Avi Yemini and Tofer Field dissect Australia’s 2022 election dilemma, where polls favor Labor but betting markets lean toward the Liberals under Peter Dutton, despite concerns over debt. Field’s viral "marbles video" was censored by the AEC, exposing systemic bias in institutions like the electoral system. They strategize Senate wins for freedom-friendly candidates to block bad policies or reveal major-party collusion, while Teal independents face backlash for perceived hypocrisy. Police inaction against anti-Israel protesters—like a death threat ignored until viral exposure—highlights "two-tier policing," contrasting with aggressive crackdowns on COVID dissenters. Subscriber comments amplify frustration over institutional failures and Labor’s broken promises, suggesting public fatigue with leftist globalism. [Automatically generated summary]
Australia's elections have been called and with just five weeks until the nation decides its future.
We're diving into what's ahead.
Joining me today is a guest who knows our system inside and out far better than I do and will guide us through what we can expect.
But you're tuned into the free audio version of this episode, which is great.
But trust me, it's just a taste of the full experience over at yuminireport.com.
The video edition is waiting for you and it's a game changer.
Why not head there now and join Rebel News Plus?
Because for only $8 a month, you'll unlock the video version of this show, plus complete access to every Rebel program and documentary, including my upcoming New Zealand film, dropping really soon.
We're not like the corporate media.
We're fueled by you, our viewers.
Your support keeps us independent and unfiltered.
So swing byyuminireport.com, sign up for Rebel News Plus and join the fight for truth.
Become part of the crew today.
Welcome back to the Yamina Report and oh, what a week it has been.
Exciting.
An election finally called.
The choice is between bad and worse.
But I personally think that this election is so important and it is tight.
We'll unpack it all.
I think it is.
The outcome is going to be between the very best option and very worst option.
Here today to help me unpack it all is Tofer Field.
Tofo, welcome to the show.
Look, thank you so much for having me.
I wish there was an election in Australia where I could get excited about a good result rather than terrified of a really, really bad one and just campaigning for a slightly less bad one.
But unfortunately, that's not what we have this time.
We have, as you said, between bad and less bad.
But unfortunately, there is substantial difference between those two options and I think a fairly clear choice.
But we'll go into that.
Yeah.
Look, I think that the most, and that's what we'll unpack in a few minutes.
I think the outcomes are going to be between one that is and probably most likely the worst potential outcome compared to when I say the very best outcome with what we have.
I think there is a potentially decent, which is probably the next option.
But I'll, like I said, I'll break it down with you because I think you're someone that has a lot more understanding of the Australian system than I personally do.
In fact, as soon as the election was called and I was thinking, who am I going to have on this week?
I was thinking, who's been in trouble for trying to explain the system before?
Tofer Field.
So let's start there.
For people who don't know what happened to you when it came to a previous election and why you got in trouble.
Tell us the story.
Look, I wear a lot of hats.
I'm known as a lot of different things.
I've been a political commentator for 16 years.
I obviously was like yourself, very active during all the COVID era, all that stuff.
And you'd think that that would be what I'd be known for.
But no, I'm actually mostly known as the marbles guy because I did a video using marbles in tubs just explaining how preferential voting works.
Now, our system is a little bit different to most other systems around the world.
So I can understand certainly immigrants and people moving here from other countries wouldn't understand it.
But it's really disappointing that our education system is so poor that actually people that grew up here went all the way through school and have even voted in multiple elections often don't really understand how our electoral system works.
I think it's brilliant.
Electoral System Insights00:14:41
I actually genuinely do.
I think our system's a really good one, but it does require some understanding.
So I made a video to help people understand how it works and how they could really use their preferential vote to support the really ideal good candidates who maybe don't have a lot of chance of winning, but they're the really good ones, but then not have thrown away their vote with regards to which of the bad options we get.
So for example, you know, voting number one for the freedom-friendly minor parties, one, two, three, four, five, but then still putting gutten ahead of ALBO would be, for example, what I'll be planning to do in this particular election.
So I released a video doing that and that went viral, tens of thousands of views.
I don't remember exactly.
It might have been over 100,000.
I don't remember.
It did fairly well.
And then I threw my hat in the ring to run for the Senate for the then Libertarian, so the then Liberal Democratic Party, now the Libertarian Party.
They actually had to convince me, I don't want to be in politics.
I don't want to be a senator, but they chased me and chased me and I eventually said yes.
And played hard to get.
We know.
We get it.
So then the Australian Electoral Commission turned around and took issue with that Marbles video because it did not have an authorisation statement on it.
Which was created before you ran.
So according to the legislation, you actually have to have it authorized because you were running.
Is that right?
That's right.
Well, because I'm running, but also there are organizations that may not be running themselves, but if they seem to be campaigning, then they still need to have an authorization statement.
And there's good reasons for that.
I don't object to that in principle.
But the thing with something like that is I was the candidate.
The video had my name on a TV behind me and my face all over it.
I'm not sure that anyone was confused about who had authorized it.
I'm not sure that there was a lack of clarity or a lack of transparency there, which is what these laws are supposed to deal with.
So I had to take that video down and re-release a new version with an authorisation statement just to keep the AEC happy.
But there's a funny addendum to this, Arvi, that you may not be across.
You probably are, but you may not be, and certainly some of your viewers won't be.
You'd be familiar, of course, with the fact that the AEC went on to sue the United Australia Party because they felt that some of the lettering at the bottom of one of their core flutes wasn't big enough.
The AEC lost that court case.
That was thrown out and it was found to be compliant.
Well, now we have a really interesting situation that just came up yesterday or the day before.
Tanya Plibasek, who is a current federal government minister.
She's a minister in the government because she's a member of the Labor Party.
She has just been photographed campaigning not under the red colour of Labour.
She's campaigning with volunteers wearing her branding and her name dressed in purple.
Now that raises two really interesting questions, Arvi.
One is why is she afraid of her own party's branding?
What is it about her polling that is telling her that the Labour Party colours and brand are not what she should be campaigning under?
That's question number one.
So you believe it was a conscious decision, 100%.
She wasn't wearing casual clothes.
