30 years. I knew him when I first went to university. I know we cannot discuss the charges because of the suppression orders. I know that man and have done for many years as a very decent and honorable person, to me. Whether that is the character of the man elsewhere in his life over these years, that will be judged by the court and will not be judged in the media. That said I think the handling today was appalling. I have been too big rallies and big political events for many years. That is not how you handle an expected scrum. It could easily have been cordoned off. I think it is fit and proper there is a full media scrutiny. Nobody who fronts the court and a Western democracy should be hidden away. He should walk through the front door. He should not be jostled and pushed. That is unbecoming of the legal system regardless of who it is. I do not think protesters and all those other people should be there but I do think media scrutiny should be. I think it was handled badly.This is the thing to me, I have never met the man and I do not like what I see publicly about something that happened and certainly historic issues in the past. I am as critical as everyone. The police today could have, should have and the court officials could have and should have been able to create an easy barricade so normal people could walk up and down until, he is coming, barricade, cameras this side, he walks on that side, it could have been and in previous occasions, for a movie premiere you do not have the kind of scrum around celebrities. Instead they wanted this today.This is the biggest legal proceeding that the Victorian judiciary has ever seen. This guy is number three in the Vatican. The Catholic Church is a movement with 1.2 billion followers. It makes him a genuine global figure. The Victorian court system has never tried someone of that position before. There was always going to be a huge media scrum today. You mentioned Corby. This is a lot bigger.The attitude... Ten, three cameras, five cameras.The CEO of the court, not only the judge but the person looking after the administration and the running of the court, should at the foresight to see what was going to happen and put in place some barriers which still allowed the media to film everything and capture what they needed to do tell the story to Australians but in a way so that there is some civility. Look in Britain, the District Court in central London, you'll find barriers are in place allowing the media to come and go a need to, but also allow...This is just the timing of the court case. He did not actually need to attend. Can you imagine if he had just sent his counsel along and did not attend?People have been very critical of the process the police went through before getting to the moment of charging. The idea there were always journalists who knew just before the announcements were made that book deals came forward to be released before they eventually has to be pulled from sale.Timing on the ABC.Now we get this scenario with a dozen either side in all of the... I mean, come on. There was a lot of issues around that. It upsets me we cannot have the actual conversation. Not guilt or innocence. That is not for us to decide but some of the trappings around it and they will be criticism even of discussing that.One point, very important, this is a man on trial in relation to historical events. We can say no more. It is not the Catholic Church on trial. People that have got criticisms about the church, this is not the vehicle for those criticisms. There are other places for that.Let's talk about... By the way, a further point about Gillian tricks, -- Gillian Triggs, when you used the word Royal Commission, we have two right now, the used detention system and institutional response to child abuse. That is hardly a country that does not care about human rights. The Australian reports about whether Federal Government wants to go here, nowhere near as aggressors as where Labour would like to go on policy and it remains pretty popular the polls, I'm surprised it is not talked about more, but this is talked about more, but this is the
Labour government has launched a war...

Treasurer Scott Morrison...

Is this going to be one of those examples, politically speaking, where this is going to be very effective, it is going to raise millions of dollars but because it is in the grey it does not have the political impact of no houses for 2019 so you get no political credit? I think it is more conjugated. It was in the budget. It is dealing with the depreciation schedule so it is how you can depreciate goods in a property you have negatively gear. I'm not giving anybody financial advice here.Not your money, your call.But basically, they will still allow people that replace items, fridges and ovens etc as new in a house they have negative link in, so that will not change. If you buy a house, what ordinarily happens is you take those goods at second-hand value. What has been happening allegedly according to Scott Morrison is people saying I will pay 400,000 for the house even though it is worth 600000 and we will put 200,000 in goods and I can depreciate those in a schedule in my text period, however long it might be. It is to close what is perceived or reported to be a loophole and puts integrity into the system. It is nothing like Labour's policy in terms of changing the way negative gearing works.The only reason I say that is when people hear about negative gearing, and everything else, that is associated with the Labour Party's aggressive policy about negative gearing.This is just a tightening up of the bookends.I agree with Peter's description of the policy. Even if you look at the scale, it is about 240 million. That is small beer in that budget. The politics is really interesting. Labour kind of those negative gearing reform. Is this the Coalition trying to dabble in negative gearing reform? Trying to do enough to show they are doing something about it while not going as far as dangerous Labour? Is that the argument, to upset the apple cart too far? I think one of the bravest things Labour did in last election was going out front foot planning what they were going to do or negative gearing. They did put provisions in it. Which I not necessarily would have done. That eases the impact of it and means the savings are further into the forward.It also means, does it collapse overnight?That has been the other issue. Presumably at the next election, if they said 2019 it is going to end up being 2021 at the next election.The political tactics is, are they trying to say they are doing something about it and then shut it down? The risk is they just to remind people about negative gearing, Labour is doing more about it and they end up in this debate on Labour territory.Quick break. Back with more including almost three quarters of 1 million people have two jobs in Australia. Why do we charge them a marginal tax rate? Honestly.