Was that like branded purple?
No, no, no.
This was all of her volunteers with her name written on the front in purple coloured shirts.
This was very much strategic on her.
That's a marketing.
They've paid somebody to come up with that.
Correct.
And the thing is, in Australian politics, the AEC as a sort of a neutral, unbiased administrative election, they had to pick a colour to represent their own volunteers and staff, et cetera.
And they picked purple because at the time, there were no political parties using anything close to purple.
So they picked a neutral colour.
And since then, every other party has stayed away from that colour.
And if you do use a colour that's too close to the AECs, the AEC will force you to change colour because it could be confused.
And you don't want people walking up to someone thinking they're neutral, but actually they're candidates.
And an official.
So these are the two issues now.
And if the AEC don't take action against Tanya Plibasek after taking action against me for my marbles video and taking action against the UAP, and Ralph Babette, Senator Ralph Babette, by the way, is aware of this.
And he said that his office will be raising this with the AEC today.
So breaking news for you.
I don't know the outcome yet, but this is definitely going to go to the highest levels.
Well, that's interesting.
We'll follow that closely.
Just, you know, I think it's a good way to gauge because a lot of people have in the past pointed at the AEC and kind of like I did, I laughed when you said that they're unbiased and neutral.
And I think the same about the VEC.
I think they're not.
I think they certainly favor the two major parties.
And I dare say, like many of our institutions, they lean closer to the left.
I've had personal experiences with the VEC in which they prosecuted me under legislation that's never been tested before.
Little Old Me and my Facebook Live in 2018, where I was chasing Green.
They, you know, they targeted me and we're going totally offside, but they targeted me for allegedly stalking another candidate by what?
By going to polling booths that we were both candidates at.
And I was holding Facebook Live at the time.
That was a big thing.
And chasing this Greens candidate.
But they got me, they tried to prosecute me under stalking and then other weird legislation.
And it all got thrown out at the end.
But to the point, I think that they are very biased.
And they do certainly favor the two major parties.
And then when you break it down further, like in my case, they certainly favor the left-wing parties.
I don't know if it's a systemic problem or whether it's just that the volunteers and the neutral volunteers, people that work, not volunteers, neutral people that make up the institution, the government body, all kind of, like most government bodies, lean to the left.
It's a great question.
And it's actually, I haven't made up my mind yet, but I'm thinking about dedicating my third, my next book actually to exactly this issue, the issue of system.
Because I would argue that the minute you put something inside a system, you doom it, you condemn it.
I think the word system is actually a parasite.
It's a parasitic word.
And so if we think about some common systems that we interact with all the time, the education system, is it really about education or is it about compliance with the system?
So the word system, as soon as it gets attached to education, it ends up eating the education.
It's not about education anymore.
The education side of it gets destroyed.
It's about compliance with the system.
What about the justice system?
Is it really about justice or is it about who can play the system better?
Every time you put the healthcare system, is it really about good health outcomes or is it actually about the people in the system making sure they comply with the system so that their ass is covered even if the health outcomes are bad?
As soon as you put an election into a system, you are going to end up with the system, a system's highest priority is its own survival.
And so is there a leftist bias amongst AEC staff members?
Probably, because that's the side of politics that is most likely to increase their funding to ensure their ongoing survival.
But there's actually a funny little addendum onto the end of that particular issue that you had there.
You were prosecuted for daring to try and doorstop and try and interview a fellow candidate.
Now we're watching calls for increased security for politicians.
And the evidence for this requirement, this need, we desperately need more security, is because members of the public are asking unvetted questions.
Now, this is taking this idea that words are violence to the extreme.
I mean, words are not violence.
You and I know that.
No one's ever been punched in the pronouns.
It's an absurd concept.
And yet now we have politicians running scared from unvetted questions and making it a personal security issue, saying we need to be protected from the voting public, from the very people whose votes we are supposedly trying to win over, lest they have the opportunity to ask us a question that hasn't been vetted first.
It's actually a good point.
Look, I've known they've been running scared from unvetted question for a long time.
In fact, I went to fight in the Supreme Court for my right to pose these unhearded questions and I lost because they, you know, that's the thing when their government has the deep pockets that they have and the laws that they created, they can find some very, you know, legislation and really make it difficult.
And that's what they're doing here.
They'll use the entire system, again, to protect what they've built and to protect their little cozy.
And both parties do it.
But firstly, I just want to note that was a clever way to insert the fact that you have written two books and this is going to be a third book.
Is that just showing off?
are the name of the books just so people oh well well i do look it just so happens i have some sitting right here avi what a What a coincidence.
What a wonderful twist of fate.
No, so my first book was Good People Break Bad Laws.
This is about the philosophy of civil disobedience in the modern age.
Then my second book, which came out very early this year, is Good Christians Break Bad Laws.
This is the Christian theology of civil disobedience.
There's a lot of people who incorrectly say, well, the Bible says we have to do as we're told by the civil authorities.
Well, it's way, way, way deeper than that.
And I dive into that.
It's sort of 270 pages of pretty solid theology.
My third book, I haven't, again, I haven't settled on this yet, but I'm playing with the title Psychocrats, which is obviously an amalgam, a conjugation of psychopath and bureaucrat.
Because my argument essentially is that by putting people into a system, into a bureaucracy, you make otherwise decent people willing to behave like psychopaths and to participate in psychopathy.
But yes, ultimately, I am just trying to flex on you because as best as I'm aware, you have only written the one book and you don't have to.
It's barely a book.
If you put it next to one of yours, it's probably half the thickness.
I did enjoy it, though, genuinely.
The things that I said at the book launch in London, which you kindly allowed me to speak at, were absolutely true.
I think it's actually a really great read.
I appreciate it, mate.
So going back to now the first video, for people who, I know we don't have the props here, the marbles, and let's say this is authorized by Toper Field from, what do you have to say?
So Toperfield.
Echo Box 2214613.
So can you explain to us how the system actually works quickly?
Yeah, it's actually relatively straightforward.
You just have to approach it with a certain logic of what the problem was that they were trying to fix.
So let me explain the system by first explaining the problem.
See, our Constitution was written in about 1899.
It was ratified in 1901.
And so they had the opportunity to learn from the French Constitution following their revolutions, et cetera, from the American Republic following their revolutions, from the Westminster system expressed in different forms around the world.
And there was a problem that kept coming up.
And it's this problem where, let's say, I'll illustrate.
Let's say there's an election between me and Adam Bant.
All right.
And that's when we're the two candidates.
All right.
And so, and let's say I'm in the lead.
I'm going to win with 55% of the vote and he's going to come second with 45% of the vote.
All good.
The person who gets the majority of the votes wins.
And that's how it should be in a democratic system.
But let's say that you decide that you're also going to run.
Now, it so happens that if you compare my policies and Adam Bant's policies with yours, you're pretty similar to me in comparison to Adam Band, right?
Sure, there'd be some differences.
But broadly speaking, you and I have a lot of overlap.
What that means is that most of the people that are going to vote for you are going to be people that would have voted for me.
And let's say now, because I'm going to put you behind me, not in front, just for the sake of my own ego.
Let's say you get 25%, all right?
I was going to get 55% when it was just me versus Adam, but now you get 25%.
Now I'm left with 30.
Adam still gets his 45%.
And in a lot of systems, that means he wins because you and I split the vote between us.
Now, what the founders of our constitution, the framers of our constitution recognized was that this is a problem.
Elections shouldn't be decided just because there were too many candidates, too similar to each other in terms of their policies that then split the vote between themselves.
That leaves you with a result that doesn't really represent the overall will of the people.
So they came up with this thing called a preferential system.
And what you're doing, you have only the one vote and the Constitution of Australia says, you know, one man, one vote.
And we have that.
There are people who say, oh, preferential voting is unconstitutional.
No, it's not.
You've still only got one vote, but you use it differently.
You write down in order of your preference, number one, next to your most preferred candidate.
Number two, next to your, the best backup, right?
So they might put one, number one on you, and they put number two on me and number three on Adam Bant because he's their worst option.
And that means that if you get eliminated because you had the least of 25%, your 25% flow to me.
And now I still win.
And the result for the electorate is still the closest representation of their actual will.
So that was the problem they were trying to solve.
And that's how they decided to solve it.
They've made a few decisions that I think put people's noses out of joint because a lot of people, again, our education system doesn't do a good job with this and doesn't explain it well.
So in the lower house, you're required to number every single box, which means you're required to put a number next to the major parties.
You're required to put a number next to the Greens.
You're required to put a number next to the people that you really don't want your vote ever to go to.
And some people get their noses out of joint and say, this is rigged.
It's forcing you to vote for the major parties.
Well, let's think this through a little bit because what happens is once all of the votes have been counted, the number one votes have been counted.
It's like marbles in my boxes.
Whichever candidate has the fewest gets eliminated.
And their votes, we go back to the actual votes, the actual pieces of paper that were filled out by the voters and find, well, where's the number two for this vote?
Oh, it's over here.
We'll put that vote in there.
Where's the number two for this vote?
Oh, it's over there.
We'll put that one over there.
And so people think that parties or candidates direct their preferences.
That's not true anymore.
Your vote will go exactly where you say it should go on your ballot.
Did it used to be the other way?
Did it used to be the party decided?
Okay.
It did.
And so there used to be, so we still have the above the line, below the line thing in the Senate.
But what it used to actually be was you could just put a number one above the line and walk away.
You didn't have to put a number two next to anyone.
And what that told the system was you were voting number one for that party and then you wanted your preferences to go wherever the party had decided your preferences were going to go.
And they eliminated that option federally.
And I think that's a really good reform.
I think that was a good thing to get rid of.
And now your vote will only ever go where you send it.
That's it.
That's the rule.
Don't you think there would have been a better balance where you could just put number one and let them decide or go nah?
Liberal Majority and Minor Party Dynamics00:10:06
Like I personally go and I feel them all out.
You know, I want the satisfaction of putting, I want the satisfaction of standing there in the booth and deciding whether the socialists go last or the greens.
Sorry, is there a difference?
I'm not going to say that.
No, but you know what?
The way I think about it is I put the greens last because they got more of a chance of getting in than I just want the least chance of an ever.
So what you're talking about there is what's known as optional preferential, where you can stop wherever you want.
And yes, I would support that as a reform.
But let's actually stop and think this through because numbering every box is not as bad as people think it is.
Let's say you follow my advice, which I've got in multiple videos around the place, where you need to put at one, two, three, four, as many decent candidates as you've got.
And by that, I define that for me as the freedom-friendly minor parties that stood up during COVID.
So I'm going to include libertarians in my number one.
Full disclosure, I'm a former candidate for them.
I love those guys and they're very much my team.
But also One Nation, even Trumpet of Patriots, there's this new kind of Clive Palmer thing.
I don't love it.
I don't love that it's all fallen out the way that it has.
But you know what?
We need to include them.
Let's include them.
Ralph Burbet for UAP has been a fantastic senator.
So let's support what they're doing there.
Jared Rennick up in Queensland.
And there's a bunch of other parties that don't have elected members right now, but they've got good values.
And so if they're on my ballot, I'm going to include them all.
One, two, three, four, five, six, as many as there are.
Then I'm going to put both of the major parties.
Now, this means that even the late, so I'll put the Liberals above Labour, myself.
That's my personal preference.
I will go all of the decent minor parties and then the Liberal Party.
Now, the reality is because candidates get eliminated from smallest number of votes to the largest number of votes, the major parties are going to be among the very last parties ever to be eliminated.
They're going to usually be in the last two because most lower house seats get won by one of the major parties, by the coalition or by Labour, with a few exceptions here and there.
But if you live in a seat that is one of those exceptions, you probably already know about it.
So the reality is my vote is never likely to move on from the Liberal Party because the Liberal Party are likely to be there all the way to the very end of the count.
So the fact that I put a number next to the Labour Party, next to the socialists, next to the Greens, all the way down the ballot is irrelevant because my vote will only move on from the Liberal Party if the Liberal Party get eliminated from the count.
And we know from history that that almost certainly won't be the case in the kind of seats where I've lived during most of my life.