Can't believe Nicholas said did my hair look OK!HQ on Friday!Now you are defaming. We all know it was me. I will start talking about your man make up in a moment.We are throwing ourselves on grenades for you, my dear. And Peter... Plenty of things to get to, including a massive steaming get the Domestos parlour take news that will not flash in a moment or two. How is it three quarters of a million people have two jobs in Australia? It was big news today on the bureau of statistics. statistics. 763,000
statistics. 763,000 people have a second or third job...

More people are getting a second job than the total number of jobs being created where it is only one, OK? So, more created where it is only one, OK?
So, more people have doubled, or triple jobs and it is still not enough at least 49% of people that are there. We have this system were... It has never been to me. I know you get the money back at the end of the year but why do we charge the person the automatic top whack for the second job? We do not say, how much do you earn for that job and you learn exactly the same as you would for the first and it says you are only going to get between zero and this and whatever. What are we not treat the second job like it is $180,000? It is a weird structural thing.A really good policy question which I do not have a particularly good answer to. I expected was a tax rules devised in heyday in the days when they thought it was desirable for people to have one job and one only. And wanted to discourage people from going and taking other jobs. What is happening now is I do not think people are working second jobs because they love working. It is because their third job does not pay enough to make ends meet.Politically speaking, Peter, it is policy on the fly, but if you are a government and you are looking for the good news stories to help and if you want an aspirational Australia and all the rest, don't you ask why it is the case and if so can we change the system and say if you have a second job, we are not just giving you the check once a year, we'll make sure you have as much of that money for as long as possible?First thing is that you ask, is it a problem people have two or three jobs? Is it a problem? Is it or isn't it? Is it something big and should be involved in? Is it a place for government? I do not assume with every policy issue that comes up government should get involved. I know a lot are people that have two jobs but they are not full-time jobs of all time and a bit more. They are two part-time jobs. A lot people have moved from full-time employment, a lot of women. There is a time when they juggle work and particularly young children, where they will be flexible as the other couple of part-time jobs. Maybe one casual job. We talked in the break when I was at uni and at one stage I had six part-time jobs. It is all I could get and most of them were casual. I could not get a full-time job with my university load. It is not necessarily a bad thing. A lot of it is by choice. In relation to your policy question, I would suspect but do not know and I will check, I suspect it came as Nick was saying, when people had full-time positions, generally male and in the workforce and they were penalised by taking out the presumption they get into a higher tax bracket. If the cases you have two part-time jobs, you will only ever pay the amount of tax based on what you earn as taxable income in that financial year. So you will get the money back.My only thing is that whatever works for you, it is your life, good luck. But it is that question about, well, I do not understand why this rule still exists about you can have the money lasered, rather than now. You are going to get it eventually. You're getting a vocal from me tomorrow and they will be policy homework...On one point there, it actually goes to the core issue, the biggest issue in Australian politics in my view at the moment, of course many people were casual and part-time jobs because it suits the lifestyle. Students, mothers, young fathers and all that. But for a lot of people they are working a second job because they can't get enough hours in their first job. The other huge issue is real wages are falling in this country at the moment. People's pay packets are not meeting the bills coming in. Wages went up by 1.9% last year. Real cost went up by 2.1%. As in costs went up by three plus percent.What is Labour's answer question mark I think the right a lot of things you can do.