So people get their knickers in the knot over having to number every single box.
And I agree that making it optional preferential would be a better reform.
But the fact is your vote, if you use the two major parties in the middle as a blocker, the good small parties above them, the bad small parties below them, and then both of the majors in the middle as a blocker, your vote will never reach any of those bad parties that you don't want it to reach.
It will help the minor parties and give them an outside chance of maybe stealing a seat here or there.
And then it will stop on your preferred major party and probably never go anywhere from there.
And look, I think the reason why, because I know when people look at it, they go, all right, I'll put the Liberal Party at the bottom of the good independents, preferred independents, then Liberal.
And then they'd argue, then they would put all the other minor parties and put Labor at the bottom.
I would argue against that because I actually prefer Labour.
So this goes back to what I was saying.
And this is my view as to what the outcomes are.
And correct me if you think I'm wrong, as you always do.
In fact, you enjoy to.
I believe what we're facing now is most likely a Labour minority, which is the most dangerous outcome.
That is the worst outcome.
It means it's going to be, like now, just worse because it's going to be Greens and maybe Teals and some other fringe lunatics with far leftist woke ideology driving them.
And so that is going to essentially drive the agenda because if the Labour Party want to get anything through, they're going to have to bend over even more than they do now to the Greens, to the far left.
That seems like the most likely at the moment, only by a margin.
The second most likely seems like it can be the Liberal Party with the same sort of structure, a minority government, but they're forced to make government with right-wing parties and some of those independents that we're talking about, some of the good independents.
So to me, that's the best outcome because it forces the Liberal Party to actually uphold their so-called Liberal values in whether it's libertarians, so freedom and some more right-wing.
So essentially forcing Dutton to, in most cases, be more like probably what many of his politics are, minus the anti-free speech.
But generally, he's probably a conservative.
So that'll force him a bit more to the right and the entire Liberal Party.
Forcing the Liberal Party to behave a bit more like the Liberal Party that Robert Menzies founded in the first place.
Now, can I make a slightly technical distinction?
It's not one that necessarily matters in substance, but it's going to help people's understanding of how this preferential thing works.
You made the comment about some people wanting to put Labor all the way at the bottom, and therefore the Greens and Socialists and other bad independents, teals, are going to be in between the Liberal Party, which is their kind of their blocker in the middle, and the Labour Party at the bottom.
I agree with you that I will actually go Liberal Party, then Labour Party, then all the bad ones underneath.
But it will almost certainly make no difference in the real world.
And here's why.
Once your vote reaches the Liberal Party, it stays with them until they get eliminated.
And we've already established in almost every single seat, they will be among the last few to get eliminated.
Then your vote will go to the next party that hasn't already been eliminated.
Now, all the little, the Transport Matters parties, the Animal Justice Parties, all those guys, they're gone.
They're long gone.
So your vote is not going to stop with them.
They've already been eliminated.
So in most cases, your vote would actually jump from the Liberals to Labor anyway, or essentially that would be the best.
But okay, so let me put it to you this way.
What if it ends up being between the Greens and the Labour Party?
And that's the one time we're going to make a difference.
And your vote ends up going to the Greens, and then you're helping create the most dangerous outcome, which is a Green-led Labor minority.
And that's what I'm most fearful of.
It's wild because it seems like it's really tightening up between those two options.
It still seems like at the moment, if you can believe the polls, I don't know.
I don't know.
Like, I called the Trump election easily just from being on the ground.
I feel like people are voting against the Greens, especially.
And if you look at the last couple of by-elections, it seems like people are rebelling against the Hamas, the Greens party.
But I don't know.
I'm not confident enough to call it.
And I'm shit scared of that outcome.
I am super excited about the second most likely possibility.
And then I would say the next possibility is probably a Labor majority.
And then lastly, a Liberal majority.
Now, I understand that the, or I guess the argument for a Liberal majority would be that at least you want them to be able to govern if you believe in most things.
I just, I think that they, I think with a liberal minority, they'll be able to govern on the things that we actually think are good.
So the things that matter, the conservative libertarian values, they'll be able to govern if they actually push those with a liberal minority.
What do you think?
I cannot get excited about a Liberal government.
I cannot get excited about a Dutton government.
Look at the nonsense that he's talking about.
He's going to keep racking up debt, putting it on the credit card.
I've got three kids.
I care about their futures.
I cannot bring myself to get excited about Dutton as a prime minister.
I don't think that's a step in the right direction.
I will say that I would rather see him as prime minister than another term of Albanese because it says really bad things about us if after how bad Albanese has been, we re-elect him.
All right.
It's a little bit like a bad thing.
It's going to feel like Dan Andrews like all over again.
It's the same thing.
So I want to see Albo lose, but I can't get excited about Dutton winning, if that makes sense.
Regarding the probabilities, it's quite interesting at the moment.
And this happens more often than people realize.
There is a divergence right now between the polls, which are moving towards an Albo election, although there has been some swing back and forth.
It's not static.
But the betting markets have pretty clearly broken in favor of the Liberal Party.
It's interesting.
Still now?
You're still now.
I look up poll marketing.
At least as of the last time I saw it, it was Saturday.
So as of Saturday, the betting markets were still, I believe, in favor.
By how much?
About a dollar eighty three for for um Dutton and, and two dollars and and a low two dollars for for Albo is where it was the other day, which is not a big split.
That would be something that would be like 55 percent chance, something like that which, by the way is, is something which is pretty similar to how I just want to point out, because I I did it a lot, and I did it from um Las Vegas, on the ground at the time.
That's kind of where it was.
With um, it might have been 59, actually.
Yeah, with with Trump to to uh Kamala, like that.
The betting markets were saying that, and the polls?
The polls were probably very similar to what we're seeing now.
They were saying it's pretty tight, but it's leaning towards karma.
I bloody hope, but I just don't want to sit here.
I want to be a realist.
I don't want to sit here no no, and feel like we're we're in for a chance to, like you say, just get out of this cycle of craziness.
We're in yeah, it's ridiculous.
So what?
All we've talked about so far though, is the lower house, and there is a second house of parliament, which is the Senate.