-- Labour's answer? You could have it where profits get shared with workers. How does it work? Company profits are a bigger share of the national income...So take profits away from the shareholder to the employee.You put in place wage protections like awards, offer people as part of the wage system operating in this country for over 100 years, you make sure that workers get a fair share of the pie. That can be negotiated now. What is to stop a union bargaining to give people a greater increase?Because we have got a system where power is in favour of employers and an industrial relations system has run down and work bargaining power has diminished. As sure as night follows day, their share of the profit is diminishing -- diminishing. This is documented. What is your solution? Are you saying nothing should be done?No, you have a system operating in this country for industrial relations set up by your former boss in 2008-9. I sat in the chamber and watched that legislation go through. It was basically unopposed with minor tweaks for small business on our side. We accepted the mandate in the 2007 election unlike the mandates you will not accept now. There is nothing to stop the unions negotiating via a provider with employers and employees to agree on the terms and they can have wage increases. The bulk of Australia's are employed in a non-unionised workforce. In the private sector. The only thing that stops their boss giving them higher wages is the companies are often not making enough profit. The only way that will happen is if the economy and confidence is lifting. The way Canberra is run at the moment, a pox on both their houses, you can see why businesses do not want to invest and are reluctant to hire other people. There is a lack of confidence in the economy because of the shenanigans in Canberra.I think one of the things that was unavoidable in Australia which has led to a lot of problems with Australia is as soon as private family 's single owner companies listed on the stock exchange, the only thing they had to do each and every year is deliver a bigger whack, because of the people who invested in the company. What I would like to see as a more creative way of paying people wages is shares are offered lower and lower down the company. Not just to the five people who run the joint or the next level of management. I like the idea if for want of a better term and no offence to them all, if the receptionist had an interest in the profit of the company. If they had a result on the profit of the company they would see a reason to work for the profit for the company. Instead of getting the scenario where you get the people at the top getting paid and getting shares as well. I think that is what helps the broader workdays believe that they are pushing towards something. I think the problem with awards and all the rest is that if Ms people are not involved in the system when you go to your boss and say, please can I have a pay rise, the answer is no.I wonder percent agree with that.You have got to have some mechanism to say that I cannot give you cash but I will give you a very small investment...Half of Australians are employed in small business.I am not saying it is the total solution. There is a tiny proportion that are incorporated, right? You are not talking about many businesses that have shareholdings. If you are talking about the big guys, fine. But I think if they receptionist on average wages in a big company was offered the choice between more money in their pockets now and mythical shares in an entity they are probably not going to divest and sell for many years later, I think most people want the money now. This is an issue foot of superannuation for young people. -- superannuation. The new daily is a website paid for by union attenuation funds so surprise, surprise when they went hunting after Peta Credlin. I could not care less about the people who wrote it. The entirety is garbage. It is bull. It is click bait. It involves my mate so I am going to fight it good and hard because there are two lines in particular that fight it good and hard because there
fight are two lines in particular that are
utter rubbish. Tony Abbott...

Well, then!

Alright, here is the steaming Alright, here is the steaming pile of bull... Tony Abbott was in Croatia. Peta Credlin, where were you?I was in Israel. There you go. There I am! That is the Western Wall injuries. Just after prayers on the Friday. -- Western Wall.

First of all, I didn't even read this. I don't read half the tripe ot Peta Credlin. If I did -- of Peta Credlin. If I did I'd wake up miserable. The journalist - she is not a journalist. She is a bitter, twisted person. I have long been used to my name being used to drive clicksen owebsites and I -- clicks on website and I've long been used to people pontificating online, not checking the truth.Nicklaus, again, I just think this stuff, you can write whatever you want about what Peta has to say or what I have to say, or what you have to say, but to go, "Oooh, overseas, they must have been somewhere together", it is worse than wrong. It is deliberately - I think it's borderline evil sort of stuff because it's about playing to the worst possible perceptions about someone?It's completely pernicious, it is driven by immorality. Why did this write story? Peta, you are click-bait. People are intrigued by you, they want to read about you. This journalist has thought...I am not