Yes, and this is important.
Government Formation Dynamics00:03:32
So government is formed by whoever can get a majority of support in the lower house 76, 76 seats in it correct, and that's the house of government.
That's where government is formed.
The Senate is a house of Review.
It doesn't form government.
But you cannot get legislation through without them agreeing, and the Senate is deliberately elected under a different system for the purpose of getting a somewhat different result, so that one will hold the other accountable.
So the backup plan has to be, regardless of what happens in the lower house, the backup plan has to be to install at least one good, freedom-friendly senator in every single state in Australia, which means that we'll get six uh senators that are, that are decent, up and in an ideal world, in a perfect world, they will hold the balance of power between the Liberal National Coalition and the Greens UH Labor Alliance.
If we can hold the balance of power in the Senate with good freedom, loving people, one of two things will happen, either they will be able to block bad legislation because the the major block voting blocks.
The majors won't support each other and they will become the deciding factor, which means they have to be negotiated with, which means they've got leverage.
They can improve legislation, or the that's.
That's the happy version.
That's the.
That's the Pollyanna version.
The ugly version, but potentially necessary version is that, because whoever holds government can't get their legislation through, they forego negotiating with the crossbench, with these good minor party senators, and they go straight to the other major party and they actually admit to the public for the first time that they have a lot more in common with each other than what they have with the good decent, freedom-loving uh politicians and senators that we have.
Now that's a trickier thing, because they'll hold a lot of power by doing that and they'll be able to ram through a very bad agenda.
But people like you and I will be able to use that to really amplify our message and say, hey see, we've been telling you for so long these are different cheeks of the same ass, different wings of the same bird.
I don't care whether you're being stomped on by a left boot or a right boot, I just don't want you to be stomped on by a boot, and they will kind of be letting the mask slip if they, if they, have to resort to that.
But whichever of those options they go for, it starts by us installing really good senators, and that means getting behind these, these good minor parties, parties that have a track record of being freedom friendly and supporting human rights and the rights of Australians, and making sure that they can get some electoral success in the Senate.
Yep.
Yep.
And that's what I think that's always been the aim.
Why is it so much easier for these minor parties to successfully put people up in the Senate as opposed to the lower house?
Great question.
So this comes down to the way it was designed.
So this is on purpose.
Think of the lower house as you are electing the politician that is going to represent your area.
And think of the Senate.
This isn't quite, this isn't the language that they use, but I think it's a useful shorthand.
Think of the Senate as selecting the politician that best represents your ideas and ideals, right?
So one is geographic, the other is ideological.
And so being geographic in the lower house, you need a majority.
Well, that means that someone with 45% support in the local community isn't the local representative.
45% of the local population is stuck with a local representative that they feel doesn't represent them or their worldview or their ideas or their ideology.
So they specifically designed the Senate.
So there are 12 Senate seats per state and they do a double election.
And again, it was deliberately designed that way.
That's a bit of a dampener on the rate of change so that manias and fads can't take over politics in a single election.
People's Frustration with Wokeness00:04:07
It takes a little bit longer.
And with six seats per state up for election in any given election, what they do is they take the vote of the entire state and they divide it by six.
And that's all you need to become a senator is instead of a majority, you only need one sixth of the overall vote.
That means that any ideology that is represented by, let's say, 10, 15% or representative of, sorry, 10, 15% of the population, they can't get a lower house representative elected, but they can get a senator.
And that allows their ideas and their voice to have a role in parliament, even though they may not be a majority anywhere in the country.
Now, I think we need to get to the juicy stuff.
Predictions.
What do you think is going to actually happen?
We won't hold you to it unless you're wrong.
I do think Dutton will get up.
You do.
I do.
I do think Dutton will get up.
I think the level of fatigue and frustration that people have with wokeness, with cost of energy, ultimately, the single biggest factor in every single election, you can forget whatever the pundits and media tell you.
The biggest single factor in every single election is the economy.
That's it.
Cost of living.
Do I feel like life is better or life is worse?
And the vast majority of Australians right now feel like life is worse.
And that really does hang as an albatross around Albanese's neck.
He did that to himself, making grand promises about making electricity cheaper.
And then we've just watched electricity get more and more expensive.
A lot of people are hurting right now.
And that's going to hurt him at the polls.
The other thing to keep in mind is the same reason why.
So like you with the recent Trump election, I was in the US actually with my wife in 2016 before he got elected the first time.
And it was really interesting because it's the first time I got to watch a thing called self-selection bias in real time.
So what would happen is we'd be out there traveling.
We'd travel to a bunch of different states in literally every corner of that continent.
And we'd go to a diner and we would be eating in.
And within two minutes of our arrival, the waitress would have found a way to tell us that she's voting for Hillary or that she's a Hillary Clinton supporter.
Or you would interact with people down the street, various just random things, and they would find a way to squeeze it in there.
No one ever did that to tell us that they were supporting Trump.
But we noticed that lots of people didn't do anything one way or the other.
But no one was doing it saying, hey, I'm voting for Trump.
So we made a game out of it.
And we would begin to, if someone hadn't said anything, after a little while would be like, hey, we're from Australia.
We really don't know what's going on.
This whole Trump-Hillary thing seems pretty crazy from our perspective.
What are you thinking?
What's really going on here?
And I kid you not, they would lean in and do a head check to make sure that they didn't have to talk very loud and that no one else could hear them.
And they would say, actually, I'm thinking I'm going to vote for Donald Trump.
Now, what that told us very clearly was self-selection bias.
The people who wanted to vote for Hillary wanted you to know that they were going to vote for Hillary.
The people that were going to walk into the privacy of that polling booth and vote for Donald Trump were not going to advertise the fact.
Now, what that means is that every single opinion poll, every single poll that's being done by phone, every single circle of friendship that we're just having casual conversation is going to give you a really unrepresentative sample because only the people of one persuasion are going to open their mouths and speak up.
You get a phone call from a pollster who says, hey, want to talk to you about your political opinions.
The person who was planning on voting for Donald Trump is going to, too busy.
Hang up.
The pollster never gets an answer from them.
And so I could see what I did.
I didn't know what the true answer was, what the true polling was, but I knew that the polling wasn't true.
I knew that it wasn't representative, what was really going on.
And so by the time I got back from the US, I predicted online very boldly and very loudly in 2016, Donald Trump is going to win this.
I think he's got a clear margin.
And in the end, actually, I thought he was going to win it by more than he did.
And I suspect without some fraud, he probably would have won it by more than he did, but that's a conjecture.
So I think the same thing's happening here, where there is still a hangover from wokeness.
A lot of people are sick of it.
A Lot of People Are Sick Of It00:02:57
They're not going to support it.
They're not going to vote for it.
They're not going to give into it.
But they're not yet ready to speak out and sort of nail their flag to the mast of the anti-woke ship.
And that means that the polls are still not representative.
We're still being berated by the media that Labor is better, Dutton is evil.
We should be afraid of nuclear.
All this sort of stuff is still coming out of the mainstream media.
And so that means that people aren't being honest yet.
And I don't think the polls are honest, but I think the betting markets are more accurate.
So put all of that together.
That's why I think we are going to see a Dutton win.
A Dutton minority government, I actually think, is exceptionally unlikely.
Wow.
Because you think that it's more likely a Dutton majority government.
Doesn't he have to win, though?
How many?
Because isn't he like 19 down at the moment?
Now, the Teals are on the nose.
Their own hypocrisy has found them out.
People are sick and tired of their moral seeds.
A lot of them were liberal seats, weren't they?
A lot of them were liberal seats.
That's what the Teals were all about.
They were going to take Liberal seats and they were looking for the Liberal voters with an environmental conscience.
That's where their color came from, in between blue and green.
I think actually the honest thing is that they are Labor voters in between Labor and the Greens.
And actually, their color should be brown.
They should be wearing brown shirts, not ill ones, if you understand the historical reference there.
So they are on the nose.
And Mike Cannon-Brooks and these, the people that have funded them are on the nose for various legitimate reasons.
Their own hypocrisy has really come to the fore.
People are sick and tired of the moral preening from a lot of these people.
People are sick and tired of friendly, not friendly Geordies, of what's his name?
Not Purple Pingers.
I can't think of his name.
Punter's politics.
And he's very clearly in their corner.
He hates it when people call him out for that, but it's very odd.
And I'm in the libertarians' corner.
It's not wrong to have an opinion and be in the public eye.
That's completely fine.
But just be honest about it.
Just actually acknowledge that it's real and that it's there because we can all see it.
But that's on the nose.
People are sick and tired of that.
So I think actually a number of the teal seats are going to return to the Liberal Party.
I think that if you look at some of the swings in some by-elections and if you look at the level of frustration amongst working class Australians, let's not forget Labor represents the working class.
Now, not any more of them.
They're supposed to, yeah.
That's their brand.
And it is becoming increasingly unmistakably obvious that they don't do that in reality.
And their followers are becoming really rapidly disenfranchised.
Now, the interesting thing about them is that they're not likely to go liberal because the dyed-in-the-wool working class blue-collar Australians aren't, although the self-employed tradies can because they start to view themselves these days more as business people.
But actually, a lot of the died-in-the-wool production line working Labor voters, when they leave the Labour Party, are actually going to break in favor of One Nation.
Because actually, if you look at One Nation policies, that is kind of old school labor.
A little bit of protectionism for the worker, stick it to the man kind of attitude that One Nation have.
Vibe Totally Trump00:03:15
So I actually think they're going to do quite well in this election amongst that particular demographic.
I'm actually reasonably optimistic.
And look, these things are always fraught with danger.
I could look like an absolute goose come election night.
And doing it on this show means you're really willing to test it because you know afterwards we're going to publish it and republish it and tag you and cross-post it.
There's no getting away from this position.
It's going to become a new merch line for you, isn't it?
My face and my nation should.
And you know what?
I say good on you for doing it because I could tell you this.
During the last election, when I was doing my tour in America, I sat on and maybe it's easier as an Aussie because you don't feel like you have to like putting your name to it is not putting your entire career on the line.
But I like went on Timpool and I was literally, I went on a few shows, but I think Timpool was like the biggest one that, you know, asked anyone what anyone says.
And I'm sitting on a table with all conservatives and they could not say, I go, dude, I've been out on your streets.
I don't, I admit I don't understand how your system fully functions.
However, based on the vibe of the streets in which people do not know where I stand, in fact, if people had to guess, because no one knows me there on the street, it was like, if they had to guess, based on identity politics, they assumed I would be a Kamala kind of supporter.
And the vibe was totally Trump.
And there was a little bit of what you described, but I think it got to a point in this last election, at least one-on-one, many people were happier to say whether they were happy to say Trump or at least happy to condemn Kamala and Biden.
And so for me, it was really easy to sit there and go, nah, this is 100% Trump.
I do not see how this can go any other way.
In fact, I think I may have even said that I think that he's going to win the popular vote.
And I know I did interviews here on Tom Elliott.
I go, anyone in Australia, any of these commentators that are giving you their expert opinion that Kamala is going to win this are delusional or just lying because if you're here on the street, it's something.
So I do give you respect for taking it.
And on one hand, like I'm a little bit conflicted because I do want the chance to mock you and mock you hard, especially because I am unwilling to take a bet.
In fact, if I had to make a bet today, I'm scaredly going to say labor minority and that like it is my biggest fear in the world.
And maybe I'm just, maybe I'm just looking at the last, you know, six months, whatever it's been of election.
And I've gone, we've had too many wins.
Like the Trump win was too good.
I can't see at home there being.
I can understand where you're coming from, but let me throw a few more little data points at you just to get you inside my line of thinking a little bit more.
Notice how in the budget, there was very little that was unexpected.
Audiences Are Getting Smarter00:05:26
They threw a very small tax decrease in the lowest tax bracket at us, one percentage point for next year and another percentage point for the year after.
That'll save a small amount of money for Australians.
But besides that, we already knew everything that was inside that budget.
Now, what that is indicative of, in my opinion, is that they have been pre-leaking basically everything because they're desperate for some good news.
They're desperate for a bounce in the polls.
They're desperate for something, anything.
In American politics, they talk about the October surprise because their elections are in November.
They talk about there's going to be some big story is going to just drop some bombshell that's going to change everything.
I don't think Labor have an October surprise up their sleeve for this election.
They've already shot their shots.
We already know where they stand on basically everything.
All they can do now is throw more money at ever, ever decreasing problems.
And I don't see that working enough with the Australian, when Australians are suffering under the cost of government already, when that's already increasingly people are recognizing that that's the problem.
Throwing more money at problems doesn't win votes the way that it has in the past.
So I don't, I think that where Labor are at right now is as good as it gets for them.
I don't think that that'll be easy to see over the next two, three weeks whether they start falling back.
And I think you do make a good point.
I think Aussies look at it and, you know, I see the reactions, whether online or even listening, you know, to Talkback Radio, whatever you hear people saying, well, hold on.
Okay.
So now you're throwing this money, but where were you the last three years?
A great example was just today I was listening to 3AW and I heard her, I heard the transport minister or whatever talking about, you know, the funding now that they're going to give to all these different Victorian infrastructure projects.
And we're like, and I was listening to her interview at first and she's basically blaming 10 years of Liberal Party management from before Labor as to why it's not all done.
And the callbacks following that was just like, wait, hold on a second.
You guys have had, you've literally been in charge of the entire country, state and federally, for at least three years now.
Forget about Victoria's, how long Victoria's been a Labour Party, but state and federal, you've been in charge for three good years.
You've had three years to make these pledges.
In fact, you've had three years to make the pledges and carry out your promises, but you haven't.
And now suddenly a month before the election, which it looks like you may lose, suddenly you're giving us these promises.
I don't think people are buying that.
So there's a funny thing that happens.
Let me make a sideways remark here and then I'll bring it back on topic, I promise.
Have you ever had a movie that you've got all this nostalgia about how amazing the special effects were or how scary it was?
And then 20 years later, you go back and watch it again.
You're like, really?
I got sucked in by that load of crap.
Okay.
Now, what you're observing there in real time is the training of your eye and the training of your understanding of plot devices, of special effects, of twists in stories.
And the bar is being raised constantly.
And the special effects that worked 20 years ago don't work anymore.
Why?
Because the audience is more sophisticated now.
Now, one of the interesting things that's happening, thanks to people like yourself, and I'll give myself some partial credit as well and others, as we are working tirelessly bringing things like this to the Australian voting public, the voting public are becoming more sophisticated.
It is much more difficult for the politicians to make these cheap throwaway promises and get the sugar hit in the polls that they used to be able to get because audiences are thinking more critically now.
They're no longer making the decisions based off 15 second sound bites in the nightly news.
They're sitting down and listening to podcasts and more in-depth discussions.
And it's not just that they, it's not that they have to hear us talk about it in order to change their mind.
Their skills are being sharpened, their perception is being honed.
The special effects that worked 20 years ago don't work on them anymore.
And for me, it's a really exciting time because this phenomenon is only going to accelerate.
And I can foresee a future where the Australian public becomes sophisticated enough to support a Javier Millet type figure, someone who, if you look at what he was promising in Argentina, these are all the things that would have led to political failure 20 years ago in Argentina, because he's promising to cut spending.
He's saying people are going to lose their jobs.
He's saying welfare programs are going to get slashed.
He's making those promises and he gets a massive popular vote and popular support.
And now and that popularity continues to this day how did that happen?
Well, the audience became sophisticated, the voting public in Argentina became sophisticated, and so, as people like you and I keep doing what we're doing, I think we're going to see more and more.
These promises and these old tricks just don't work.
On that note tofa, thanks so much for joining us today.
Where can people find you?
Uh well, at Toferfield, on all the socials.
Good people break bad laws is my, my website, so goodpeoplebreakbadlaws.com.
You can grab all my merch and my books are there uh, but look, it's always a pleasure.
Arvi, keep up with great work and uh look, I look forward to the day when I hear the good news that you finally wanna stop and moved out of Victoria.
Getting Involved In Conversations00:02:00
Thanks mate, I hope you enjoyed that interview as much as I did that podcast.
Um, to be honest, go and follow Tofa.
I think he's a fantastic resource about a lot of issues, but specifically around elections, and I think he's intellectually honest, which gives me hope, because if he's reading the room and he's seeing that um, a Dutton minority or he thinks, more likely a Dutton majority, which either of them are just so much better than what we have right now um, it does give me some sort of hope.
I, I don't think it's going to be a Dutton majority, I think it's going to be a minority, but hey, he would have.
I would trust his guess.
I'd put more money on him being right than me.
Anyways, let's look at some of your comments from the week.
Like we do now, at the end of each episode, we go through some of the stories that I posted in the previous week and read some of your comments because, as a Rebel NEWS PLUS subscriber, you can get involved in the conversations and that's exactly what I want.
Please get involved in the conversations and um, i'll answer you here.
I might actually start getting involved in uh, some of the comments.
I just don't have time.
So I I it comes.
I remember to look at some of the comments and get involved in the conversation.
Every time I do this um at the end of the year mini report each week.
But I do really mean to get involved in the conversations via the comments.
Look, I don't even get involved in the conversations in most of my posts online, so it's not nothing against the side, but I really want to.
I want to invest in um in our community, in our little space of like-minded people that care about the country, and also that those of you that um invest in what we're doing, um in Rebel NEWS and, and specifically Rebel NEWS, Australian in in in my work, um by subscribing, but also getting involved.
So one of the stories we were talking about was, council pulls funding after River TO THE SEA.
Bruce's Stand Against Police00:08:21
Composer goes on an Anti-Israel rant, which was a surprising, welcome little bit of news that finally somebody's standing up.
Bruce, Bruce, who gets involved in most of our conversations.
Bruce, I love you.
Thank you for getting involved.
How revolting this woman is clearly a useful idiot bigot.
Jews have the right to live without harassment.
Anti-Semitism has no place in any civilized country.
Absolutely agree.
And she is so clearly like every leftist, greeny leftist, that for some reason, those that are protesting against Israel suddenly have gone radio silent when people within the Palestinian territories, both in Gaza and in the West Bank, are rallying against Hamas.
These guys are not doing it.
They, because they don't care about Palestinians, they just hate Jews.
So you're right there, Bruce.
The other story that we broke last week, police do nothing as anti-Israel protesters threaten, harass, and attack.
In fact, police did do something.
The headline's not quite right, but it's very hard sometimes to get the headline to fully capture the full story because police actually did do something.
They moved on the victims of the death threats, the harassment, the attacks, the robbery.
They did.
But there was a pretty shocking video there where there was a threat to kill, which now, thankfully, thanks to our viral reporting, even though it was done right in front of police.
Police have finally, a week after, well, a few days after our story went viral, they have finally opened an investigation.
Again, like it happened in front of police.
And we're working with that victim to ensure that justice is served.
And that's why we're telling people to sign that petition at protectthejews.com.au, is it?
I think.
Because it shouldn't be a viral video that makes the police do the job.
You know, if somebody breaks the law in front of police, police should automatically enforce the law.
Some of the comments we had here, again, Bruce, as usual, thank you, Bruce, for getting involved.
Tip Good 22 policing again.
And it happens all over the Western world, which is true.
You see that in the UK a lot.
Look at Tommy Robinson, for example.
These pissy Palestinians can shout all sorts of death threats.
And those charged with protecting citizens just stand and watch, which is exactly what we saw in that video.
But if some citizen dares to object, they get pepper sprayed, which is what we saw in that video.
This will only end badly.
Absolutely.
Sooner or later, somebody will murder a Jewish counter-protester.
And I'd like to point out that that protester, he was an Australian patriot.
He was not a Jew.
You can see our follow-up report with him from yesterday.
Will the police act or will they drag their flat feet?
We're ensuring that they don't drag their flat feet.
They will act.
And but that's thanks to you guys for helping us do what we do here at Rebel News.
But it shouldn't come to that.
Like I said, they should just do their job.
I'll try and enlarge the screen.
Sorry, so the comments come up bigger on the screen.
Daniel, VICPOL is not only a toothless tiger, it's shit scare to take action against the vermin living within us and brazenly breaking many anti-hate and excitement of violence laws meters away from Victoria police officers.
Worse, the Allen government has done nothing to instruct, empower or support the VICPOL to remove the trash from our streets, enjoying the last two years in office to center Allen.
And think about moving interstate.
If they take you, you are as wanted by most Victorians as dictator Dan.
Don't mention the war.
I mean, Bundalong, Victoria stands with Bundalong residents and will treat you as they have demonstrated is appropriate for the worst of the leaders in our country.
Look, I think that there are a lot of Victorians that are super angry about the last couple of years.
And remember, these same leaders, Jacinta Allen, who was the deputy at the time and Dan Andrews, they had no problem in dealing with protesters when it was protesters against people protesting against the overreach and now proven abuse of power during the COVID era when police had no problem taking on hundreds of,
you know, thousands, tens of thousands of protesters.
But in the last two years, they've gone soft and suddenly they can't handle a few hundred extremists or even thousands of extremists who have taken our city hostage.
Frank says, Australia, Canada's sister country, we are in so many ways.
And this story is just one of them.
We've seen similar videos from Canada.
Billboard Chris fined $806 after being threatened with arrest in Brisbane.
Again, I think he was technically actually arrested because I looked into the legality of it.
I've looked at it from my own personal dramas previously.
If police detain you, you are technically under arrest.
If you can't, if they're forcing you away, which they did, they forced him to move on.
But then he was just charged $806.
He was fined $806.
Billboard Chris is an absolute legend, comes to Australia and he's literally showing, well, he's fighting out at the moment in court this week for our freedom of speech against the E. Karen, the e-safety commissioner.
He's taken on that fight and then also taking on local governments, local council that was in Brisbane, who think that they can just move him on because they don't like his sign, essentially.
And watch that whole video.
You think it's anything different.
Put Australia on the no-fly list.
Put this ex-teacher, social parlour and rumble.
People should know the danger there if they go there.
Good for tourists.
Australia, the first province of China.
I do seem to agree with some of what you're saying, the sentiment there.
But Frank, please come visit us.
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, as they say.
Wayne, Chris Elton is a man of integrity.
The world can use more people like him.
Absolutely agree on so many levels.
I've got to know Chris.
He's a legend.
He's not one of those people that do things for clout.
He doesn't change his opinions based on his audience.
I've seen people criticize his views on, let's say, the Israel-Hamas war.
And he stands firm in his beliefs.
It's not the issue he goes around fighting for, but he makes nobody won't change his opinion to suit his audience, which we've seen so many people do.
So when you say Chris Elton is a man of integrity, 1,000%.
Ruth says the evidence is so blatantly obvious.
Those police are parroting the completely illogical laws should crawl into a hole and hide themselves in shame for their utter lack of critical thinking.
It beggars belief that this is the world we live in now.
Totally, Ruth.
You're right.
And Bruce, as usual, thanks for your comment.
How typical two-tier policing seems.
The last thing in law enforcement, like Orwell wrote in Animal Farm, we find that some people are more equal than others.
And finally, the last story that I want to cover, Jacinta Ardern, who, as you all know, was a big fan of mine when she had me banned from New Zealand when she was the tyrant in chief.
She's Ardern, New Zealand's dictator Dan, lands yet another cushy globalist role.
It is insane how these people, you know, you've got to give credit to the WEF.
They certainly take care of their own.
And we had a few comments here.
Struggle to Conform00:00:46
Crude, forget Mr. Ed, this is definitely the most talented horse on earth.
No comment.
Bernard, Bruce, you beat me to a failing upward is always what lefties like her do.
Susan, well said.
Bruce, what did Bruce say?
That was well said.
Nothing like failing upward.
This grifter is part of the left's propaganda team to brainwash unsuspecting students in the religion of Marxism.
I call it a religion because it puts one's trust in the continuous struggle to make reality conform to it.
Guys, thank you all for your comments and thanks for tuning in tonight.